Coast Guard to remove boat ‘parking lot’ from middle of Marina del Rey harbor
Plans to end a public anchorage in Marina del Rey put boater Hans Etter on high alert
Photo by Pat Reynolds
By Pat Reynolds
Back in June, Marina del Rey boater Hans Etter created a Facebook page called Save Our Public Anchorage in response to hearing that the U.S. Coast Guard was seeking to disestablish “a special anchorage” that exists in the heart of Marina del Rey harbor. Few people had even known there was such a thing as a special anchorage, including Etter.
The region in question, established in 1965, is relatively small and located slightly south of Del Rey Yacht Club and the California Yacht Club in the center of the channel. It allows for anchoring, particularly at night without lights. When the Coast Guard partnered with the Army Corps of Engineers to discuss development projects that included the addition of slips, they noticed this area on the chart and pointed out the proposed concepts would encroach. Coast Guard officials began to look at the zone more closely and questioned its importance and contemporary relevancy.
After review, in what they deem as a simple “housecleaning,” the agency proposed to disestablish the zone, indicating that it is not a practical place for any type of anchorage.
“What this regulation did, to use an analogy, is it essentially established a parking lot that spans the entire width of the freeway,” Coast Guard Lt. Commander Matthew Salas said during a Nov. 20 public meeting at the Burton Chace Park Community Room.
“And this parking lot, if you can imagine, also blocks the on-and-off ramps,” he continued. “So, using the parking lot analogy, I think everyone can generally agree that it would be unwise to park at night on a freeway with no lights on.”
Salas sees the removal of the anchorage as something that probably should have been done long ago due to its proximity to emergency vessels and the potential for collisions.
For Etter, the removal of the anchorage was less about the relevance of the space than the importance of the operative word — “encroachment” — that was used in the proposal to eliminate the zone.
When he and other politically concerned boaters see a development issue cutting into what exists on a nautical chart of Marina del Rey, the antennae go up. Through Etter’s efforts, a public meeting was held and he was disturbed that wasn’t simply a matter of course and protocol.
“It is about taking public assets with no input from the public for the benefit of private commercial interest,” Etter told The Argonaut. “Why was the public not informed about the exact nature of that agenda/meeting, since it has everything to do with grabbing public assets for private use?”
The issue represents a nervousness that exists at this time in history as Marina del Rey endures its sometimes painful redevelopment. What the Coast Guard sees as a simple clean up to a nautical chart — removing an irrelevant and potentially hazardous designation — can be a politically charged situation that stirs suspicion and concern among certain residents and boaters.
This proposal to remove the public anchorage was only about enable future planned development in the main channel,it had nothing to do with the safety of boaters. See this quote from the official docket that describes the purpose.
Quote:The purpose of this proposed rule is to align the regulations with the current and future configuration of the main channel and docking facilities in Marina del Rey Harbor. Since this special anchorage area was established, several projects have expanded docking facilities at the north end of the channel. These docks now encroach on the anchorage area, and future projects are planned to continue this expansion. It has become necessary to either redefine the boundaries of the anchorage, or remove it from the regulations.
You can find more comments by concerned citizens in that docket.
The public anchorage falls under the concept of “Narrow Channel”, private marina does not because they are approved by Army corp. of Engineers, and only requires one light at the end of each dock for night and a day marker. So in other words, as long as you build marinas out in the main channel it can be as narrow as any other basin channel, however if you want a public anchorage then it falls under the “Narrow Channel” concept that is open to interpretation.
The coast guard officer in charge of the hearing used a very misleading comparison with parking on our freeways and the public anchorage that are in place. I would say it is more like taking the main channel that is now more like a five lane freeway and turn it into a busy little two lane country road with less room for the public.
Some say it is not “taking” it is just “changing” the use of the assets. I say if I build a open pit mine in Yosemite park I am not “taking” I am just “changing” the use of the park . Developers have already taken an additional 30 acres of public land in our marina (public parking lots) for the purpose to build shopping malls and more apartment in the last few years. Now they are looking at the main channel and see all that water and smelling the dollar.
What is stopping them? A little unknown never used public anchorage.
This constant nip and tuck of our public assets are the death by a thousand cuts for public recreational use of publicly owned assets for private greed.
Beaches and Harbor eliminated our fishing dock,they took away the sea scout building, proposed removing and moving the launch ramp,if you think the pressure on our public assets have stopped you only have to look at their latest attempt to see it has not.
Hans Etter
I’m sorry to disagree again Hans, but after speaking to an official at the Army Corps of Engineers, I don’t think it’s accurate to state that this little known anchorage is stopping any development. It so happens the anchorage was discovered during a request that involved possible development but the anchorage is not why the development didn’t go forward. According to this person (sorry I don’t have his name handy) the project was stalled or scuttled for other reasons. I understand your concerns, but I don’t believe this anchorage played that role.
