January 14, 2026 Enforcement Committee Meeting

1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Public Comment
   The Committee will hear public comments on matters that are not on the agenda
   (Margie Malan) [415-352-3675; margie.malan@bcdc.ca.gov] [publiccomment@bcdc.ca.gov]
4. Approval of Draft Minutes from December 10, 2025, Enforcement Committee meeting
   (Margie Malan) [415-352-3675; margie.malan@bcdc.ca.gov] 
5. Enforcement & Compliance Report
   Staff will update the committee on the current status of the enforcement & compliance program’s activities.

   (Isabel Chamberlain) [415-352-3605; Isabel.chamberlain@bcdc.ca.gov]
   Staff Presentation

6. Public Hearing and Vote on Recommended Enforcement Decision to Resolve Enforcement Case ER2018.015.00
   The Enforcement Committee will consider a Recommended Enforcement Decision concerning two violations of the McAteer-Petris Act by Beattie Trust, the Respondent, for the placement of unpermitted fill in BCDC’s Bay and 100-foot shoreline band jurisdictions in Novato.
   (Sean Wagner-McGough) [415-352-3628; sean.wagner-mcgough@bcdc.ca.gov]
   Exhibit A // Exhibit B // Exhibit C // Exhibit D // Exhibit E // Staff Presentation
7. Briefing by the Richardson’s Bay Regional Agency-Second 2025 Update (Enforcement Case ER2010.028)
   Richardson’s Bay Regional Agency (RBRA) staff will brief the Enforcement Committee on the RBRA’s progress implementing the RBRA-BCDC Settlement Agreement adopted by the Commission in 2021.
   (Tony Daysog) [415-352-3622; anthony.daysog@bcdc.ca.gov]
   RBRA Presentation  
8. Adjournment

2026.01.14 Recording

ZOOM Transcript

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Good morning, everyone. By my watch, the time is and this meeting of the BCDC Enforcement Committee is hereby called to order.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: My name is Marie Gilmore, and I am the chair of this committee.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: For commissioners, including those attending at Beale Street, please ensure that your video cameras are always on, and please mute yourselves when you are not speaking.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Our first order of business is to call the roll. Isabelle, please call the roll. Commissioners, please unmute yourselves while she does this to respond, and then mute yourselves after responding.

Temazcal: Good morning, everyone.

Temazcal: Commissioner Eisen?

Rebecca Eisen, Commissioner: Here.

Temazcal: Commissioner Zepeda?

Cesar Zepeda, he/him, Vice Mayor, Commissioner: Here?

Temazcal: Chair Gilmore.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Here.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: We have a quorum present and are duly constituted to conduct business. That brings us to item on our agenda, public comment.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: So, in accordance with our usual practice, and as indicated on the agenda, we will now have general public comment on items that are not on today’s agenda.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: And we have received no general comments in advance of this meeting. Margie, is that still correct?

Temazcal: Yes, that is correct.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Thank you.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: For members of the public attending online, if you would like to speak either during the general public comment period or during the public comment period for an item on the agenda.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Please raise your hand in the Zoom application by clicking on the Participants icon at the bottom of your screen, and look in the box where your name is listed under Attendees. Find the small palm icon on the left.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: If you click on that palm icon, it will raise your hand.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Or, if you are joining this meeting by phone, you must dial star to raise your hand, and then dial star on your keypad to unmute your phone when the host asks you in order to make a comment.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: The meeting host will call on individuals who have raised their hands in the order that they were raised. After you are called upon, you will be unmuted so that you can share your comments. Please announce yourself by first and last name for the record before making your comment.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: For members of the public attending in person, please queue at the speaker’s podium and wait to be called upon to speak.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Commenters are limited to minutes to speak. Please keep your comments respectful and focused. We are here to listen to any individual who requests to speak, but each speaker has the responsibility to act in a civil and courteous manner, as determined by the chair.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: We will not tolerate hate speech, direct threats, indirect threats, or abusive language. We will mute anyone who fails to follow those guidelines. Margie, do we have any public speakers?

Temazcal: We do not, Chair Gilmore.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Okay, well, at this point, I will close the general public comment period.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: And the next item on the agenda is approval of the draft minutes for the last meeting.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: We have all been furnished with draft minutes from our last meeting. Committee members, I would appreciate a motion and a second to approve these.

Rebecca Eisen, Commissioner: So moved.

Cesar Zepeda, he/him, Vice Mayor, Commissioner: a second.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Okay, moved by Commissioner Eisen and seconded by, Commissioner Zapata. Isabel, please call the roll.

Temazcal: Commissioner Eisen?

Rebecca Eisen, Commissioner: Yes.

Temazcal: Commissioner Zepeda?

Cesar Zepeda, he/him, Vice Mayor, Commissioner: Yes.

Temazcal: Chair Gilmore.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Yes. Motion carries unanimously, thank you.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Okay, item on the agenda is our enforcement report. So, Enforcement and Compliance Manager Isabel Chamberlain will now update the committee on the current status of the enforcement program’s activities. Isabel?

Temazcal: Good morning, Commissioners, staff, and members of the public. Happy ! I hope everyone had a restful holiday season and a strong close to As we begin the new year, I wanted to provide a brief overview of what the enforcement and compliance team accomplished over the past year, as well as where we are headed next. First, staffing updates.

Temazcal: As of today, the enforcement team is fully staffed. Our final member, Alyssa Purslow, who is on the call today, I believe, has officially joined us. She has already begun tackling complex cases, and we are thrilled to have her on our team. We have only one remaining position to fill on the compliance side, and we are on track to begin interviewing candidates within the next two weeks.

Temazcal: Once the position is filled, BCDC will, for the first time, have the largest enforcement and compliance team the agency has ever had.

Temazcal: Second, enforcement case updates. Looking back at the enforcement team has opened new cases and resolves cases. In total, the team has collected almost $in penalties from violators over the course of the year.

Temazcal: We’ve started strong, with new cases already opened, bringing our total active caseload to just over cases. Importantly, the vast majority of these cases have been opened within the last few years, with only cases over years old.

Temazcal: Reflecting continued progress in addressing long-standing matters.

Temazcal: Although this is a relatively new team, the level of collaboration and problem solving has been very impressive. Staff are working together effectively to manage a demanding caseload, often addressing multiple complex cases at once.

Temazcal: Looking ahead to our goals include continuing to streamline internal processes, developing more robust tools to prioritize the most critical and urgent cases, and shifting towards a more proactive rather than historically reactive enforcement approach.

Temazcal: Now, lastly, I want to highlight a major milestone for the compliance program.

Temazcal: This quarter, the beginning of this quarter, marks the presentation of BCDC’s first-ever quarterly compliance report, prepared by Tony Desogg. I’ll now hand it over to Tony, who will walk you through the report and provide an update on the compliance program.

Temazcal: The data he will be sharing today reflects the significant groundwork that Tony has laid over the past year.

Temazcal: Take it away, Tony.

Temazcal: Great. Well, thank you very much, Isabelle. I am going to put onto the…

Temazcal: screen, a PowerPoint presentation that I had prepared for this morning.

Temazcal: Okay, let’s see… Let me…

Temazcal: All right, I hope you can see that. It’s good to be here this morning. I’m here to discuss trends with regard to cases handled by the compliance unit within BCDC’s Enforcement and Compliance Program.

Temazcal: These trends are with respect to fiscal year -which started on July st. Obviously, we are only halfway into the fiscal year.

Temazcal: And I will especially focus on what has happened in the last months. In other words, second quarter, fiscal year –

Temazcal: Here’s a comment voiced by Shoreline Development Program Manager Catherine Pan. It’s a comment I enjoy repeating. To paraphrase a comment you see, BCDC’s compliance program takes over after BCDC’s permitting team issues a new permit, or amends an existing permit.

Temazcal: As you well know, permits have a lot of conditions attached to them, requiring, for example, permittees to submit, in some cases, monitoring reports, or in some other cases, requiring them to submit certain BCDC forms

Temazcal: Such as the contractor certification form, or the notice of completion form.

Temazcal: So, we are that system to ensure that BCDC forms, reports, and certain permit deadlines are met. As many of you know, the reason why the compliance unit came into existence was because of an audit conducted by the state of California in which found a need

Temazcal: For a system to track permits and compliance with permit conditions.

Temazcal: Currently, we employ two Excel-based tracking systems. The first is the Excel-based intake system that has approximately data entry points.

