Re: I or we get invitation to meet with Army Corps of Engineers
John,
Does "terminated" mean complete, as in, the EIS was done and complete? Who is responsible for examining the EIS and approving the project on that basis, the ACE? Does "current" mean, the EIS is still being formulated?
If you have already gone over Shannon's head, are there people we should be addressing if I'd be just wasting my time meeting him?
Cal boaters, I'm including you in on this dialogue because (besides the fact there are huge numbers of Cal boats here in MdR) it is just a matter of time before you are faced with the same sort of crisis of losing your slip to developers...if you are not currently facing the same situation. As you can see, it is VERY insidious and things may be going on around you that you many not even be aware.
Sincerely,
Gerald Sobel
From: "j… [at] johnanthonydavis.com" <j… [at] johnanthonydavis.com>
To: Gerald Sobel <so… [at] yahoo.com>
Sent: Friday, March 30, 2012 11:18 AM
Subject: RE: I or we get invitation to meet with Army Corps of Engineers
>Subject: Re: I or we get invitation to meet with Army Corps of
>Engineers
>From: Gerald Sobel <so… [at] yahoo.com>
>Date: Fri, March 30, 2012 10:42 am
>To: "j… [at] johnanthonydavis.com" <j… [at] johnanthonydavis.com>
>Cc: Venture MacGregor Fleet <md… [at] yahoogroups.com>
>
>
>John,
>First, what is an EIS, an environmental impact study?
>
>
>Under the National Environmental Protection Act, NEPA, a Environmental Impact Statement serves the same
>purpose as a State EIR.
>
>
>
>If they have no money for what is legally required, but tons of money to plan this wanton obliteration of the very reason the Marina was built for the citizens, they shouldn't be allowed to go forward and approve this abortion.
>
>
>The ACE ONLY has money to do what they noticed in 2005. It appears the funds are being illegally diverted to do something else, without the approval of Congress.
>
>
>
>Second, can you and Jon attend, and maybe Nancy Marino?
>
>
>No, I already met with Toy and have now gone over his head and up the Chain of Command to Col. Andy his boss in SF. Remember, shit goes down the chain not up.
>
>
>
>Maybe others, with me? And, wouldn't it be better to physically show Shannon the destruction in Basin A so he can see what we are up against? I'd be happy to take him out on by boat and show him what the big buildings do to the wind, creating a VAST wind shadow across the Main Channel that makes sailing for novices and the average weekend sailor difficult at best.
>
>
>Demand compliance with the existing EIS to cover all of the projects effects together, not in segments.
>
>
>
>I want to show him the original documentation, and the copies of the plans of old vs. new, to show him how many boats will be displaced with no place to go.
>
>
>Stick to U.S. Public Law 780 and H.D. 389 approved by Congress. Design Memo 1 is simply illegal.
>
>
>Hey, isn't there ANYONE in gov. that's on our side, or, is the Army Corps of Engineers just as hacked as the County, by the Big Developers?
>
>
>Sen. Boxer is being dragged in and will determine if the EIS is current or Terminated.
>
>
>We know it is current. Boxer will prove it for us.
>
>
>
>Yeah, I'm wondering, what "public comment" since I never heard they had held a hearing, and, the VAST majority of L.A. County, and boat owners, haven't a clue what is going on, don't believe it could POSSIBLY be THIS bad, and if you mention it, are in a state of MILITANT DENIAL.
>
>
>We need Public Hearings. We are promised Scoping Hearings in the 2005 notice. It says one occured.
>
>
>But that is a lie. There is no record of any such hearing.
>
>
>Demand a scoping hearing per the 2005 Notice of Intent (NOI). Ask for the results of the one ACE claimed occurred. They will shoot blanks.
