BEGIN:VCALENDAR
VERSION:2.0
PRODID:-//SF Bay Conservation & Development - ECPv6.15.19//NONSGML v1.0//EN
CALSCALE:GREGORIAN
METHOD:PUBLISH
X-WR-CALNAME:SF Bay Conservation & Development
X-ORIGINAL-URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov
X-WR-CALDESC:Events for SF Bay Conservation & Development
REFRESH-INTERVAL;VALUE=DURATION:PT1H
X-Robots-Tag:noindex
X-PUBLISHED-TTL:PT1H
BEGIN:VTIMEZONE
TZID:UTC
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:+0000
TZOFFSETTO:+0000
TZNAME:UTC
DTSTART:20220101T000000
END:STANDARD
END:VTIMEZONE
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20240912T093000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20240912T120000
DTSTAMP:20260429T234345
CREATED:20240130T045708Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240826T204716Z
UID:10000141-1726133400-1726142400@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:September 12\, 2024 Enforcement Committee Meeting (Cancelled)
DESCRIPTION:
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/september-12-2024-enforcement-committee-meeting/
CATEGORIES:Enforcement Committee
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20240828T093000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20240828T120000
DTSTAMP:20260429T234345
CREATED:20240130T045537Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240903T213227Z
UID:10000140-1724837400-1724846400@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:August 28\, 2024 Enforcement Committee Meeting
DESCRIPTION:This Enforcement meeting will be conducted in a hybrid format in accordance with SB 544 (2023). To maximize public safety while maintaining transparency and public access\, members of the public can choose to participate either virtually via Zoom\, by phone\, or in person at the location listed below. \nPhysical attendanceMetro Center\, Board Room375 Beale StreetSan Francisco\, 415-352-3600 \nIf you have issues joining the meeting using the link\, please enter the Meeting ID and Password listed below into the ZOOM app to join the meeting. \nJoin the meeting via ZOOM \nhttps://bcdc-ca-gov.zoom.us/j/87554121048?pwd=bvHFxjj4knVLKlA7B7kRa96trp8IBI.1 \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers1 (816) 423-4282Conference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID 875 5412 1048 \nPasscode439578 \nIf you call in by telephone: \nPress *6 to unmute or mute yourselfPress *9 to raise your hand or lower your hand to speak  \n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Agenda\n				\nCall to Order\nRoll Call\nPublic Comment.The Committee will hear public comments on matters that are not on the agenda. Public comment letter\nApproval of Draft Minutes from the April 24\, 2024 Enforcement Committee meeting\nEnforcement Report. Staff will update the committee on the current status of the enforcement program’s activities.(Matthew Trujillo) [415/352-3633; matthew.trujillo@bcdc.ca.gov]\nBriefing on Oakland Alameda Estuary and Encampment Issue. The Enforcement Committee will receive a briefing on actions taken to address abandoned and derelict vessels and anchor-outs in the Oakland-Alameda Estuary by BCDC staff and the Cities of Oakland and Alameda.(John Creech) [415/352-3619; john.creech@bcdc.ca.gov]Public comment\nBriefing on Richardson Bay Regional Agency Settlement Agreement. The Enforcement Committee will receive a briefing on actions taken by Richardson Bay Regional Agency (RBRA) to meet deadlines outlined in the BCDC-RBRA Settlement Agreement.\n(John Creech) [415/352-3619; john.creech@bcdc.ca.gov]\n\nBriefing on Implementation of BCDC’s Compliance Program. The Enforcement Committee will receive a briefing on implementation of BCDC’s Compliance Unit\, including briefing on ways in which this unit has returned out of compliant permittees to compliance.\n(Tony Daysog and John Creech) [415/352-3622 and 415/352-3619; john.creech@bcdc.ca.gov and anthony.daysog@bcdc.ca.gov]Presentation \n\nAdjournment\n\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Meeting recording & transcript\n				Meeting recording\n \nTranscript \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: And I am. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and I am the chair of this committee \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: for Commissioners\, including those attending at Heale Street. Please ensure that your video cameras are always on\, and please mute yourselves when you are not speaking. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: The 1st order of business is to call the role Matthew. Please call the role\, and commissioners\, please unmute yourselves while he does this\, to respond\, and then mute yourselves. After responding. \nMatthew Trujillo: Commissioner\, Belan. \nLetty Belin\, Commissioner: Here. \nMatthew Trujillo: Commissioner\, Eisen. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: Here. \nMatthew Trujillo: Commissioner Vasquez. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: Here. \nMatthew Trujillo: Chair\, Gilmore. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Here \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: we have a quorum present\, and are duly constituted to conduct business. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: That brings us to item 3 on our agenda\, which is public comment \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: 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. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and as of now\, we’ve received no public comments. Margie\, in advance of the meeting. \nBoardroom SX80: We did receive one general comment this morning. \nBoardroom SX80: and \nBoardroom SX80: it will be posted on our website. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Great. Thank you \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: for members of the public attending online. If you would like to speak \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: either during the public during the general public comment period\, or during the public comment period for an item on the agenda. 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. If you click on that palm\, icon\, it will raise your hand. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: or if you are joining this meeting by phone\, you must Dial Star 9 to raise your hand. Then Dial Star 6 on your keypad to unmute your phone. When the host asks you in order to make comment. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: the meeting host will call on individuals who have raised their hands in the order that they were raised. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: After you are called upon\, you will be unmuted\, so that you can share your comments. Please announce yourself by 1st and last name for the record before making your comment \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: for members of the public attending in person. Please queue up at the speakers podium\, and wait to be called upon to speak. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Commenters are limited to 3 min to speak. Please keep your comments respectful and focused. We’re here to listen to any individual who requests to speak\, but each speaker has the responsibility to act in a civil and courteous manner. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: as determined by the chair. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: We will not tolerate hate\, speech\, direct threats\, indirect threats\, or abusive language. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: We will mute anyone who fails to follow these guidelines. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Margie\, do we have any speakers. \nBoardroom SX80: Chair. Gilmore\, Commissioner Ranchott has joined us. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Good morning\, and welcome. \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: Morning. Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: And we do not have a public comment. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: And nobody at any of the remote locations. \nBoardroom SX80: We do not. We have no public attendees in person. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, thank you. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay. So then\, that means we are on to item number 4\, which is approval of the draft minutes for the last meeting. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: We’ve all been furnished. Draft me \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: draft minutes from our last meeting committee members. I would appreciate a motion and a second to approve these. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: So moved. \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: Second. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, Commissioner Eisen moves\, seconded by Commissioner Ranshot. If anybody objects\, please raise your hand. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: I see no raised hands. The meeting minutes are approved. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: on to Item 5\, which is the Enforcement Report \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Enforcement program manager\, Matthew Trujillo will now update the Committee on the current status of the Enforcement programs. Activities. Matthew. \nMatthew Trujillo: Thank you. Good morning to the Commissioners and to all members of the public in attendance. Thank you for being here today. I have only 2 items to report out on today. The first\, st as usual\, is an update on our Caseload \nMatthew Trujillo: since this committee’s last meeting on April 24\, th \nMatthew Trujillo: we have opened 13 new cases. We’ve closed 23 new cases. I’m sorry we’ve closed 23 cases\, and the total number of cases in the queue\, as of this morning\, is 63. \nMatthew Trujillo: This represents a \nMatthew Trujillo: Well\, I would call it a new low\, except in June. We did get it down to the low fifties. \nMatthew Trujillo: but we’re making progress. That’s the great thing to report. \nMatthew Trujillo: The second item is on staffing. So \nMatthew Trujillo: between May 1st and August 1st \nMatthew Trujillo: I will report that the program was became critically understaffed. We had 3 vacancies\, 2 analysts\, and an Enforcement attorney vacancy\, and on May 1st Adrienne Klein took an extended personal leave\, and she’s expected to continue to be out until early October. At this point \nMatthew Trujillo: on August first\, st however\, we had 2 new Enforcement analysts that started \nMatthew Trujillo: Anne Usher and Isabel Chamberlain \nMatthew Trujillo: and our new Enforcement attorney\, Bella Castradial\, who’s here today with us\, has joined the team as well. So we are now fully staffed\, and in addition to a full complement of staff\, I brought on 2 interns\, Monica\, Opiano\, and Eric Miller. \nMatthew Trujillo: who are here to help us with some program development and modernization projects that have been in the works for some time and in exchange for their help. We are providing a training work experience and an opportunity to network. \nMatthew Trujillo: So\, thanks to the new personnel\, I’m happy to report that August has been a very productive month. Everyone is adjusting well\, and everyone is doing a very fine job\, and I’m gratified to report this in my conclusion. \nMatthew Trujillo: And I will be glad to take any of your questions at this time. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you\, Matthew. I I just have to comment on the fact that you guys have been incredibly productive\, especially during a period where\, as you pointed out\, you were critically low in staff\, and you still manage to keep the \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: the the queue\, I guess I would call it gratifyingly low. So congratulations to you. And your staff. Anybody else. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Rebecca. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: Thank you\, Matthew. A couple of quick questions are\, do you still have any vacancies that you’re trying to fill? And what is the total number of the Enforcement staff. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: Now that you’ve filled a lot of those vacancies. \nMatthew Trujillo: So. No\, we don’t have any any further vacancies at this time. The total number of staff in terms of positions are 3 analysts. Then you have the myself\, the Enforcement program manager\, and then \nMatthew Trujillo: we consider part of the team. Of course\, Margie and the enforcement attorney\, Bella. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: Okay. Great thanks. Matthew. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Anyone else. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, thank you very much\, Matthew. And once again congratulations to the team. \nMatthew Trujillo: Thank you. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay. Item 6 is a briefing on the Alameda Oakland estuary anchor out and derelict vessel issues. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So this committee will now receive a briefing on actions to taken to address abandoned and derelict vessels and anchor outs in the Oakland\, Alameda\, Oakland estuary by Ecdc. Staff and the cities of Alameda and Oakland. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: This committee may consider whether the cities are taking sufficient action to address these issues \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and may provide further direction to staff after deliberation on this matter. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, so I’m going to now invite John preach of our compliance unit to kick things off. John. \nBoardroom SX80: Good morning\, Commissioners. \nBoardroom SX80: My name is John Creech. I’m on BCC’s compliance team. I’m here today to introduce\, item 6\, a briefing on the Oakland\, Alameda estuary. We will then hear from representatives from the cities of Alameda and Oakland\, on the status of the estuary\, and the work that they have done to clean up the estuary\, the shoreline band\, and their plans for preventing \nBoardroom SX80: further issues. \nBoardroom SX80: So the issues of shoreline encampments abandoned and derelict vessels or advs\, and anchor outs in and around the Oakland Alameda estuary in Alameda County\, was introduced at the February 23\, 2\,022 Enforcement Committee meeting \nBoardroom SX80: at that meeting\, Bcdc. And Cities agreed to continue to collaborate and regularly return to provide progress reports to the Enforcement Committee \nBoardroom SX80: to see if an agreeable resolution could be reached without initiating formal enforcement proceedings. \nBoardroom SX80: This collective issue was brought back to the Committee on February 20\, second\, 2\,023\, \nBoardroom SX80: where the committee suggested that Bcdc’s newly formed compliance team continue to work with cities to address the issue. \nBoardroom SX80: Bcdc. Staff have been hosting monthly check-in meetings with representatives from the cities of Oakland and Alameda. \nBoardroom SX80: The port of Oakland\, East Bay\, regional parks\, and others. \nBoardroom SX80: These meetings have been very beneficial to facilitate productive conversations\, and to keep that this issue at the forefront of people’s minds. \nBoardroom SX80: The committee last heard from the cities of Alameda and Oakland at the April 24\, th 2\,024 Enforcement Committee meeting \nBoardroom SX80: at the Enforcement Committee. Briefing in January of this year\, we learned that the estuary was successfully cleaned up of illegal vessels and anchor outs. Officer Kaleo Albino\, of Oakland’s Police Department\, briefed the Committee on the Task force that he assembled\, which resulted in over 400 h of Water patrol conducted a successful arrest made in response to illegal activity performed by anchor outs and 25 vessels being abated from the estuary. \nBoardroom SX80: The photo on the screen shows some abated boats that were piled in Jack London aquatic center parking lot\, where they were later loaded onto dump trucks and removed from Bcdc’s jurisdiction. \nBoardroom SX80: Moving forward Bcdc. Staff and city staff are committed to continue to regularly check in and monitor the status of the estuary. To ensure it remains cleaned up and free of illegal vessels and anch routes. Bcdc. Staff is pleased with the progress and collaboration Oakland and Alameda and other agencies have demonstrated over these years to work towards getting the estuary where it is today. \nBoardroom SX80: we realize that the job is not complete\, but we are happy with the partnership\, dedication\, and the progress. The cities continue to demonstrate. To resolve these complex issues. \nBoardroom SX80: It is important to pro that prevention remain a point of focus for everyone. \nBoardroom SX80: We look forward to hearing regular updates on how \nBoardroom SX80: they are keeping the estuary and the shoreline ban clean\, and ensuring that the cities are devoting the necessary resources to the shoreline and the estuary. \nBoardroom SX80: I will now introduce Jota vries of Oakland\, and Officer Colio Albino\, of Oakland Police Department\, and \nBoardroom SX80: a few others. Looks like we have a lot of people here today which is great. \nBoardroom SX80: Mr. Devries\, would you like us to promote? \nBoardroom SX80: Who else. \nBoardroom SX80: Jordan. \nJoe DeVries City of Oakland: I think we’re fine for now. Yeah. \nJoe DeVries City of Oakland: I think for the estuary anchor. I’ll update that. So good morning. Sorry. Deputy city Administrator. Joe Devries\, City of Oakland. Good to see you all again. Chair Gilmore\, and the team. \nJoe DeVries City of Oakland: Yeah\, very\, very happy to to report out I’m gonna just give a high level about some of the the future things that we’re looking forward to potentially in the fall\, and then I’ll I’ll turn it over to Officer Albino\, who can talk about more hands on some of the recent work that’s been done even since the last report. Because I think it’s all really good news. \nJoe DeVries City of Oakland: So on a high level\, you know. Again\, the the department has been using save Grant dollars and has continued to pursue boats. \nJoe DeVries City of Oakland: and I’ll leave that to Officer Albino. John preach mentioned the the need for prevention. We are waiting anxiously to find out. We’ve been told that the announcement will be made as to whether or not we were successful in getting a noaa marine debris removal\, grant\, I believe. September 5\, th and so I I wish I could have found out before this meeting. \nJoe DeVries City of Oakland: But certainly we we will find out if we’re successful in securing this grant. It will allow us to remove