Temazcal: Much of the data entry points involve drop-down lists so that we have a uniform coding system

Temazcal: for many of the data entry points. It is that uniformity of codes that then allows the intake system to then seamlessly generate reports, such as what you will see this morning.

Temazcal: One more thing I want to say about the intake system is that it forces staff to also create calendar reminders in Microsoft Outlook.

Temazcal: So compliance staff is not just relying on looking at the Excel-based intake system when it comes to monitoring deadlines.

Temazcal: Now, the second Excel-based system we are currently employing involves entering every new permit issued by BCDC and every recently amended permit issued by BCDC

Temazcal: entering all of these permit deliverables and deliverable due dates into the Excel worksheet.

Temazcal: So we enter all that information on one Excel worksheet, and through a variety of Excel formulas, on another Excel worksheet, all the deliverables show up in order of their deadlines. That way, we can easily track what is coming due.

Temazcal: Since July st, we have handled new compliance tasks.

Temazcal: And closed thus far.

Temazcal: But not all compliance tasks are highly involved exercises.

Temazcal: Some of these tasks simply involve sending emails to permittees and letting them know that they have not yet submitted a paper document that needs to be submitted.

Temazcal: So, because of that, for purposes of the quarterly reporting and the year-to-date reporting, I want to make sure to separate minor tasks

Temazcal: From major tasks, so as not to overstate trends.

Temazcal: Actually, I’m gonna… go back… How do I go back?

Temazcal: Margie, how do I go back?

Temazcal: No, no, backpack.

Temazcal: Oops.

Temazcal: Actually, I do want to stop right… go back to this table. This is the year-to-date, tables of the new cases that we, had opened, in… starting on July st.

Temazcal: And of the new cases, you can see that we have closed and are active. Now, what I said earlier about the difference between major and minor, tasks.

Temazcal: Of the you can see that slightly more are minor tasks, versus

Temazcal: Now, like I said before, examples of minor tasks was going after permittees and making sure that they submit key documents that they are required to submit per the terms of their permit.

Temazcal: Examples of major tasks, two examples here that we had, opened, this past, fiscal year, starting in July was Bayview Place, which is basically Kincaid’s in Burlingame. There was a significant,

Temazcal: deterioration of a plaza area, and we were noted, made aware of that by a member of the public. We went out and investigated and determined that, indeed, it was significant.

Temazcal: In fact, one of the, concretes of the plaza area had lifted by at least inches, and I believe the standard for safe,

Temazcal: is a quarter inch, so it was by… it was far and above, you know, what was, considered safe.

Temazcal: So that was a Bayview Place, and we got in touch with Kincaid’s, and ultimately, they, recently fixed it. So they redid the whole plaza. That was really nice.

Temazcal: Lancaster, is an example of… another member of the public had called us to say that, you know, there are certain lights, that are out, behind Lancaster.

Temazcal: Which, if you all know, is the, White Elephant Building for the, Oakland Museum, I believe it is.

Temazcal: And so we got in touch with the city of Oakland, and they had fixed those lights.

Temazcal: Fortunately, Now, here are the, new compliance cases that have been handled, in,

Temazcal: this, second quarter of this year, and you can see that, rather than cases, starting from July to December st, we have since October st to December st, handled of the new cases.

Temazcal: Now, you might be wondering why the year-to-date new tasks is compliance tasks.

Temazcal: And the October through December alone is new compliance tasks.

Temazcal: This is because I am tracking new cases opened since July st,

Temazcal: The overall year-to-date number does not include cases that I opened in the previous fiscal year, but then was completed in fiscal year -So what I’m tracking is just new cases that we’ve started this fiscal year.

Temazcal: Also, in the second quarter, there had been a large number of compliance tasks involving us processing maintenance project applications submitted by PG&E.

Temazcal: which has been using their O&M permit with BCDC to get project approval in a streamlined and expedited fashion. So the, compliance unit has been assisting Rowan Yelton and the Bay Resources Program in processing those PG&E ONM permits.

Temazcal: Now… Earlier, I mentioned, how our intake system employs uniform coding.

Temazcal: So here’s an example of that. We have roughly codes to describe the compliance tasks that we do.

Temazcal: Uniform coding is important for purpose of reporting, especially because you can’t have each compliance staff member entering their own codes.

Temazcal: Now, one of the things that I’ll point your attention to is certain codes have the word alert next to them.

Temazcal: So…

Temazcal: This is there because in the event this category of work is selected, the cell in the Excel automatically turns red. It turns red to visually remind staff to also get in touch with appropriate BCDC colleagues to resolve this pressing matter immediately.

Temazcal: So these are the broad compliance task categories.

Temazcal: And then, so now here are, the reporting of,

Temazcal: compliance tasks by broad task, by the top broad task categories. Obviously, if I fitted all in here, the lettering would be too small, so what you see here are the top

Temazcal: Top So, what you can see here is that the…

Temazcal: As expected, the bulk of the compliance new tasks for this second quarter was

Temazcal: doing what’s called… we, do… we conduct outstanding deliverables checks. So basically, anytime a new permit is, issued, or any time an annual report is submitted to us, or any time, someone submits a document for plan review purposes.

Temazcal: We not only have technical staff review the documents, but we use those opportunities basically as excuses to look under the hood to see, hmm, in addition to these plan review matters that you want BCDC to, approve.

Temazcal: We have looked into your permit file, and we have determined there are a number of missing, deliverables that, that you have failed to submit to us. And so, we, so a lot of our, our, tasks involve going after missing deliverables.

Temazcal: We also, as you can see, the second at number, at new cases, we also handle, plan reviews. So, a lot of these plan reviews, this is the, the PG&E O&M, submittals, so that’s being coded under here.

Temazcal: And also, we, assist…

Temazcal: technical staff in conducting some of their, plan reviews. So we not only write, plan reviews, but in some cases, we will also assist them by

Temazcal: looking into the hood, like I said, and then giving them a list of the missing deliverables that they then can include in their plan review letters.

Temazcal: So, these are the type of categories of the compliance tasks that we had done, in, the second quarter of fiscal year –

Temazcal: Now, what we’re also interested in is tracking outcomes with regard to the compliance tasks that come before us. So, here we have roughly,

Temazcal: different, codes for tracking, outcomes. And so…

Temazcal: These are the numbers with regard to, the tasks, the new tasks that came before us. So, of the new tasks that came to us, in, second quarter, starting October st, are still active, so there’s no outcome yet.

Temazcal: The compliance had been achieved.

Temazcal: And we coded as, the task was closed, the question was answered, and the person who raised it was satisfied with the answer that was provided.

Temazcal: So these are the various kinds of, of codes, and trends with regard to outcomes of compliance tasks, that had begun in, second quarter of, of fiscal year –

Temazcal: Our, intake system also, allows us to identify

Temazcal: the tasks that, are… have components of keen interest to BCDC, matters such as public access, sea level rise, eelgrass, and wetland habitat. So, we want to know,

Temazcal: how many of these, matters that, the compliance task had dealt with in working with, people who come to us with compliance requests. So, for example, public access areas. Of the new tasks that came before us in

Temazcal: This, in the second quarter, had public access area elements to it.

Temazcal: had wetland habitat elements to it. So, this way, we can track, you know, what are the things that… that we are… not only… what are the compliance tasks that, that we’re…

Temazcal: handling, but also, you know, in what regard are these compliance tasks associated with, area matters that BCDC is most especially interested in?

Temazcal: And also, we track, compliance tasks with regard to, the location from which the task is coming. So Marin County heads the list, and Alameda and San Francisco counties, coming close behind, followed by San Mateo.

Temazcal: So… That’s basically it.

Temazcal: But at the end of the day, it’s not just a matter of tracking numbers, creating Excel sheets, but it’s about, you know, making sure that permittees comply with the terms of the permit so that the public at large can benefit from

Temazcal: from, that.

Temazcal: So, in this case, this is what I mentioned earlier, Lancaster. So, before, there were only two lights working,

Temazcal: And it… and the foliage there was overgrown. out of lights working. So this is… the larger photo is a photo from last night, where now all lights, are working.

Temazcal: And special thanks to the member of public who brought this to our attention, and special thanks to the City of Oakland, for, addressing and fixing the lights to make sure that that Bay Trail segment that’s right next there, that you can see, that that Bay Trail segment is very well lit.

Temazcal: And then this is… oops.

Temazcal: This is the, matter in Burlingame at, near Kincaid’s, Bayview Place. You can see that the, the asphalt had lifted by approximately inches, you can see there.