>
>
>JD
>
>
>
>
>Jerry Sobel
>
>
>
>________________________________
> From: "j… [at] johnanthonydavis.com" <j… [at] johnanthonydavis.com>
>To: Gerald Sobel <so… [at] yahoo.com>; "Ca… [at] yahoogroups.com" <Ca… [at] yahoogroups.com>
>Cc: Jon Nahhas <jn… [at] gmail.com>; "so… [at] msn.com" <so… [at] msn.com>
>Sent: Friday, March 30, 2012 9:28 AM
>Subject: RE: I or we get invitation to meet with Army Corps of Engineers
>
>
>Hi Gerry,
>
>
>For what is worth, when you go to the meeting they will say;
>
>
>There is no more money for the EIS.
>
>
>The EIS is over.
>
>
>We will start a new EIS.
>
>
>IGNORE ALL.
>
>
>Request the written documentation which terminated the EIS process begun in 2005.
>
>
>They cannot answer.
>
>
>Senator Boxers Office is going to provide the facts as to if the EIS is over or not.
>
>
>We already know it has not bee terminated.
>
>
>Be real nice to these guys, even if you know they are cheating.
>
>
>Keep them to the simple issue and the ACE will no longer have a hand to play.
>
>
>The Corp obtained funding for the project as late as 2011.
>
>
>Millions have been spent, and not ONE hearing has yet been held.
>
>
>JD
>
>-------- Original Message --------
>>Subject: I or we get invitation to meet with Army Corps of Engineers
>>From: Gerald Sobel <so… [at] yahoo.com>
>>Date: Thu, March 29, 2012 7:03 pm
>>To: "Ca… [at] yahoogroups.com" <Ca… [at] yahoogroups.com>, Venture
>>MacGregor Fleet <md… [at] yahoogroups.com>
>>Cc: Jon Nahhas <jn… [at] gmail.com>, John Davis
>><j… [at] johnanthonydavis.com>, "so… [at] msn.com" <so… [at] msn.com>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>----- Forwarded Message -----
>>From: "Pankratz, Shannon L SPL" <Sh… [at] usace.army.mil>
>>To: Gerald Sobel <so… [at] yahoo.com>
>>Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 12:16 PM
>>Subject: RE: The Swindle of Federal, State, and County finance Marina del Rey (UNCLASSIFIED)
>>
>>Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
>>Caveats: NONE
>>
>>Hello Mr. Sobel,
>>
>>Thank you for providing your comments regarding Marina del Rey Harbor and the Bay Club Marina project. Although we will consider your submitted comments, please note the public comment period was not officially extended. However, if you would like to meet with us at our downtown LA office Thursday or Friday of this week, or sometime next week, we would be happy to do so. Please note this would not constitute a public hearing, but rather an informal meeting to allow an opportunity for you to provide any additional information and/or concerns.
>>
>>Sincerely,
>>Shannon
>>
>>Shannon Pankratz
>>U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Regulatory Division
>>915 Wilshire, Suite 13060
>>Los Angeles, CA 90017
>>Phone: 213.452.3412
>>Fax: 213.452.4196
>>Assist us in better serving you!
>>You are invited to complete our customer survey, located at the following link: http://per2.nwp.usace.army.mil/survey.html%0A
>>Note: If the link is not active, copy and paste it into your internet browser.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Gerald Sobel [mailto:so… [at] yahoo.com]
>>Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2012 10:43 PM
>>To: Pankratz, Shannon L SPL
>>Cc: Venture MacGregor Fleet; Ca… [at] yahoogroups.com; so… [at] msn.com; Jon Nahhas; John Davis
>>Subject: The Swindle of Federal, State, and County finance Marina del Rey
>>
>>Dear, Shannon,
>>I vehemently object to the approval of the County Coastal Plan with regards to "improvements" which are anything but. In reality, they continue a succession of swindles and frauds to steal what was supposed to be a great recreational boating park and harbor intended the for maximum use and enjoyment of the citizens, giving over the vast majority of the people's land to private developers for private gain. The plan is to remove small boat slips and put in big ones which are already a glut here in Marina del Rey, as they are affordable only by the very few, and moderate income boaters are being forced out forever.
>>
>>
>>Besides hundreds of smaller slips being removed for eternity, hundreds of trailer boat spaces and launch facilities for these boats on Mindanao Way are being eliminated for all time. These changes have not been properly publicized to the citizens of L.A. County or the State of California, or to National Boating Organizations, the average person doesn't know what is happening, because they don't have the time to play detective to follow these surreptitious moves.