You are not disagreeing with me Pat,you are disagreeing with the Coast Guard’s own statements.
Quote:These docks now encroach on the anchorage area, and future projects are planned to continue this expansion. It has become necessary to either redefine the boundaries of the anchorage, or remove it from the regulations.
Coast guard makes the decision on the anchorage,not the Army corp of Engineers.
They Coast guard just enable developers with the help of developers to take what they want in the future,clearly the Coast Guards knows more about those projects,planned or “stalled” /”scuttle that the public does.
If you have information about the projects and the developers that are talking to the Coast Guard and Army corp of Engineers, feel free to share any information you may have on those projects. I am sure the public would love to know what is planned on their waterways without their input.
There was one developer owner of property at the hearing and agreed with the Coast Guard about the need to remove the public anchorage,does that not tell you something Pat?
You have a glaring error in your article: The Federal Anchorage Area is not located just south of Del Rey Yacht Club. The actual truth is that both Del Rey Yacht Club and the California Yacht Club have built their docks out into the Federal Anchorage Area. How on earth can it be that the average citizen is not allowed to use the Federal Anchorage Area, and the Yacht Clubs have their docks built out into the same??? Does that sound fair to anybody?
The people with the Coast Guard who tried to change the Federal Anchorage Area are committing fraud. It is not true to say that the anchorage area is not being used, and therefore not necessary. The simple truth is that the County has made a local law that forbids anchoring anywhere inside Marina del Rey. That local law is illegal for a number of reasons:
1) There was a landmark case handed down from the CA Supreme Court [Marks vs. Whitney]… this case said that the people have a right to use the Navigable Waterways of the state, including the use of the bottom “for anchoring”.
2) The law violates the CA Constitution: Article XI, section 7. It provides in pertinent part as follows:
“A county or city may make and enforce within its limits all local police, sanitary and other ordinances and regulations not in conflict with general laws.” General laws mean higher laws, such as state or Federal laws. One way of interpreting this is as follows: If there is a State Department that occupies the field of law, either expressly or impliedly, then local governments are forbidden to make laws in this area of law. In this case was have the Department of Boating and Waterways that expressly occupies the field of law and therefore local governments are prohibited from making laws that would regulate boating.
3) The Marina del Rey “no anchoring rule” violates the Harbors and Navigation Code: Where it is true that local governments are forbidden from making their own laws regarding boating, they are allowed to suggest laws, and there is a set procedure for doing so. Section 660 of the Harbors and Navigation Code allow for local governments to suggest laws or rules, but any such change must first be submitted to Sacramento to the Department of Boating and Waterways first so that the Department can make a determination as to whether or not the new law would be in conflict with existing laws. Ie: they must get approval first and they failed to do so.
Bottom line: You are being lied to about the Federal Anchorage Area. In the meantime the Sheriff is telling people to go and anchor their boats out in the ocean – this is absurd and dangerous. One of the problems with the Federal Anchorage Area is in it’s wording that defines and establishes it. It contains a poorly written sentence and some people are trying to take advantage of this poorly written sentence, and they are suggesting that the Federal Anchorage Area is only for use during storms. They go on to say that since the docks and Burton Chase Park are free during a Small Craft Advisory, it is a moot point. Nothing could be further from the truth. There is no requirement that a storm be present in order to use the Federal Anchorage Area. The sentence in question reads: “This area is reserved for yachts and other recreational craft and for all types of small craft during storm, stress, or other emergency. ” Now as I read this sentence, and I am sure that I am correct, we are talking about two different types of boats here… the first group being “yachts and recreational”, for which the area is reserved, and then all other types during a storm, stress or other emergency. Clearly if a person has a recreational vessel the anchorage area is reserved for them. If a person has some other type of craft, such as a commercial fishing boat for instance, then there must be a storm in order for that person to use the anchorage area…. It’s pretty simple: If they weren’t intending to speak of two different kinds of vessels, they would not have written the sentence the way they did. Unfortunately some of those less literate are trying to play ignorance and they are trying to say that there must be a storm stress or other emergency for anyone to anchor in the Federal Anchorage Area, and this is not the case…. this is not the intent of what is written.
So you have been lied to. The anchorage area is not something that nobody is using because nobody wants to use it – it is not used because the sheriff will arrest anybody that tries to anchor there. The sheriff is enforcing an illegal law. I hope this sets everyone straight, now go and do something about it. Call the Department of Boating and Waterways and complain. If they don’t do anything, call the Dept. of Parks and Recreation, and if they don’t do anything call the CA Public Resources Agency…. there is also the Attorney General’s office,