Temazcal: And that was a photo that we took, I believe, in, September. And this, and this is the photo today of, of a path where, Kincaid’s, actually their corporate, headquarters, had,

Temazcal: Redid not only this segment of the plaza, but a large part of the plaza as well.

Temazcal: Okay, well that concludes my presentation. If you have any questions, I’ll try my best to answer them.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Okay, thank you very much, Tony and Isabelle. Do any members of the Enforcement Committee have any questions or comments?

Marie Gilmore, Chair: And can you stop sharing the screen, please?

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Thanks.

Temazcal: Commissioner Eisen?

Rebecca Eisen, Commissioner: Thank you. Thank you, Tony. I wanted to ask you, going back to your mantra that you would, put up on the first slide, you know, you said compliance gets involved.

Rebecca Eisen, Commissioner: after a new permit is issued, or after a settlement. What about the situation where somebody is engaged in behaviors that would require a permit, but has not sought a permit? Is that part of compliances, or does that go directly to an enforcement?

Rebecca Eisen, Commissioner: How does that… how does that work?

Temazcal: It could, come directly to compliance. If it does, we will go out there and, investigate. If there is a matter regard… we’ve got certain tests with regard to when compliance hands things off to enforcement.

Temazcal: But if there is a clear… if there is a clear violation, of BCDC policies, or perhaps of an existing permit.

Temazcal: Or a… or if there is, potential for injury or significant harm, or if there is,

Temazcal: If the situation that had been done can’t be fixed within the terms of the permit, that you have to do a whole new thing, then it’s at those instances

Temazcal: we would turn it over to enforcement for, for enforcement to, pursue. But, if there is,

Temazcal: If there is a… Example.

Temazcal: They…

Rebecca Eisen, Commissioner: unit.

Temazcal: The city, the Richmond Yacht Club.

Temazcal: had, removed what’s called a glulam of a pier. It supports the weight of the pier. They had removed it without authorization, A, and B, they subsequently, again, without authorization, put in a new glulam. In that case.

Temazcal: We were alerted to the fact by a member of the public that this, work was done without BCDC permit authorization.

Temazcal: We, the compliance staff.

Temazcal: with our engineering staff, went out to the site, and the engineering staff determined, after a lot of consultation with the permittee.

Temazcal: As well as, you know, based on her own background, the engineering staff determined that the unauthorized glulam that was installed could be permitted.

Temazcal: So in that, that’s an example of where there is unauthorized activity, but it could, compliance staff, could, then, put together what’s called the, initial contact letter that lays out a path of compliance.

–>

Temazcal: So, so yes, if there are situations where a member of the public, whether they’re a permittee or not, are doing something, that potentially needs a permit, compliance does have a role, but there are clear tests when we hand it over to the enforcement staff.

–>

Rebecca Eisen, Commissioner: Yeah, I’m asking because, and maybe I just have the wrong perception here, that a lot of the enforcement matters we deal with involve somebody who was

–>

Rebecca Eisen, Commissioner: Dumping, filling, doing something that clearly required a permit, but they had never sought one.

–>

Rebecca Eisen, Commissioner: And for some reason, I thought that was actually the more common problem than somebody who has a permit and was not complying with the terms of the permit. Do I just have a misperception there?

–>

Temazcal: No, no misperceptions. So those are what we call after-the-fact permits, and historically, actually, we’ve worked very closely with permitting, and the permitting team has always kind of taken the lead there with enforcement support.

–>

Temazcal: But starting this year, actually, we’re taking on after-the-fact permits to kind of streamline the process. We haven’t done it yet, which is why I didn’t want to make the announcement to this group.

–>

Temazcal: But yeah, I think, long story short, those are after-the-fact permits, and they currently live with enforcement and permitting, but they soon will live just with enforcement, and I think where Tony and his team comes in is when, you know, usually Tony’s kind of the middle ground between

–>

Temazcal: Talking to a respondent, and if there is an issue where, okay, this is a clear

–>

Temazcal: activity that has happened and requires a permit, that’s… that’s a clear enforcement matter, and then Tony would hand that over to us, and then we would work with permitting on the after-the-fact permit. Does that answer your question?

–>

Rebecca Eisen, Commissioner: Yeah, I mean, I can sort of envision a tree where, you know, somebody calls and says, this is happening. That property has a permit, it goes one direction, it doesn’t have a permit, it goes another direction. Is that sort of what’s happening there?

–>

Temazcal: For the most part, yes.

–>

Rebecca Eisen, Commissioner: Yeah.

–>

Rebecca Eisen, Commissioner: Okay.

–>

Rebecca Eisen, Commissioner: All right, and by the way, I don’t know about looking under the hood. Do we even do that anymore, Tony? I’m just kidding.

–>

Rebecca Eisen, Commissioner: But we’ve all stopped looking under the hoods.

–>

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Any other questions or comments? Because I, I actually have one. So, my one comment is,

–>

Marie Gilmore, Chair: I’m really impressed by the reduction in the very old cases that… over years, because those are the hardest

–>

Marie Gilmore, Chair: to track down, because people’s memories, records, whatever. So, the fact that you’re making great strides to reducing that backlog is excellent, so thank you for that.

–>

Marie Gilmore, Chair: And then I have a question for Tony. So, this is the first time we’ve had this kind of presentation, to the committee. So, let’s say, fast forward another quarter or two, and you make this presentation. Are we going to get, sort of, like.

–>

Marie Gilmore, Chair: what you’re doing in the current quarter versus what happened in the previous quarter, so we can kind of keep track, because you’re… you’re in a very…

–>

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Hard situation, because it’s hard to know

–>

Marie Gilmore, Chair: how many cases didn’t come to enforcement because of compliance? You know what I mean? It’s hard to track a negative, so I just kind of want to hear your thoughts on that.

–>

Temazcal: Well, definitely, that is one of the cornerstones of the compliance program. In fact, so…

–>

Temazcal: one of the, tables that I showed,

–>

Temazcal: Had to do with, the re… The reasons why,

–>

Temazcal: One, one of the,

–>

Temazcal: Data points that we track are, matters that the compliance handles On a proactive basis.

–>

Temazcal: So, the idea, then, is that, you know, if we deal with matters, you know, create,

–>

Temazcal: Reminders and Outlook.

–>

Temazcal: To go after people who have forgotten to submit their missing documents.

–>

Temazcal: So, if we create this kind of system that we don’t allow for the problems to not only fester, but to become even larger. So, the permittee who forgets to submit one document might forget to submit a multiple number of other documents.

–>

Temazcal: So we keep… so the whole point is to keep people on their toes, and for the compliance program is to have a system, which we do, to track, you know, when are we, addressing something successfully on a proactive basis.

–>

Temazcal: So… Has that come close to answering your question?

–>

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Yeah, I mean, I think what… this is one of those things that’s, I think, gonna evolve over time, and I think we’re all gonna get better at it as we go along. But like I said, it’s kind of tracking a negative, because

–>

Marie Gilmore, Chair: some of our bigger cases involve more than people forgetting to file documents, right? And so I think it’s more of those sort of bigger cases

–>

Marie Gilmore, Chair: That I think that we’re all interested in. And I think it’s complicated by the fact that people will do things not realizing that they need permits. And…

–>

Marie Gilmore, Chair: So, anyway, I think it’s just something that we’re going to have to be cognizant of as we go along and see how the whole process evolves, because I certainly don’t have any answers as I sit here. I’m just curious to know

–>

Marie Gilmore, Chair: You know, when we come to the end of the next quarter.

–>

Marie Gilmore, Chair: How we go about comparing the present quarter to the previous quarter, knowing that we’re not necessarily comparing apples to apples, right?

–>

Marie Gilmore, Chair: So, anyway, that’s… that’s my only question. So, are there any other comments from committee members?

–>

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Okay, Margie, do we have any public comment on this item?

–>

Temazcal: No public comments.

–>

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Okay, great. Well, then we’re going to move on to item number

–>

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Which is a public hearing and a vote on the recommended enforcement decision to resolve enforcement case ER.

–>

Marie Gilmore, Chair: So we are… the Enforcement Committee will consider a recommended enforcement decision

–>

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Including a proposed stipulated cease and desist and civil penalty order concerning two violations of the McAteer-Petris Act by the Beattie Trust, the respondent.

–>

Marie Gilmore, Chair: for placement of unpermitted fill in BCDC’s bay and -foot shoreline ban jurisdictions in Nevada.