>>The County meeting was a fraud, the only people who spoke in favor were developers and their clerical staff, who gave canned and scripted testimony which sounded like it was all written by the same P.R. firm author or authors. Almost two dozen people who only spoke in thanks for not having their rowing and outrigger paddling facilities removed, were in fact, against the changes in the County plan, but were fraudulently put in the "spoke in favor column. County Supervisors were not paying attention, or talking on the phone. People were given only one minute to speak, while time in the meeting was wasted on religious convocations, memorials for County clerical staff who had passed away by Don Knabe, and presentation of awards to Jr. High School golfing and track teams, just to waste time and prevent the public from giving input.
>>
>>And the final insult was holding the State of California Coastal Commission hearing on the Marina alterations in Oceanside, CA. 80 miles away from the Marina, on the other side of a vast urban congested area, during the week, in the morning so very few local citizens could attend, whereas the developers had hired professional witnesses to deliver canned and scripted testimony in favor, all sounding like they had been written by the same person.
>>
>>
>>In more detail:
>>The decision whether to issue this permit and future permits in Marina del Rey will be based on an evaluation of the probable impact including cumulative impacts of the proposed activity on the public interest. That decision will reflect the national concern for both protection and utilization of important resources. The benefit which reasonably may be expected to accrue from the proposal must be balanced against its reasonably foreseeable detriments. All factors which may be relevant to the proposal will be considered including the cumulative effects thereof. Factors that will be considered include conservation, economics, aesthetics, general environmental concerns, wetlands, cultural values, fish and wildlife values, flood hazards, flood plain values, land use, navigation, shoreline erosion and accretion, recreation, water supply and conservation, water quality, energy needs, safety, food production and, in general, the needs and welfare of the
people.
>>
>>We have many concerns regarding the impacts of this permit and future foreseeable permits in Marina del Rey that must be looked at cumulatively under the statutes outlined in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA):
>>
>>1) The significant loss of public resources and the “significant change” of the federal project outlined in House Document 389 for the construction of Marina del Rey.
>>
>>2) The need for a public hearing to determine the overall public interest of the proposed activity and drastic change of intended use.
>>
>>3) The completion of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Playa del Rey Inlet and Basin, Venice, California known as Marina del Rey adopted by the Committee on Public Works and Transportation of the United States House of Representatives on September 28, 1994.
>>
>>4) The determination by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Regulatory Division that this project and the other foreseeable 7 projects meet “independent utility” will preclude a properly-vetted public process, be a tremendous waste of the Corps’ overly-stressed resources, a significant waste of taxpayer’s money, and could jeopardize or prejudice any findings in an EIS or Environmental Assessment (EA).
>>
>>There is indisputable evidence that the cumulative projects (Master Waterside CDP - http://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2011/11/Th12a-11-2011.pdf) set forth by Los Angeles County and private developers will effect a dramatic and unprecedented decrease in recreational boating resources while dramatically increasing the density and intensity of commercial land-side development (non-water dependent). L.A. County currently has a Certified Local Coastal Program for Marina del Rey that is in the process of being amended to allow the reduction of 1,585 boat berths, the loss of approximately 2,056 parking spaces for boating, the removal of a boat storage and repair facility, an obstruction of the public launch ramp, and the removal of several parking lots used by boating enthusiasts.
>>
>>Again, we need to have a fair, well publicized meeting on these changes to the Marina, with plenty of time for people to put forward their opinions, and for others to be given grants to put forward competing plans which actually do what was spelled out in Act 389 of the second session of Congress of 1954, a great recreational small craft boating park, and NOT a luxury yacht harbor and high rise condominium development, which was forbidden in sworn testimony by the original harbor's advocates and planners.
>>
>>We would also demand to see a criminal investigation into this conspiratorial travesty by Federal and State authorities.
>>In all sincerity,
>>Gerald Sobel
>>
>>
>>
>>Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
>>Caveats: NONE
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>