FW: MDR and NOAA regarding Woodfin the 225' windshadow timeshare hotel

Dear Friends please be patient and read this all the way thru. Jerry --- On Sat, 3/20/10, Gerald Sobel <so… [at] msn.com> wrote: From: Gerald Sobel <so… [at] msn.com> Subject: FW: MDR and NOAA To: "Gerald Sobel" <so… [at] yahoo.com> Date: Saturday, March 20, 2010, 6:41 PM Thanks, We need to explore all avenues to stop this. The 650 (or more) unit "E'Spirit [of Hell]" should have stopped, but once these insults to Marina del Rey are there they are all the more difficult to remedy (note: Doug Ring razed the buildings that were there previously in just three days, and he had NO asbestos abatement, thank you very much, cough cough. They are BIG PLAYERS so the are "Too big to prosecute". E'Spirit is illegal should be bulldozed, and the mole bulldozed as well, to make room for boating, vs. more apartments more people more traffic more more more yech! The plan the US Congress approved in 1954 for funding had NO moles, NO commercial development, was NOT a yacht harbor, and certainly NO real estate speculation, especially a 225' time share hotel upwind of the whole park. It had camper parking, 8,500 slips, all for wooden boats (now practically banned from MdR) and plenty of green open space, and two purpose built breakwaters, not just one tied to a pre-existing street waste water outlet, Ballona Creek, and was mostly a huge lagoon for sailing, water skiing, rowing, and water fun. Jerry From: na… [at] gmail.com To: na… [at] gmail.com Subject: RE: MDR and NOAA Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2010 13:03:02 -0700 The more John pushes on this, the more I am convinced that NOAA really would be the answer to a lot of our problems. Peter Douglas praised John’s focus (even after John asked for his resignation) and I think threw us a bone in telling Nancy, David B., Barry Fisher, and I that we should pursue this at the federal level. While the CZMA is very broad, it is clearly being violated. NOAA’s review of the Coastal Commission gives Peter Douglas & Company an out because they are underfunded. This puts the burden back on NOAA. From: j… [at] johnanthonydavis.com [mailto:j… [at] johnanthonydavis.com] Sent: Saturday, March 20, 2010 12:00 PM To: j… [at] johnanthonydavis.com Cc: lo… [at] ca.rr.com; so… [at] msn.com; le… [at] sbcglobal.net; na… [at] gmail.com; Na… [at] aol.com; David - Subject: MDR and NOAA Hi Gerry, Andy,Jon,Nancy, David I have filed complaints about NOAA OCRM of disregarding the coastal act and encouraging the county to continue violating HD 389 and the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1954 (US Public Law 780). I have first went to NOAA ombudsman and expect some real help there. He is second in command for NOAAs legal office. Next step is to the Inspector General for NOAA if the ombudsman does not help. NOAA is only involved in the U.S. Coastal Zone Management Act which the State impliments via the State Coastal Act. My complaints are as follows. The contract between the U.S. and the State, the Coastal Zone Management Program for California calls out that MDR is owned by the U.S. is is therefore not in the Coastal Zone. There can be no LCP. U.S. Public Law 780 and HD 389 require "rates reasonable with equal access to all", not commercial. The County and the Corp of Engineers conspired to remove this legal term. Around 1957-8 the local Corp issued Design Memo 2 for MDR. It was not made public. There were no hearings. There is no reason given for the change to commercial rates. In 1984 the Supervisors approved a motion to change to commercial rates. The problem here is that neither the Corp nor the Supervisors have the authority to change a congressional determination regarding the Rivers and Harbors Act. This illegal change has led to disaster. When the County, in theory, deeded the land to the U.S., the county only deeded a easement, not "all lands, easements, and rights of way" necessary to construct the project submtted to and approved by congress and the president by the Secretary of the Army. The county also bifricated the project into parcels, which is also illegal. So, the wheels are turning, stay tuned. If you would like to file any complaints with NOAA do so relative to the U.S. Coatal Zone Management Act of 1972. Here is the address of the ombudsman. He is very helpful and friendly. Jeff Payne <Je… [at] noaa.gov> The Coastal Act is all about access. The original terms of HD 389 provide that access. The Corp Memo 2 and County motion change the broad access established by law to commercial rates. Good Sailing, JD