–>

Marie Gilmore, Chair: So, if this committee votes to adopt this recommended enforcement decision, then it will put… be put up for a vote of approval or rejection by the full commission at an upcoming meeting.

–>

Marie Gilmore, Chair: So, after BCDC staff gives its presentation, the respondent will be invited to present any remarks they may wish to enter into the record.

–>

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Then, there will be public comment on this item, and then afterwards, we, the committee, shall hold our discussion and vote on staff’s recommendation.

–>

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Presentations made by the parties, as well as any public comments to follow, shall be limited to responding to the evidence already made part of the enforcement record.

–>

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Introduction of late evidence or oral testimony is only allowed under limited circumstances.

–>

Marie Gilmore, Chair: So, at this time, will the respondents or their representatives, if you’re present, please identify yourselves for the record?

–>

Temazcal: Che Gilmore, we have no, respondents, attendee.

–>

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Okay.

–>

Marie Gilmore, Chair: All right, well then, let’s get to it. Let’s hear the presentation by staff. I’m going to invite our enforcement attorney, Sean Wagner McGow, and Enforcement Manager Isabel Chamberlain to give the presentation.

–>

Temazcal: Thank you, Chair Gilmore. I’m gonna go ahead and share my screen.

–>

Temazcal: Good morning, Enforcement Committee. My name is Sean Wagner McGough, and I am BCDC’s Enforcement Attorney.

–>

Temazcal: I’m here today to present for your consideration the Executive Director’s recommended enforcement decision, which includes a proposed stipulated cease and desist order, and as

–>

Temazcal: proposed stipulated civil penalty order to resolve enforcement case ER

–>

Temazcal: At the outset, I’m very happy to inform the committee today that the respondent and BCDC staff have reached an agreement to resolve this case.

–>

Temazcal: The terms of that agreement are reflected in the proposed stipulated cease and desist and civil penalty order. And so, I would like to thank the respondent, BD Trust, and their authorized representative, Jim Armstrong, for their cooperation throughout this case.

–>

Temazcal: And because there are no matters of controversy, I’ll try to make this presentation as straightforward as possible.

–>

Temazcal: This presentation will proceed as follows. First, I will provide a quick overview of the options that are available to the enforcement committee here today with regard to this item.

–>

Temazcal: Second, I will delve into an overview of the case itself, and then finally, I will go over the terms of the Executive Director’s recommended enforcement decision, including the proposed stipulated cease and desist and civil penalty order that has already been agreed to and signed by the respondent.

–>

Temazcal: Very briefly, I wanted to provide a quick reminder of the actions that are available to the committee here today. First and foremost, the committee must adopt a recommended enforcement decision.

–>

Temazcal: In so doing, the committee may adopt, with or without change, the Executive Director’s recommended enforcement decision, which is being presented to you here today.

–>

Temazcal: Alternatively, the committee may decline to adopt the Executive Director’s recommended enforcement decision. Ultimately, however, the committee must direct BCDC Council to prepare the Enforcement Committee’s recommended enforcement decision, which will then be considered by the full commission at a future public hearing before it is ultimately issued.

–>

Temazcal: Now, given that the respondent and staff have already agreed to the terms of the proposed stipulated order that would resolve this case, it is our hope that this committee will adopt the Executive Director’s recommended enforcement decision without change.

–>

Temazcal: Diving into the case itself, the respondent here owns the property at Beattie Lane in Novato. You’ll see in the top right the location relative to the Bay Area at large, and in the bottom right, you’ll see the more precise location of the property.

–>

Temazcal: Parts of this property extended into BCDC’s Bay jurisdiction. Other parts of the property also fall within BCDC’s -foot shoreline ban jurisdiction.

–>

Temazcal: What we are dealing with in this case are two violations of the Meketeer-Petris Act, specifically Section -A of that Act requires any person wishing to place fill within BCDC’s jurisdiction to obtain a permit from BCDC that authorizes the fill.

–>

Temazcal: It’s worth emphasizing that fill is very broadly defined by the statute as earth or any other substance or material.

–>

Temazcal: Here, BD Trust, the respondent, placed fill on its property within BCDC’s jurisdiction without obtaining a permit, amounting to two separate violations of the Meketeer-Petrus Act.

–>

Temazcal: The first violation involves a -foot wooden fence within BCDC’s Bay jurisdiction. The second violation involves wooden fencing in a wooden storage enclosure, also placed on a respondent’s property, but on a separate parcel from the -foot wooden fence.

–>

Temazcal: All these structures qualify as fill, as defined under the Meketeer-Petras Act, and none of them were permitted by BCDC.

–>

Temazcal: These violations were first discovered by staff nearly years ago, and so we are very happy to report today that they are finally being resolved with the respondent’s cooperation.

–>

Temazcal: Now, these photos were taken by staff during an August site visit, one of several site visits made by staff over the years. On the left, you’ll see the -foot wooden fence that comprises the first violation.

–>

Temazcal: And on the right, you’ll see the wooden fencing and wooden storage enclosure. That comprises the second violation. It’s worth noting that the respondent has already removed the wooden storage enclosure, so the fencing remains.

–>

Temazcal: These photos, again, taken by BCDC staff on two separate site visits in and are intended to provide context regarding the marsh-like nature of the surrounding land and property.

–>

Temazcal: Now, as you can see, BCDC staff did make several visits over the years to confirm that the fill remained on the respondent’s property, and ultimately, staff initiated bringing this case in November of

–>

Temazcal: When staff sent the respondent an initial contact letter to inform them of the violations, and also, crucially, to give them a chance to resolve the violations by applying for an after-the-fact permit that would authorize the fill before staff would be forced to take more formal enforcement action.

–>

Temazcal: The respondent, acting through Jim Armstrong, their property manager, responded to BCDC’s letter, but failed to submit a permit application in the months to come.

–>

Temazcal: As such, in April staff sent respondents a notice of violations, which gave them days to take corrective actions before standardized fines would begin to accrue against them in accordance with BCDC regulations.

–>

Temazcal: The notice of violations also gave respondent days in total to take corrective action before BCDC would be forced to initiate more severe enforcement action, including a hearing like today’s and more severe civil penalties.

–>

Temazcal: Despite reminders sent by staff later that year, the respondent failed to take such corrective action, and the violations persisted.

–>

Temazcal: And ultimately, that led to the filing of a violation report and complaint for administrative civil liability in the amount of $per violation, which initiated these enforcement proceedings.

–>

Temazcal: Again, we’re looking at two separate violations of the Mecca Deer-Petras Act, one for the -foot wooden fence, and another for the wooden fencing wooden storage enclosure on a separate parcel.

–>

Temazcal: The violation report and complaint gave the respondent days to submit a statement of defense.

–>

Temazcal: This case was originally going to be brought at our December hearing, but on November th, the th day after staff filed a violation report and complaint, respondent requested an extension to respond. Staff granted that extension, giving them additional days to respond, and the new deadline was set for December th.

–>

Temazcal: In the lead-up to that new deadline, BCDC staff made multiple phone calls to Mr. Armstrong to remind him that the response was due on that date, and also to offer him a chance to enter into settlement discussions, but those calls went unanswered.

–>

Temazcal: Mr. Armstrong did finally respond days before the new deadline, and he requested a second extension to respond in a postponement of today’s hearing. This time, staff denied the request in light of the first extension already granted.

–>

Temazcal: The long history of noncompliance at this property, and staff’s repeated attempts to remind respondents that their response was due.

–>

Temazcal: Ultimately, though, once Mr. Armstrong did respond to staff, we were able to connect and initiate settlement discussions, and as indicated at the outset of this presentation, staff is pleased to report to the committee today that we were able to reach an agreement with the respondent that should resolve this case.

–>

Temazcal: On December th, staff and Mr. Armstrong engage in confidential negotiations.

–>

Temazcal: Ultimately reaching an agreement that is reflected in the terms of the proposed stipulated cease and desist and civil penalty order being presented to you here today.

–>

Temazcal: Now, under the terms of the supposed stipulated cease and desist and civil penalty order, the respondent must submit a complete permit application for an after-the-fact permit for any of the unpermitted fill by June st,

–>

Temazcal: They must remove any fill that BCDC does not permit within days of that permit’s issuance.

–>

Temazcal: They must pay an administrative civil penalty of $and otherwise cease and desist from violating the Meketeer-Petras Act.

–>

Temazcal: Put simply, the respondent must garner authorization for the fill placed on their property, and if they cannot get that authorization through our permitting process, then they must remove the fill within days. And additionally, they must pay a civil penalty that, in light of all the circumstances, staff feels is fair and equitable.

