16 • May 20 - June 2, 2016 • The Log


Army Corps of Engineers continues to vet Boat Central project


Proposed dry boat storage building in Marina del Rey met with local opposition.


By Parimal M. Rohit


MARINA DEL REY—To build or to not build a 345-slip dry dock boat storage above federal waters inMarina del Rey: that was the question at the heart of a public meeting held at Burton Chace Park Community Center onMay 10. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers


is proposing to build a new on-water structure – called Boat Central – to sup- port a new boat dock system and dry stack storage. It would be an overwater structure with 755 feet of cueing docks. The applicant is ThomasHogan of MDRBoat Central LLP; the company is based inNewport Beach. Plans also call for a County Sheriff’s maintenance facility, customer lounge, restroom area, 134-space parking lot, public promenade and park, accord- ing to a California Coastal Commission staff report issued to commissioners in 2015. Boat Central, in all, would occupy


about 11,600 square feet, or a little more than one-quarter acre, ofUnited States waters inMarina del Rey and extend 97 feet seaward on one side. The dry boat storage would be built where a public parking lot currently exists and, according to the Army Corps of Engineers, “would not impact any eelgrass because none was found nor is expected onsite.” “The developer said the project


would be integral to expanding boat- ing opportunities, that it provided the most efficient means to boat access, would offer additional waterside facili- ties, reduce boat maintenance costs and increase access to the water,” said Greg Fuderer, a public affairs specialist with the Army Corps of Engineers. Fuderer added the developer said


a dry storage “is environmentally superior and has a reduced over-water footprint.” About 50 people attended theMay


10 meeting, with 20 members of the public expressing opposition to the project and only the developer advo- cating in favor of Boat Central. JonNahhas, a local boating advo-


thelog.com


The Boat Central project is proposed extend 97 feet seaward on one side with a dry boat storage built where a public parking lot currently exists. The structure would include 775 feet of cueing docks.


cate, sent out video, roughly 2 minutes long, in a mass email onMay 9, asking people to attend theMay 10 hearing and oppose the project. The video explained Boat Central


would be a “total loss to the public” by eliminating free parking and coastal access, increasing the costs of recre- ational boating, causing environmental harm, disrupting views of the water and creating “a dangerous situation for boating traffic and launching.” Text at the end of the video labeled


Boat Central as a “luxury valet auto- mated boat launch facility on…public recreational lands.” The text continued


the use of land and water where Boat Central would be built is for “cycling, fishing and boating.” Marina del Rey boaterHans Etter


said the local community and county officials have long been at odds on the proposed Boat Central project. “Our community does not want it


there,” Etter said. “We have opposed it for a long time but the county and the developer keep pushing for it.” Awebsite advocating against “over-


development” inMarina del Rey stated Boat Central, if built, would impact water quality, boat launch ramp opera- tions and view corridors.


Boating Under Influence law could get an update By Parimal M. Rohit


SACRAMENTO—An existing state regulation governing howlaw enforce- ment interacts with someone accused of boating under the influence of alcohol or drugs could be clarified to remove obsolete language. The proposed legislation would also


update what information about rights a law enforcement officer must share when arresting someone accused of boating under the influence. Assembly Bill 1829 (AB 1829), intro-


duced earlier this year by Assembly memberMarc Levine, aims to conform elements of the Penal Code with provi- sions already in effect in theHarbor and Navigations Code. The bill passed in the Assembly and is nowin front of the State Senate. “AB 1829 clarifies existing law and


removes obsolete language regarding the arrest of a person suspected of oper- ating a boat or vessel under the influ- ence of alcohol and/or drugs,” Levine said according to an analysis of the bill. Levine proposed a bill last year,


which eventually passed and became law, allowing law enforcement to seek and obtain a search warrant to test a boat operator’s blood if he or she was suspected of operating a vessel while under the influence of alcohol or drugs. His proposal in the current legisla-


tive session would update all other laws to become consistent with the bill his colleagues approved last year. If passed and signed into law AB


1829 would clarify language as to what an officer must informthe person he or she arrests during a boat stop.


Current law requires a person


arrested for boating under the influence to be informed of the consequences of refusing or failing to complete the required chemical testing. Such refusal or failure to complete testing could be used against the accused boater in court. State law could be updated if AB


1829 becomes law; an accused boater could be informed they have the right to refuse chemical testing and forced to submit to a blood test via search warrant. “AB 1829 clarifies that an officer who


arrests a person on suspicion of operat- ing a vessel or watercraft while under the influence shall informthe person that he or she may be charged with a crime, has the right to refuse chemi- cal testing, and that the officer has the authority to seek a search warrant to compel a blood draw if the person refuses to submit to, or fails to com- plete, a blood test,” Levine told state staff, according to a legislative analysis of AB 1829. A legislative analysis of AB 1829 says


vehicle operators accused of driving under the influence are already subject to similar rules. “Vehicle Code section 23612 pro-


vides that a person arrested for driving under the influence shall submit to chemical testing or face sanctions for the refusal to submit. The fact that the person refused testing can also be used as an aggravating factor when he or she is being sentenced for a conviction of driving under the influence,” the AB 1829 legislative analysis stated. “Despite the fact that similar language exists in


removed,” a legislative report fromthe Assembly’s Appropriations Committee stated. “As a result, over time, the ves- sels sink and disintegrate. The sponsor notes that once the vessel is submerged and disintegrated, a local jurisdiction can apply for AWAF revenues, because the vessel is then considered ‘marine debris,’ and a qualifying use of AWAF revenues.” Expanding AWAF to apply to both


A proposed administrative change to AB 1829 would alter how boaters arrested for boating under the influence are notified of their rights.


theHarbors andNavigation Code, there is no analogous sanction for a person suspected of boating under the influ- ence, largely because there is no com- prehensive licensing scheme or implied consent standard.”


Assembly Bill 2092 Also on the Assembly floor is AB


2092, which would authorize the state to use funds fromthe Abandoned Watercraft Abatement Fund (AWAF) to remove and dispose of abandoned commercial vessels. AWAF is used to fund the removal


and disposal of abandoned recreational boats.However the California Sheriffs’ Association sponsored AB 2092 in hopes of expanding the fund to help address abandoned commercial vessels. “Because only noncommercial aban-


doned vessels qualify for AWAF grants, and because local jurisdictions typically lack funds for vessel abatement, many commercial vessels are not promptly


recreational and commercial vessels would prevent non-recreational vessels frombecoming an environmental or navigational hazard, according to the California Sheriffs’ Association. “The Recreational Boaters of


California…is concerned that that opening up boater fuel tax and regis- tration fee revenues in AWAF to abate commercial vessels would quickly deplete the fund since these vessels are significantly more expensive to remove,” a legislative analysis of AB 2092 stated. RBOC argues that, since commercial vessels do not contribute to the fund, recreational vessel abatement should take priority. “Also in opposition, a number of


private citizens, contend that com- mercial vessels, while clearly represent- ing a danger on California waterways, are easily identified and, therefore the owners of these vessels should be required to pay the abatement and clean-up costs,” the legislative analysis continued. Assembly member Jim Frazier intro-


duced AB 2092. The bill was referred to the


Appropriations Committee and will be reviewed for economic impacts.


Photo courtesy Army Corps of Engineers


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52