–>

Temazcal: Mr. Armstrong, acting on behalf of BD Trust, has signed the order to indicate their agreement. Now, once this order is approved by the enforcement committee here today, and then the full commission at a subsequent public hearing, all that will be required to resolve this case is the respondent’s compliance with the terms of the order.

–>

Temazcal: Should they fail to comply with the order, BCDC would then be able to refer to the matter to the Attorney General’s Office, who may seek an injunction or more severe civil penalties. So by adopting this recommended enforcement decision, which includes this order, we would be creating legally enforceable obligations.

–>

Temazcal: However, it is staff’s beliefs that respondent intends to comply with the order, evidenced by their agreement to the proposed order.

–>

Temazcal: For all those reasons, the Executive Director here today recommends that the Enforcement Committee adopts this recommended enforcement decision as its recommendation to the full Commission, including the issuance of the proposed stipulated cease and desist and civil penalty order without change, which again has been agreed to by the respondent.

–>

Temazcal: I’ll leave you here today with the options that are available to the committee with regard to this item, and that otherwise concludes my presentation. I thank you for your time and your consideration, and I’m now available to answer any questions. Thank you.

–>

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Thank you very much. Do any committee members have questions for staff?

–>

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Commissioner Eisen.

–>

Rebecca Eisen, Commissioner: Okay, I’m always in favor of settlements.

–>

Rebecca Eisen, Commissioner: Actually, maybe not always.

–>

Rebecca Eisen, Commissioner: Because there are some times when it just seems like it’s just as easy to go forward with an enforcement action after… when the facts are clear, the…

–>

Rebecca Eisen, Commissioner: Issues are long-standing, and the explanation for the delays is not very,

–>

Rebecca Eisen, Commissioner: persuasive. So, what I would love to hear is some… I mean, you say you have confidence they’re going to comply because they signed the document.

–>

Rebecca Eisen, Commissioner: I was hoping there would be more…

–>

Rebecca Eisen, Commissioner: that would suggest that we are going to get compliance now that we’ve entered into this cease and desist agreement. So, can you give me just some sense of what

–>

Rebecca Eisen, Commissioner: Happened over the course of those

–>

Rebecca Eisen, Commissioner: now years, I think, or maybe… no, I think we’re talking about years. That…

–>

Rebecca Eisen, Commissioner: Is it because of…

–>

Rebecca Eisen, Commissioner: they weren’t aware that a permit was necessary. It seems unlikely, since we were out there visiting them and telling them that they needed one.

–>

Rebecca Eisen, Commissioner: It was a financial issue that kept them from doing what needed to be done, which doesn’t seem to be too onerous.

–>

Rebecca Eisen, Commissioner: to remove some fencing. So it’s frustrating to see these cases that go on for years and, you know, finally take up so much of staff’s time.

–>

Rebecca Eisen, Commissioner: And now our time. Because they wouldn’t do the simplest thing, which is to ask for a permit.

–>

Rebecca Eisen, Commissioner: So, I don’t really understand what happened here. I’m wondering if you can give a little explanation for that, and also, what was the penalty that we would have been entitled to pursue?

–>

Rebecca Eisen, Commissioner: Had we not reached the settlement agreement. I mean, $seems… rather…

–>

Rebecca Eisen, Commissioner: small, considering how long this has gone on. My guess is that we could have pursued a penalty much higher than that.

–>

Temazcal: Yeah, so to answer your first question, obviously this case predates my time here at BCDC. It’s my understanding… All of our time here.

–>

Temazcal: It’s my understanding, generally speaking, these cases can take several years to conclude, and that can be due in part to staff’s workload, prioritizing other cases. And I think in this case.

–>

Temazcal: Commissioner Eisen, I think you have it right that a lot of the delay stems from just non-compliance from the respondent, and not taking action, that BCDC was trying to compel them to take.

–>

Temazcal: Ultimately, I hear you on the, the amount of the civil penalty being reduced in this instance. The violation report and complaint

–>

Temazcal: originally set forth civil penalties of $per violation. And that’s using, BCDC regulations, that account for a specific formula and factors to take into consideration.

–>

Temazcal: through settlement, we felt that we could consider other factors, including the total extent of the harm, that was being done to the environment and this property, as well as respondents’ ability to pay. And ultimately, in terms of

–>

Temazcal: determining whether the respondent intends to comply now after years of noncompliance. We feel that the hardest issue was bringing them to the table, and once we got them to the table in December, we were able to communicate what needs to happen, as well as the consequences if they do not fail… if they do not comply

–>

Temazcal: with a cease and desist order, which can be even more severe than the civil penalties that the Commission can impose administratively.

–>

Temazcal: And so, for those reasons, we feel confident that they intend to comply, but also, under the McAnteer-Petrus Act, by issuing a cease and desist in civil penalty order, if they violate that, we would be able to pursue more severe penalties.

–>

Rebecca Eisen, Commissioner: So, just so I’m absolutely clear, if they do not comply with this order, we can seek those $in penalties and more.

–>

Temazcal: We could seek, up to,

–>

Temazcal: Sorry, the Meketeer-Petras Act, explicitly… so, essentially, if they were to violate the cease and desist order, we would be able to bring an action, or ask the Attorney General to bring an action.

–>

Temazcal: That will recover sums for violations of the cease and desist order itself, and that carries more severe civil penalties in the Meketeer-Petras Act, a daily penalty for each day that the violation of the cease and desist order persists.

–>

Rebecca Eisen, Commissioner: And would that exceed $?

–>

Temazcal: It could, yes.

–>

Rebecca Eisen, Commissioner: And should, I would say.

–>

Rebecca Eisen, Commissioner: Wow. Okay.

–>

Marie Gilmore, Chair: I just kind of want to follow up on Rebecca’s line of questioning, because as I read through the documents.

–>

Marie Gilmore, Chair: This is… sort of the conclusion that I came to was that they blew off

–>

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Letters, phone calls, contacts, until they got a document that said, hey, if you don’t pay attention to us, you’re potentially liable for $

–>

Marie Gilmore, Chair: And that’s…

–>

Marie Gilmore, Chair: It makes me feel like that’s what got their attention, and that’s what finally brought them to the table.

–>

Marie Gilmore, Chair: And I’m… I’m glad it did.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: but I sort of feel like…

Marie Gilmore, Chair: There… the penalty under the, stipulated agreement

Marie Gilmore, Chair: is a little bit on the low side, considering how much they blew us off. Now, obviously, I wasn’t at the table, I don’t know about their ability to pay, but I feel like they got the benefit of stringing us along for years and months.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: And… basically, we forced their hand, and…

Marie Gilmore, Chair: you know, I’m… I’m not particularly happy about this.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: But I suppose at the end of the day, I would rather see compliance.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: I… yeah.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Yeah. I’m just… I’m…

Marie Gilmore, Chair: I’m not happy about the amount of the fine, and I’m not happy about the length of time that it took them to come to the table.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: I’m just gonna state that right there.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Anybody else?

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Any other comments?

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Okay, Margie, do we have, public comments on this item?

Temazcal: We have no public comments.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Okay, thank you.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Any further discussion by committee members?

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Okay, at this time, I would entertain a motion and, second to approve the staff recommendation.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Or actually, to approve the Executive Director’s recommended enforcement decision regarding the proposed stipulated cease and desist civil penalty order.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Gotta do that for the record.

Cesar Zepeda, he/him, Vice Mayor, Commissioner: Go ahead and second.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Okay, we have a motion and a second, a motion from Commissioner Eisen, and second by Commissioner Zapata. Isabelle, would you please call the roll?

Temazcal: Yep, Commissioner Eisen?

Rebecca Eisen, Commissioner: Aye.

Temazcal: Commissioner Cepedo?

Cesar Zepeda, he/him, Vice Mayor, Commissioner: Bye.

Temazcal: Chair Gilmore?

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Yes.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Motion carries unanimously.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Okay, that brings us to item number which is a briefing by the Richardson Bay Regional Agency, and it’s an update on their progress implementing the RBRA

Marie Gilmore, Chair: BCDC settlement agreement that was adopted by the Commission in

Marie Gilmore, Chair: So at this time, are there representatives from the RBRA present? And if so, could you please identify yourself for the record?

Brad Gross: Good morning, Chair Gilmore. I’m Brad Gross, the Executive Director for the Richardson Bay Regional Agency.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Welcome, and do you have… I see other members that look familiar from previous presentations.

Brad Gross: Armor Master Malcolm, please go ahead.

Jim Malcolm: Yes, good morning, Chair Gilmore. Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Jim Malcolm. I’m the harbormaster for the Richardson Bay Regional Agency.

Brad Gross: and Ms. Bodie.

Jess Bode: Hi there, everyone. My name is Jess Bodie. I am here speaking on behalf of Coastal Policy Solutions. It’s great to meet everyone.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Great, thank you all for being here, and, Happy New Year. And, Tony Desog, why don’t you, start us off, please?

Temazcal: Great. Well, thank you, Chair Gilmore, members of the Commission. I’m here to introduce item a briefing on the status of the settlement agreement between BCDC and the Richardson Bay Regional Agency, the RBRA.

Temazcal: After my introduction, we will then hear from representatives from the RBRA regarding the progress they’ve made towards

Temazcal: But first, let me now provide the backdrop against which today’s briefing is occurring.

Temazcal: BCDC’s enforcement program opened Enforcement Case ER in late August of

Temazcal: Slightly over years ago.

Temazcal: The case was opened in response to allegedly illegally anchored vessels, many of them with people living illegally on the anchorage in Richardson Bay.

Temazcal: Based on a census conducted in in that year, BCDC determined that individuals were living on the anchorage.

Temazcal: This number went up to as much as two years later in

Temazcal: Enforcement Case ER was settled in September of and has been amended twice, allowing RBRA a couple of time extensions to meet deadlines as authorized under the agreement.

Temazcal: The settlement agreement has broad parts.

Temazcal: One part of the settlement involved RBRA agreeing to develop a -year adaptive management plan for eel gas restoration by mid-December

Temazcal: And they have done so.

Temazcal: Later, you will hear more about the progress they’ve made with respect to eelgrass restoration and debris removal.

Temazcal: Another part to the settlement agreement stipulated that, by no later than October th,

Temazcal: All occupied vessels are to be removed from the anchorage.

Temazcal: A third broad part has to do with regular reporting, which is important so as to track and measure progress towards reaching settlement outcomes.

Temazcal: Such as meeting the October deadline.

Temazcal: Now, to restate the three broad elements of the settlement agreement, these are an adaptive management plan for eelgrass restoration.

Temazcal: the October th, target for removal of all occupied vessels from the anchorage, and regular reporting with corresponding metrics.

Temazcal: That concludes my introduction. I would now like to introduce Brad Gross. He’s the Executive Director of the RBRA, as you had heard.

Temazcal: Brad?

Brad Gross: Thank you, Tony. Chair Gilmore, members of the Commission, the committee, and staff, thank you for the opportunity to update you on our latest activities. If I could share my screen, I will show you our presentation.

Brad Gross: Tony said, I’m Brad Gross, the Executive Director of RBRA. Joining me today is Jim Malcolm, RBRA Harbormaster, and Jess Bodie, the eelgrass Restoration Project Manager from Coastal Policy Solutions. Tony did a great job of providing history and bringing us up to date, so I won’t repeat what he’s covered, and we’ll make this a short but concise presentation.

Brad Gross: Here we are, the first month of lots has been accomplished, and we’re just nine and a half months to go from the conclusion of our agreement. So we’re right on track.

Brad Gross: Very quickly, as I usually do, I want to, thank our… I want to… sorry, I’m…

Brad Gross: Messing up my view here.

Brad Gross: Are you still able to see my presentation?

Jess Bode: Yes.

Brad Gross: Slide It’s disappeared from… here we go. Sorry, I’d like to thank our partners. Without their help, we would not be able to accomplish everything that we’ve done.

Brad Gross: You’ve seen this slide in the past, and I’m not going to read all milestones that are listed here. Suffice to say that of the milestones with due dates of and have all been accomplished. The remaining milestones have an October th, deadline, which are mostly done, and you’ll

Brad Gross: see later in our presentation, when I say they are mostly done, I consider them complete. And then the final milestone regards our,

Brad Gross: Safe and seaworthy vessel, and as the grievance stipulates, that all pre-vessels illegally anchored in Richardson Bay will be removed from the bay by October th of

Brad Gross: So, right now, I’m going to turn things over to Ms. Bodie to provide an eelgrass update for us.

Jess Bode: Thanks, Brad. If you just want to go on to the next slide, I will touch base briefly on as we hit a lot of really great milestones last year. But before I begin with that.

Jess Bode: Just a reminder of what this grant allotted us. So, $million over the course of multiple years, and it started in The goal was to restore acres of eelgrass by

Jess Bode: And then also really, as part of eelgrass restoration, achieve a significant partner engagement and community outreach program, with the help of.

Jess Bode: SFSU and the EOS Center, as well as Audubon Society in California on Richardson Bay, Merkle & Associates, who are based in San Diego, and then I am here representing Coastal Policy Solutions. So if you could go to the next slide, Brad?

Jess Bode: Thanks so much. Yeah, so as I mentioned, was a really, really big year for our grant, and we hit a lot of amazing milestones. First and foremost, last May and June, we had a really big marine debris removal,

Jess Bode: section or time of the grant, and we removed over pounds of marine debris from the bottom of Richardson Bay. Some of those items that were found was a Sony PlayStation, a microwave.

Jess Bode: a lot of anchor debris, lots of plastic, among a list of other things. If you are all interested, there was really great media coverage from that Marine Debris Removal Day that we would be happy to send.

Jess Bode: In addition to that, we ended up restoring, acres of eelgrass, which got us to the out of acre goal.

Jess Bode: So…

Jess Bode: We are so excited to not only be way ahead of schedule, but this year to meet and likely exceed our restoration goals, which still leaves the rest of or the first half of to continue the restoration progress.

Jess Bode: As you can see here on the slide.

Jess Bode: Another really big milestone was installing the, eelgrass Protection Zone signs that you will see, throughout, the eelgrass Protection Zone. That is a really big milestone just for our, community and outreach engagement portion of this grant, as well as

Jess Bode: another sign that Brad will be touching base on here in a couple of slides. And then, if you want to go to the next slide?

Jess Bode: Yeah, so as this,

Jess Bode: presentation was turned in, we did end up receiving aerial footage from which shows a comparison of the amount of boats that were on Richardson Bay, as well as January of last year.

Jess Bode: So I would be also happy to send that aerial footage to those who would be interested. The photo is phenomenal, as it shows

Jess Bode: Really great progress, not only with the eelgrass restoration, but also there were vessels at the time that that photo was taken, which, again, is just really great visual representation of how great we are moving along within this project.

Jess Bode: And then, the next slide.

Jess Bode: Yeah, so this year, we really look forward to not only meeting, but exceeding, the -acre goal. We only have half an acre of restoration for eelgrass left.

Jess Bode: We are really going to ramp up our outreach and engagement program, and so we look forward to looping you all in on how that is going. And then we will also continue with marine debris removal work as part of the restoration process.

Jess Bode: And I think that’s the… the next slide is just a transition slide, and so I will, hand the presentation baton to Jim Malcolm, RBRA Harbormaster. Thank you so much.

Jim Malcolm: Thank you, Jess, and good morning again, Chair Gilmore, Commissioners. Again, my name is Jim Malcolm, Harbormaster for the Richardson Bay Regional Agency. I’ll be discussing our enforcement operations and achievements. The bulk of these slides

Jim Malcolm: and data presented will go back to the inception of the agreement between BCDC and RBRA.

Jim Malcolm: Since we have,

Jim Malcolm: ventured into the agreement. citations have been issued, since the implementation of the agreement.

Jim Malcolm: nuisance abatement warrants have been issued and signed by Moraine County Superior Court, which resulted in vessel removers… removals or departures.

Jim Malcolm: One vessel remains… actually, that’s, two vessels remain on the anchorage in the housing program and actively seeking housing.

Jim Malcolm: One vessel remains in the Safe and Seaworthy program located within the actual anchorage due to depart no later than October the of this year. And then two final vessels remain, one with an active nuisance abatement warrant in process, and one final with nuisance abatement warrant pending.

Jim Malcolm: All four of these vessels, these are some significant vessels that we’ve removed. These are all well… either equaling feet or well in excess of feet. These were some… some of our, if not the bulk of our most

Jim Malcolm: apprehension vessels that were on the bay. All four of these were…

Jim Malcolm: resulted in not only people being housed, but participated in our vessel buyback program. Getting these four vessels off the… off Richardson Bay really represents one of our greatest achievements, and these are just four of the vessels that we have

Jim Malcolm: Manage to…

Jim Malcolm: work with the vessel residents, get the vessels off the water, and get them properly disposed of, really avoiding disastrous consequences for the bay and for the environment. Next slide, please.

Jim Malcolm: This is our vessel count spreadsheet. Obviously, I didn’t have enough room on the spreadsheet to go all the way back to which would have been, that number way on the left would have been upwards of I started in October of where we had about vessels.

Jim Malcolm: Right now, if you look all the way to the right, January of we are down to

Jim Malcolm: And, if you recall, five… of those five, we have two engaged in housing, two in enforcement, and one that is in the Safe and Seaworthy program, and can… and will remain, or is available to remain until October of

Jim Malcolm: And finally for me, part of the public outreach, this is, the photo you’re looking at on the left side is a sign that we placed at the public boat ramp, the only public boat ramp in the city of Sausalito, at the Turney Street boat ramp. We worked in cooperation with the City of Sausalito to place this sign. This advises mariners

Jim Malcolm: where they can anchor, where they cannot anchor, where the authorized anchorage is. We also… part of the public outreach are the signs that Jess had mentioned, which are

Jim Malcolm: Are permitted signs, which are mounted to several aids of navigation along the Sausalito Channel.

Jim Malcolm: Then we have our buoys out there that are marking the authorized anchorage, tell people where they can and cannot anchor. We will continue, not only throughout the remainder of the agreement timeline, but in the future to ensure that our public outreach advises all mariners

Jim Malcolm: Of where they can, cannot anchor, where they can and cannot go.

Jim Malcolm: It’s Sarah.

Jim Malcolm: And that represents the last data for me. I will now hand it off to Brad to discuss housing updates.

Brad Gross: Thank you, Harbormaster Malcolm and Ms. Bodie, I appreciate your work on this.

Brad Gross: Now I’m going to give updates on our housing and vessel buyback programs.

Brad Gross: RBRA, with help of the state grant we received in so far, by the end of June of this fiscal year, we will have spent $million in our housing program.

Brad Gross: Here, the program successes since the start of the program, people are now housed, people are participating, and people have vouchers in hand, and one is pending. vessels have been purchased via the vessel buyback program, and between and December th of people from the anchorage have been housed via various

Brad Gross: housing programs.

Brad Gross: Our vessel buyback program, RBRA has expended over a quarter of a million dollars now, purchasing vessels and properly disposing of them since the inception of the program in

Brad Gross: And the press has noticed we’ve been getting nothing but good press, from the local newspapers. Here’s just some of the highlights of the press that we received over the last year.

Brad Gross: Along with some very positive feedback from local community groups, like the Sausalito Sustainable Waterfront Association, and a wonderful op-ed in the NIJ from the San Rafael Chamber.

Brad Gross: Now, in closing this presentation, I want to give you some quick visuals. Jess mentioned this, and these are some highlighted visuals where we took the start of our agreement, which was boats that Jim had mentioned, and we have placed a star on each vessel represented in the anchorage in That would be represented in the top left

Brad Gross: photo. … is in the bottom left photo. Then we have in the top right, and in the bottom right.

Brad Gross: this next slide I’m very excited about, because this is a representation of the anchorage last month, although things change quickly in the anchorage, especially now with only boats left. You’ll see boats represented, and that’s because this boat right here, which is in the eelgrass Protection Zone, was removed and impounded last week. So I just want to let you know that this boat here

Brad Gross: These boats, these two vessels here, are in the designated anchorage.

Brad Gross: This vessel is our safe and seaworthy participant who can stay until October th of This vessel right here is the next one to be housed, so this vessel will be removed as soon as this purse is housed. This vessel here is also in the housing program.

Brad Gross: This vessel here and this vessel here, we’re working on nuisance abatements. In fact, we have a hearing for this vessel right here next week. So we anticipate, within the next couple of months, that you will see, with the exception of this vessel here, all these vessels gone.

Brad Gross: It’s quite an accomplishment. Like I said earlier in the presentation, I consider us

Brad Gross: almost complete, but we’ll definitely make the ultimate deadline of October th, With that, I’d like to say thank you. I appreciate everybody’s time, and we’re glad to answer any questions.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Oh, I just wanted to thank, the RBRA representatives for coming today and, and presenting, and

Marie Gilmore, Chair: You guys have really come a long way, and you should be very happy and very proud of yourselves, because it… it’s, as you know, it’s not easy.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: And we really appreciate the work that you guys have put in, and it definitely shows, both in the eelgrass and in the reduction in the vessels in the anchorage.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Do committee members have any comments or questions?

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Commissioner Eisen.

Rebecca Eisen, Commissioner: I have a couple of questions, just more clarifications. I know we had the -acre goal in your slide showed, that we accomplished of those acres in and only have a half an acre left, so…

Rebecca Eisen, Commissioner: That… my… it’s not all adding up for me. So the other acres were accomplished prior to is that what…

Rebecca Eisen, Commissioner: I’m missing there.

Brad Gross: Correct. It was the previous year we did the other to break us to the total of and a half acres. And I should note that if funds are available once we hit the acres, we will keep planting until we expend all the funds. So we anticipate being well over acres in

Rebecca Eisen, Commissioner: And then, I’m very impressed with the, you know, pounds of debris

Rebecca Eisen, Commissioner: I mean, there isn’t a moment when I walk along the edge of the bay that I wonder what the heck people have thrown in there or dropped in there. Is that…

Rebecca Eisen, Commissioner: program to remove that debris replicable? Because my guess is you’ve only… you’ve only begun. I’m not that it’s your responsibility, the whole bay is probably filled with, you know, computers and plastic and all of the things you’ve found.

Rebecca Eisen, Commissioner: But is it replicable in the sense that

Rebecca Eisen, Commissioner: you know, Alameda, or somebody could take the program that you put together to remove this debris and do the same in the vicinity near them.

Brad Gross: That’s a great question, Commissioner Eisen, and thank you for it. It’s very replicable. In fact, the funds in the grant that we have now probably allow us to do another underwater cleanup, that we’re… we’ve actually applied for grant funding to do additional underwater cleanups in Richardson Bay, but I will tell you from my past experience as a retired harbormaster for years.

Brad Gross: that I have conducted

Brad Gross: twice, multiple-year underwater cleanups in the marinas that I ran. They ran about years, and just went through systematically and hit each section that we can. We have the same plan for Richardson Bay if funding allows for it, and we

Brad Gross: Also have underwater sonar, side scan sonar surveys that have been done that has identified items that are on the bottom that we want to get back to, whether they be anchors or, you know, a mystery item, but it’s all in our plan, and you will see us transition from much more of eelgrass restoration and underwater cleanups in the future.

Rebecca Eisen, Commissioner: And the debris that you pick up off the bottom of the bay, where does that end up?

Brad Gross: Well, it’s interesting. Thank you for the question, because in our grant application, we have, we’re attempting to put a partnership together with some of the local artist communities to, A, turn some of the underwater debris into art features, and then we recycle whatever’s left. You know, it just doesn’t go to the landfill, we’ll recycle whatever we can.

Brad Gross: use some for their art presentations, and whatever’s left will be properly disposed of.

Rebecca Eisen, Commissioner: Yeah, okay. And, finally, you, you mentioned the $million in housing that, or dollars that have been expended, on various efforts to house folks. This total project, and we are nearing the end of it,

Rebecca Eisen, Commissioner: So many person hours and so much, you know, just to restore the eelgrass, to pick up the debris, to work with constantly these -some folks who parked

Rebecca Eisen, Commissioner: their boats illegally out in our bay. What is the total cost of… I mean, we have a situation not really terribly unlike the last matter we considered.

Rebecca Eisen, Commissioner: Where a whole bunch of folks

Rebecca Eisen, Commissioner: Did something they should not have done.

Rebecca Eisen, Commissioner: And the public has expended an enormous amount of funds and energy and effort to clean up that mess.

Rebecca Eisen, Commissioner: Do we have a sense of what… how many dollars we’re talking about all in?

Brad Gross: But we could figure it out. I will tell you that we… our BRA runs on an annual budget of about $$million a year. The lion’s share of what we’ve been doing over the last years has been this project. You know, the $million grant that we got from the EPA, the quarter million dollars that we spent on,

Brad Gross: on vessel buybacks. Doesn’t even include the money expended, which has been anywhere between $to $a year from the, State Department of Waterways,

Brad Gross: surrendered an abandoned vessel grant to dispose of these. I could figure it out, but it’s in the millions of dollars, multi-.

Rebecca Eisen, Commissioner: What are you talking.

Brad Gross: dollars.

Rebecca Eisen, Commissioner: I can see that. And maybe as we get towards the end of this project, it would be…

Rebecca Eisen, Commissioner: I don’t want to put anybody to any more work. So much has been done already, but it might be instructive and helpful for, you know, just making sure we don’t get into this situation again, to have a sense of really what this has cost the public.

Rebecca Eisen, Commissioner: To solve this problem, because I assume these are public dollars that are being spent, not, you know, no private foundations are funding this, so…

Brad Gross: We could do that. Would you like me to.

Brad Gross: project together, report back to this commission with that, information.

Rebecca Eisen, Commissioner: Yeah, I’ll leave that to the chair and to staff, whether they think that would be beneficial. I just sort of throw the idea out for now, so…

Brad Gross: Thank you, I appreciate the question.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Yeah, I… I agree with Rebecca. I think it would be worthwhile, but I’m not…

Marie Gilmore, Chair: I’m gonna leave it to staff and the RBRA to kind of figure that out, because I definitely don’t want to add a whole lot more work to your plate, but I do feel that it would be instructive. And also, it might be good to let the public know

Marie Gilmore, Chair: how much this all costs, and how hard RBA has been working, not only to clean up the mess, but to write grants and go after public monies to help clean it up.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: commissioner Zapata, and then Isabelle.

Cesar Zepeda, he/him, Vice Mayor, Commissioner: Thank you. I just want to echo, what the comments that the chair made earlier. Great job. This is,

Cesar Zepeda, he/him, Vice Mayor, Commissioner: incredible, all the great work you guys have been doing, so thank you for that. I’m going to be looking to reach out to you, because Richmond has miles of shoreline, so I’m sure, as Commissioner Eisen mentioned, I’m sure there’s other stuff in all of our

Cesar Zepeda, he/him, Vice Mayor, Commissioner: areas that… that are buried. So seeing what we can do in other areas to replicate the great job you guys have done. And just jokingly, as you were mentioning, someone earlier about the… you remove the microwave from the water, I’m just thinking, how are the fish gonna cook their food?

Brad Gross: Pacific.

Cesar Zepeda, he/him, Vice Mayor, Commissioner: But that was just funny, so thank you, great job. Keep off the good work.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Isabel?

Temazcal: Yeah, just echoing everyone, thank you so much, and I didn’t mention it in my enforcement and compliance update, but, you know.

Temazcal: Obviously, what you’ve done here, Brad and Jim and team, is an example that we see other agencies and other cities following.

Temazcal: We have many cases where we’re dealing with ADVs and anchor outs across the Bay. I have cases right now in other parts of the Bay dealing with this issue, and often, I know several city members who’ve already reached out to both of you, I think, over the years.

Temazcal: to get some guidance. And I think we’ve heard from other harbormasters and other cities that

Temazcal: every city, every agency handles it differently. And so BCDC actually, over the past couple months, has been getting intel from

Temazcal: from agencies and people, mostly harbormasters in the Oakland, Alameda area, as well as South San Francisco, to better understand why this is an issue. A lot of the enforcement staff, again, is relatively new, but we’re seeing that this is a growing problem, and we’re actually

Temazcal: trying to work with every harbormaster in the Bay to understand what marinas can do better, and Brad and Jim, all this is to say that I’ll be reaching out to both of you, to get a better understanding of

Temazcal: Is there something that BCDC can do as a regional agency to support this?

Temazcal: Because we really do see this problem all across the Bay, and just to echo, Commissioner Eisen and Chair Gilmore, I think getting the data on how much, really, man hours, man-women hours, as well as money has been spent over the past couple years, will be very helpful as we kind of think through

Temazcal: Is there… could there be a regional program? What could this look like? Is it a task force? I know there was a task force, that was led by, I believe, the U.S. Coast Guard over the years, but I’ve heard that it’s since kind of petered off, and so we’re looking to kind of bring that back. But just wanted to throw that out there, that we are looking at a comprehensive

Temazcal: Collaborative approach, and we will be reaching out to get some insights from you.

Temazcal: Thank you.

Brad Gross: If I may, Chair Gilmore, thank Ms. Chamberlain, I appreciate that. I want to let you know that between Jim and myself, there’s about years of Harbormaster experience. I’m a -year retired Harbormaster.

Brad Gross: I would encourage you to reach out. I would encourage you not to reinvent the wheel. I’ve been at this for a long time. This program that we’ve put together with all the components works, and yes, we really could use BCDC’s assistance. I know you hear from colleagues of ours in Oakland all the time, and

Brad Gross: I have been talking to my colleagues. There is something that we do need from the state, which is legislation. I won’t bore the committee with everything yet, but I do have about two pages of recommended legislation that I’d love to have introduced and incorporated into the harbor NAV codes, which would make it much easier for harbormasters to take care of these ADVs.

Brad Gross: that come across their waters. So, thank you very much. I appreciate the, the question.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Thank you, everybody. But before we go, do we have any public comments on this item, Margie?

Marie Gilmore, Chair: No public comments, Chair Gilmore.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Okay, great. Well, does anybody else have any

Marie Gilmore, Chair: comments? Are we… okay, great.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Well, I want to thank the RBRA representatives for coming and giving such a great presentation, and once again, to commend you for all your hard work over these months and years.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: And, now we are on to the final item of our meeting, which is adjournment, and I need a motion and a second for that.

Rebecca Eisen, Commissioner: So moved.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: I need a second.

Cesar Zepeda, he/him, Vice Mayor, Commissioner: Second.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Okay, we have a motion by Commissioner Eisen, a second by Commissioner Zapata, and I’m not going to ask for a roll call. Everybody in favor of adjournment, just say aye.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Aye. Aye. Okay, nobody’s opposed, so thank you very much, everyone. Have a good rest of your day.

Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act. As a state agency, the Commission is governed by the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act which requires the Commission to: (1) publish an agenda at least ten days in advance of any meeting; and (2) describe specifically in that agenda the items to be transacted or discussed. Public notices of Commission meetings and staff reports (as applicable) dealing with matters on the meeting agendas can be found on BCDC’s website. Simply select the date of the Enforcement Meetings.

How to Provide Comments and Comment Time Limits. Pursuant to state law, the Enforcement Committee is currently conducting its public meetings in a “hybrid” fashion pursuant to Senate Bill 470 (2025).  Each meeting notice will specify (1) where the meeting is being primarily held physically, and (2) the ZOOM virtual meeting link. If you would like to comment at the beginning of the meeting or on an item scheduled for public discussion, you may do so in one of three ways: (1) being present at the primary physical meeting location; (2) emailing comments in advance to public comment, one day before the meeting; and (3) participating via ZOOM during the meeting.

If you plan to participate through ZOOM, please use your ZOOM-enabled device and click on the “raise your hand” button, and then wait to speak until called upon. If you are using a telephone to call into the meeting, select *6 to unmute your phone and you will then be able to speak. We ask that everyone use the mute button when not speaking. It is also important that you not put your phone on hold. Each speaker may be limited to a maximum of three minutes or less at the discretion of the Chair during the public comment period depending on the volume of persons intending to provide public comment. Any speakers who exceed the time limits or interfere with the meeting may be muted by the Chair. It is strongly recommended that public comments be submitted in writing so they can be distributed to all Commission members in advance of the meeting for review. You are encouraged to submit written comments of any length and detailed information to the staff prior to the meeting at the email address above, which will be distributed to the Commission members.

Questions and Staff Reports. If you have any questions concerning an item on the agenda, would like to receive notice of future hearings, or access staff reports related to the item, please contact the staff member whose name, email address and direct phone number are indicated in parenthesis at the end of the agenda item.

Campaign Contributions. State law requires Commissioners to disqualify themselves from voting on any matter if they have received a campaign contribution from an interested party within the past 12 months. If you intend to speak on any hearing item, please indicate in your testimony if you have made campaign contributions in excess of $250 to any Commissioner within the last year, and if so, to which Commissioner(s) you have contributed. Additional legal requirements govern contributions by applicants and other interested parties and establish criteria for Commissioner conflicts of interest. Please consult with the staff counsel if you have any questions about the rules that pertain to campaign contributions or conflicts of interest.

Access to Meetings. Meetings are physically held in venues that are accessible to persons with disabilities. If you require special assistance or have technical questions, please contact staff at least three days prior to the meeting via email. We will attempt to make the virtual meeting accessible via Zoom accessibility capabilities, as well.