approximately 16 sunken vessels from the estuary which have been on the floor for a long time. But they’ll also allow us to perform about 4 annual major cleanups \nJoe DeVries City of Oakland: in partnership with I heart Oakland Alameda estuary\, the nonprofit that does the kayak cleanups on the estuary. What? What’s exciting about those cleanups in the way they do them? And if any of you participated\, they’re getting out to places on the estuary that that we can’t typically get to from land. They also engage a lot of Oaklanders\, especially from our frontline communities \nJoe DeVries City of Oakland: to get them out there volunteering. So they’re teaching young people about the importance of water quality and and the importance of of protecting our waterways. So it it has both a long term preventive beneficial effect\, as well as a short term\, immediate cleanup. Another portion of the grant that that we wrote in 2 portions. One is a proactive boat. Buy back program that we will model after other programs. We’ve looked at around the state. \nJoe DeVries City of Oakland: the the and we will have an outreach component\, so that we can have a team doing outreach at the Marinas to to grab boats that owners may not want anymore before they turn around and sell them to someone who doesn’t understand the regulations and the and the responsibility of owning a boat. And so we are hopeful that this buyback would be successful in helping us again in a preventive way\, getting boats out of the water before they become the the problems that we’ve seen in the past. \nJoe DeVries City of Oakland: The other part of it is to do some public education on prevention along the estuary\, through signage\, through outreach at the Marinas just to remind people of the importance of not you know\, impacting the the marine the estuary with marine debris. So \nJoe DeVries City of Oakland: it’s a very comprehensive grant proposal. We feel that it’s very competitive and we’ll know in about a week. And of course we’ll share that with our Vcdc team. So that’s that’s looking forward\, and I’m I’m really excited. If we get it to to do that as far as the current work removing boats\, I’m going to turn it over to off Officer Albino\, because I think his team has been doing a phenomenal job\, and I’ll let him share. \nJoe DeVries City of Oakland: Thank you. \nOfc. Kaleo Albino OPD: Hey? Good morning\, everyone. \nOfc. Kaleo Albino OPD: Recently\, in the past couple of months\, we were able to utilize our save Grant from our grant from 2023\, \nOfc. Kaleo Albino OPD: and we expended about 95% of that recently removing about 17 boats at the beginning of July. \nOfc. Kaleo Albino OPD: What I really liked about this last cleanup is that we stopped using the Jack London aquatic center parking lot \nOfc. Kaleo Albino OPD: as kind of a crushing site and then loading \nOfc. Kaleo Albino OPD: that crushed debris into transfer trucks\, and then transferring them over the road \nOfc. Kaleo Albino OPD: through Oakland. \nOfc. Kaleo Albino OPD: where we partnered with Lynn marine this time\, and they brought in a large barge\, a crane and heavy equipment. \nOfc. Kaleo Albino OPD: and they were able to pick up the boats directly out of the water \nOfc. Kaleo Albino OPD: where me and my team would go out into the these 17 boats came out of Belmar\, Marina specifically on the Oakland side. \nOfc. Kaleo Albino OPD: And these were boats that have been. The tenants have walked away from\, or they stopped paying rent\, and the owners of the \nOfc. Kaleo Albino OPD: marina were able to lean\, hold these boats. \nOfc. Kaleo Albino OPD: and these were all identified \nOfc. Kaleo Albino OPD: prior to the clean up\, and we also put our own 30 day boasting on them just in case. \nOfc. Kaleo Albino OPD: There was some ownership questions there. \nOfc. Kaleo Albino OPD: but we were able to go in with me\, and my team pulled these boats out of their slips in the Amar Marinas \nOfc. Kaleo Albino OPD: towed them over to the barge\, where a large crane was able to lift them right out of the water and place them in the barge \nOfc. Kaleo Albino OPD: and sailed out of the estuary over to Mare Island\, near Vallejo. \nOfc. Kaleo Albino OPD: where they were crushed inside of the barge and disposed of in a lot \nOfc. Kaleo Albino OPD: cleaner way than we have in the past. So I’m \nOfc. Kaleo Albino OPD: hoping that we can continue our partnership with Lin Marine and move forward. With that \nOfc. Kaleo Albino OPD: I think those 17 boats that we pulled out brought our total number up\, since \nOfc. Kaleo Albino OPD: kind of those start \nOfc. Kaleo Albino OPD: of my relationship with Bcdc. Close to 50 to 55 vessels that we’ve either abated. They’ve left on their own. \nOfc. Kaleo Albino OPD: or we have physically removed and destroyed \nOfc. Kaleo Albino OPD: as far as future planning goes. Back in April. And May I applied for a quarter 1 million dollar grant through the State. Another saved grant. Essentially \nOfc. Kaleo Albino OPD: that we’re still waiting to hear back from. And hopefully\, then \nOfc. Kaleo Albino OPD: we get awarded all or some of that amount\, and we can continue. \nOfc. Kaleo Albino OPD: There was about 25 more vessels inside of the marinas \nOfc. Kaleo Albino OPD: kind of the same deal where tenants have walked away from \nOfc. Kaleo Albino OPD: the marina. Owners have lean hold of those boats\, and they’re just sitting there \nOfc. Kaleo Albino OPD: rotting away\, in a sense\, inside of the marinas taking up a slip. \nOfc. Kaleo Albino OPD: and my goal is to get at least get rid of all those \nOfc. Kaleo Albino OPD: vessels that are just sitting there\, so they don’t become an anchor out. \nOfc. Kaleo Albino OPD: And that leads me into our anchor out problem. That always \nOfc. Kaleo Albino OPD: seems to be there. \nOfc. Kaleo Albino OPD: and we have last. I counted 2 days ago. We have 8 vessels now \nOfc. Kaleo Albino OPD: that I’m working on abating those as well. \nOfc. Kaleo Albino OPD: I’m being very patient with them and trying to come up with a plan for them to leave on their own. \nOfc. Kaleo Albino OPD: That \nOfc. Kaleo Albino OPD: doesn’t seem likely\, with some that some of them \nOfc. Kaleo Albino OPD: there’s about 3 that do seem like they will take alternative housing\, or they will seek an a different location to take their vessels to. I’m optimistic about that\, and I’m hoping to have no anchor outs in the estuary by November first.st \nOfc. Kaleo Albino OPD: That’s kind of the date that I set on myself\, and I’m hoping I can be successful with them. \nOfc. Kaleo Albino OPD: I think that’s it for my update on the estuary. \nOfc. Kaleo Albino OPD: and thank you\, Joe\, for covering the large scale of everything. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: before we move on to the city of Alameda. I wanna give an opportunity \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: for commissioners to ask questions. But 1st I want to say thank you very much. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: to the city of Oakland representatives for coming here\, and thank you for the partnership that we’ve had with Bcdc. Over the last several years. I did have a question for Officer Albino\, I think\, in one of our prior updates. One of the issues you had was staffing \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: you were trying to get more officers on the boat on the water\, and there was some \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: question as to whether or not the funding would be available in the city’s budget. Can you give us an update on that. \nOfc. Kaleo Albino OPD: I don’t have a specific update where we’re at with adding additional staff. Now\, I did have 3 officers assigned with me for 180 days. \nOfc. Kaleo Albino OPD: and I can tell you that made a tremendous difference in the amount of work and the speed of work that I was able \nOfc. Kaleo Albino OPD: to conduct \nOfc. Kaleo Albino OPD: Our department right now is going through some tough times\, and I’m still hoping \nOfc. Kaleo Albino OPD: to at least get some additional officers on a future loan\, and I’m trying to time those loans around \nOfc. Kaleo Albino OPD: the Grant approval process. And by the time the grant I’m actually able to spend that money is when I would like to \nOfc. Kaleo Albino OPD: essentially start those loans. So once I’m ready to actually go out in the estuary and do work with the money that’s ready there\, I think that will be \nOfc. Kaleo Albino OPD: The best way to go about things\, for now\, until additional staffing can be \nOfc. Kaleo Albino OPD: can be brought forth. I would \nOfc. Kaleo Albino OPD: love any help that anyone’s able to \nOfc. Kaleo Albino OPD: talk to their friends. Talk to my chain of command as well. I I would appreciate that. But \nOfc. Kaleo Albino OPD: right now\, where I think we’re doing some good work with \nOfc. Kaleo Albino OPD: with what we have going on for. Now. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, well\, thank you for clarifying that I appreciate it. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Any other committee members? Have any questions for the city of Oakland representatives. Oh\, I saw a hand! Where did it go? \nJoe DeVries City of Oakland: I I just but chair\, Gilmore. I just wanted to point out that \nJoe DeVries City of Oakland: for that Noaa Grant. We did write cost of overtime shifts into it for Opd explicitly to see that Officer Albino would have that support. So if we are successful because we recognize that these shifts get filled often with with volunteer overtime slots\, the department staffing is is challenged\, and and those overtime slots can be hard to fill. But certainly\, if if we are successful\, there will be funding so that that eases the burden on the city a bit. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you. Anybody else. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: Marie\, this is John. I just want to say thank you to the city of Oakland. This has been a long. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: difficult task\, and they have stayed \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: in the game\, and \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: the results are showing. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: I. \nLetty Belin\, Commissioner: I I was thinking exactly the same. This is more encouraging than earlier times that I’ve seen. So thank you very much. It’s great. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Once once again\, thanks again to the city of Oakland\, and all your efforts. For the estuary\, and on everybody’s behalf. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So now I think we’re gonna move on to the city of Alameda. \nAPD T. Siebert: Good morning. It’s Tyson Siever\, with the city of Alameda police department. \nAPD T. Siebert: So currently\, as for an update for us\, we just recently closed out our save 22 grant. \nAPD T. Siebert: and we close that grant out by spending $56\,000 removing 4 sunken vessels that were along our south rock wall along the beachfront there. \nAPD T. Siebert: So we close that grunt out by removing those 4 sunken vessels. \nAPD T. Siebert: We are starting on our save 23 grant right now. Which we’ve been awarded $200\,000 within that grant. And we’re currently working just like Officer Albino\, currently working with our Marinas to remove the derelict vessels out of the Marinas\, so they don’t become anchor outs so far in our save 23 Grant. We’ve removed 4 vessels for the Fortman\, Marina\, Oakland\, Marina\, and the Marina village yacht harbor. \nAPD T. Siebert: Currently right now along our side of the estuary\, as of our last patrol date\, which was last weekend there were 0 anchor outs on our side that that we recognized. \nAPD T. Siebert: We have \nAPD T. Siebert: one vessel that’s illegally docked at our Grand Street\, Marina\, and that was a derelict vessel that got sold by the Grand Street\, Marina. \nAPD T. Siebert: And then he’s anchored out there at the public dock. So that’s the the one problem that we are dealing with right now\, as far as yes\, where is concerned. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Do we have? \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank thank you for your update. Do we have any questions for the city of Alameda? \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: I don’t see any hands. I would just like to say Thank you both to both cities for the time and effort. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and not inconsiderable expense\, that has gone into cleaning up the estuary and \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: I I know it matters to all of us who go out and do recreation on the estuary\, and I also want to point out. I believe we had some rowers from the estuary who did very well in the summer. Olympics. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: I I think that’s just sort of a nice bow on top of everybody’s efforts. So you know\, I think if we ever get discouraged\, we can just think about that that team\, and and probably the difference that this made in you know\, their training efforts. As sort of an inspiration to to keep going. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: any other comments. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, well\, thank you very much\, everybody\, and keep up the good work. \nJoe DeVries City of Oakland: I just wanted to point out. I’m sorry to interrupt\, but you do have a hand raised from the Coast Guard in the chat in the attendee column. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Oh\, I’m sorry I can’t see that. So public! I forgot about public comment. Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: Alright. We have one hand raised rebecca Leesburg. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: Hi! Good morning\, rebecca Schwartz\, Lasberg. Health policy solutions. Wanted to give you guys a lot of kudos for the hard work out there and improving conditions in the Oakland estuary. I know it’s not an easy task. I have 2 questions. I know that sometimes ability into questions during public comment is limited. I will throw them out there if you’d like to answer them. That would be great. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: My 1st question is\, I know it’s a little bit hard to quantify. Because boats are in a state of flux. Some are sunken\, some are at docks\, some are anchored out\, but and my apologies if I missed it. Do you have a general \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: sense of how many boats were out there\, and how many have been removed\, and how many are left. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: And again my apologies. If I missed that that number. And then my second question is. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: as you look towards opportunities for a vessel buyback program. Are you thinking something similar to what our Bra has been doing? Richardson Bay and do you have? I mean\, they they have their own ways that we’ve been working to fund that both through internal agency dollars. Looking at Grant funds. How are you guys thinking about trying to fund something like that. So those are my 2 questions. Thank you so much for all of your hard work. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you very much. Do we have any other public comments? \nBoardroom SX80: that’s all we have. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay? I I think. \nBoardroom SX80: Oh\, sorry. We have Brock de lab. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay. \nBoardroom SX80: Hello! \nBrock de Lappe: Good morning\, Commissioners. I just want to reiterate what Officer Albino said about the use of Lind Marine for doing the July 1st Cleanup. \nBrock de Lappe: where they brought a large barge with a crane into the estuary. \nBrock de Lappe: and abandoned boats from Marinas were loaded onto the barge\, and they were taken up to the Lind shipyard at Mare Island for disposal. \nBrock de Lappe: This is \nBrock de Lappe: the ideal way of doing this work. It’s clean \nBrock de Lappe: doesn’t require any crushing of boats\, and the \nBrock de Lappe: in the Jlak parking lot. \nBrock de Lappe: and it gets rid of a lot of boats very quickly. \nBrock de Lappe: I just want to commend both \nBrock de Lappe: Oakland and Alameda for being proactive about removing abandoned boats from Marinas. \nBrock de Lappe: When people get tired of their boats and don’t want to make any effort to sell them \nBrock de Lappe: they just walk away from their boat\, and it’s left in the slip. The Marina has to go through a lengthy \nBrock de Lappe: Dmv. Lean process. The boat is eventually taken through a lean sale. Nobody shows up for that. It then becomes the property of the marina. \nBrock de Lappe: There’s no insurance on the boat. If it sinks in the slip \nBrock de Lappe: that becomes the Marina’s expense. \nBrock de Lappe: So \nBrock de Lappe: this is exactly what the Save Grant money is is earmarked for is to deal with people that just can’t afford to responsibly get rid of their boats\, and what we don’t want to do is for harbor masters to sell these boats for 50 bucks\, and say\, I don’t care what you do with it. Just get it out of my marina\, because that feeds the anchor out problem. \nBrock de Lappe: So by addressing this\, by removing these abandoned boats from Marinas. It prevents there being a source feeding the anchor outs. So \nBrock de Lappe: having been involved in the estuary for well over a decade\, I just want to say it’s cleaner and better than it’s ever been\, and while there’s still a few anchor outs on the Oakland side\, I’m sure that when Officer Albino gets the necessary funding to proceed. \nBrock de Lappe: He will. \nBrock de Lappe: and very soon we will have a completely cleared estuary. So thank you\, everybody for all the effort. It’s really it’s made a tremendous difference. Thank you. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you. Thank. \nBoardroom SX80: Hey\, Brock. \nBoardroom SX80: that’s all we have to go. Well\, actually\, Commissioner Vasquez would like to speak. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: Did Brock? Did you leave? \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: No\, I mean. \nBrock de Lappe: Here. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: You know you over the years you’ve talked about the that whole process of doing the lean sale and the difficulty in that. And then the fact that somebody can pick up a boat for 50 bucks afterwards. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: You’ve given it a lot of thought. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: Is is it a \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: A legislative issue that we have to work with\, because I’ve heard this for decades. This issue of you know\, the \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: get trying to get rid of the boats trying to sell the boats off and somebody buying them. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: If we know the problem\, why isn’t somebody come up with a solution? And I I’m asking you because you’re in the industry. You certainly have spoken many times\, and have always brought to our attention these these issues. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: any ideas. \nBrock de Lappe: Well\, it’s John. It’s an end of life matter. \nBrock de Lappe: Unfortunately\, we all face that. \nBrock de Lappe: and so do boats. \nBrock de Lappe: and the State doesn’t really have \nBrock de Lappe: any kind of a regional program set up to deal with that? \nBrock de Lappe: there has been talk about adding \nBrock de Lappe: a fee to annual registration \nBrock de Lappe: that could fund \nBrock de Lappe: regional recycling facilities. And that’s ideally what I think should happen. \nBrock de Lappe: But you know what people feel like about anybody raising their taxes. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: Oh\, yeah. \nBrock de Lappe: It’s not very popular. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: No. \nBrock de Lappe: But you know you can pay me now\, or you can pay me later. \nBrock de Lappe: And \nBrock de Lappe: those boats that sank off of the rock wall \nBrock de Lappe: on the the south west end of Alameda. \nBrock de Lappe: That was a very expensive recovery. \nBrock de Lappe: as will the recovery of the sunken boats that are still in the estuary. \nBrock de Lappe: Those are going to be much more difficult to deal with than the ones that they’re taking out of the marinas\, the ones that are in the marinas. \nBrock de Lappe: That was an extremely efficient day. I was \nBrock de Lappe: allowed to participate and and photograph \nBrock de Lappe: the operation. \nBrock de Lappe: and the boats were \nBrock de Lappe: removed from the marina. They were towed out to the barge. The crane on the barge lifted the boats up onto the barge. They were all neatly stacked up on the barge\, and by one o’clock in the afternoon that barge was on its way back up to Vallejo. \nBrock de Lappe: That will not be the case with these sunken boats. This is going to be \nBrock de Lappe: a much more \nBrock de Lappe: detailed and and lengthy operation\, so the sooner we can get to the boats that have been abandoned\, the less expensive it is. \nBrock de Lappe: And again\, that’s why I’m absolutely commanding both Alameda \nBrock de Lappe: and Oakland for using their save money to get these boats out of the Marinas\, because the Marinas simply don’t have \nBrock de Lappe: the funds to pay for people’s \nBrock de Lappe: abandoned boats. It’s it’s between a hundred $5\,200 a foot minimum. \nBrock de Lappe: So if you’ve got a 30 foot boat \nBrock de Lappe: you’re looking at\, you know. \nBrock de Lappe: 4\,000 $506\,000 to get rid of the boat. \nBrock de Lappe: and it’s far more than it’s\, you know\, than it’s worth. It’s not worth anything at that point. \nBrock de Lappe: So we do have a big problem with disposal of these end of life vessels\, and it’s not going to get any better. \nBrock de Lappe: I mean\, every every day\, every boats are getting older. \nBrock de Lappe: And here’s the other problem that I see\, and that is is that \nBrock de Lappe: living in the Bay Area \nBrock de Lappe: is tremendously expensive. \nBrock de Lappe: Generations coming up \nBrock de Lappe: are struggling to \nBrock de Lappe: make rent and simply live in the Bay Area. \nBrock de Lappe: They don’t have the the discretionary money for a recreational boating. \nBrock de Lappe: and so that depresses the market\, it reduces that recreational activity. \nBrock de Lappe: And \nBrock de Lappe: it’s just going to lead to more boats being abandoned. \nBrock de Lappe: and the best we can do is what’s being done right now. \nBrock de Lappe: which is using save grant money using noaa funding \nBrock de Lappe: whatever we can get \nBrock de Lappe: to stay on top of what will be an ongoing problem\, and \nBrock de Lappe: and unless the State \nBrock de Lappe: add some kind of fee to annual registration\, I don’t see any hope of anything changing. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: Thank you\, Brock. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: Thank you\, Marie\, for letting me ask that question. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Grace. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: No\, it’s so\, I said\, on the Delta Protection Commission\, also on the same issue\, is going on the Delta. We just had a presentation last month. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: about the average age of the boats in California is 35 years old. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: So\, to Brock’s point\, they\, they are reaching the Asia. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: The end of their life. And they’re having more and more these kinds of issues\, and less and less people are recreating on boats. So less boats are being sold. So even trying to put a fee on new boats\, it’s not really going to solve the problem. We’re just. We’re coming up with \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: lots of old boats that people no longer want or can afford to keep. So they’re either going to be in the Delta or in the bay. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: Thank you. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Any other Commissioner comments. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, I’m gonna close the public hearing. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: No other Commissioner comments. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So we are going to move on. Thank you\, everybody. It is a really tough issue\, but \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: I do feel like the cities of Alameda and Oakland are making some real progress here. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: but like with everything else\, we sort of have to keep at it\, and be somewhat patient\, and hope that \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: you know the funding stream continues to be there. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: item number 7. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: It’s a progress report on the compliance with the Richardson’s Bay Regional Agency and BC. DC. Settlement agreement. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So the committee will now receive a briefing from the compliance staff and rbra staff on the current status of Rbra’s compliance with the terms and conditions of the settlement agreement that went into effect. In August 2021\, \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and the main objectives of the settlement agreement are to enforce compliance with the Richardson stay special area plan \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: to ensure the removal of anchored out vessels from Richardson’s Bay to restore damaged eelgrass beds in the bay\, and to establish a long term protection and management plan for the eelgrass habitats. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and I’m now going to invite John preach of our compliance unit to deliver his presentation. \nBoardroom SX80: Good morning again John Creech here from Bcdc’s compliance team\, I’d like to introduce item 7\, a briefing on the status of the settlement agreement between Bcdc. And Richardson Bay Regional Agency or the Rbra. \nBoardroom SX80: We will then hear from representatives from the Rbra regarding the progress they have made towards compliance with the agreement and eelgrass restoration. \nBoardroom SX80: Enforcement case er 2010\, 0 3\, 8 was opened on August 31\, st 2\,010\, in response to allegedly 220 anchor outs\, living illegally on the anchorage in Richardson Bay\, in Marin County. \nBoardroom SX80: in 2\,012\, a census was conducted\, and determined that 165 individuals were living on the anchorage. \nBoardroom SX80: This Enforcement case was settled on September 8\, th 2\,021 has been amended twice\, allowing Rbra a couple of time extensions to meet deadlines as authorized under Section 12 of the agreement \nBoardroom SX80: our Bra. Agreed to develop and submitted their ten-year adaptive management plan for eelgrass restoration by the December 15\, th 2\,023 deadline. \nBoardroom SX80: and we will hear more about that from Rbras \nBoardroom SX80: representatives. After this introduction \nBoardroom SX80: per the terms of this agreement. By no later than October 15\, th 2\,026\, all occupied vessels. Their ground tackle\, and their moorings are to be removed from the anchorage. \nBoardroom SX80: Section 15. Of the agreement has certain reporting requirements that Rbra continues to successfully meet \nBoardroom SX80: each month. Our Bra. Submits to Bcdc. A comprehensive report which indicates how much progress they have made towards reaching compliance with the settlement agreement. \nBoardroom SX80: Bcdc. Staff also meets virtually with Rbra each month to ensure we keep an open line of communication. \nBoardroom SX80: These reports\, are to include the following metrics. \nBoardroom SX80: vessel metrics\, eelgrass metrics\, housing metrics\, governance metrics just to name a few. This section of the agreement also stipulates that Rbra brief Bcdc’s Enforcement Committee each quarter on their progress\, and here they are today to meet that requirement. \nBoardroom SX80: Rbra will report on the following metrics in their report\, the number of vessels that remain on the anchorage\, the number of vessels that remain in the Eelgrush Protection Zone. The number of active enforcement cases involving vessels on the anchorage number of vessels in the safe and seaworthy program \nBoardroom SX80: number of vessels successfully removed through the vessel buyback program. \nBoardroom SX80: their housing\, success metrics and yieldgrass success metrics. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you very much. I would now like to introduce Brad Gross. He’s the executive director of the Richardson Bay Regional Agency\, James Malcolm. He’s harbour master at Rbra and Rebecca Schwartz Lesberg. She is President of the Coastal policy solutions. \nBrad Gross: Thank you\, John. This is Brad Gross. Good morning\, chair. Gilmore. Commissioners Brad\, Gross\, executive director from Rbra. Am I able to share my screen so I can give you a the Powerpoint presentation that we’ve prepared for today. \nBoardroom SX80: That shouldn’t be a problem. Brad\, can you see this share screen button. \nBrad Gross: Got it. Yeah. \nBrad Gross: thank you for your patience. Everybody this is Brad\, Gross\, executive director. Rbra\, with me today I have Jim Malcolm\, our harbor master\, and Rebecca Schwartz Lesberg with our Rbra Hill grass expert and the President of Coastal policy solutions. It’s good to see everybody again today. The last time we were before this committee was in December. \nBrad Gross: We’re going to update you on the activities since that time\, and we’ll be ready to answer any questions you have at the conclusion of the presentation\, or\, if there are any questions you know\, feel free to jump in at any time to ask a question. \nBrad Gross: As usual\, we open with acknowledging our partners as all aspects of what we’re doing involve a very large team. \nBrad Gross: I’m gonna quickly quickly review. Let me try and get this moved over here. I’m gonna quickly review the milestones. Those that are highlighted with the dark blue have been accomplished. The others in the turquoise color are either underway or have future deadlines. \nBrad Gross: The 1st quote few bullet points we presented in the past. So I’m just going to jump to Bullet Point\, number 7\, the removal of all post 2\,019 vessels. We’ve made great progress on this\, and there will be more on that later in the presentation. \nBrad Gross: like to point out the final bullet point remove all floating homes illegally anchored off of Waldo Point. The last floating home was removed. Actually the illegally anchored vessels off Waldo Point that were identified in our agreement. I don’t want anybody to get the impression that we’re taking all the floating homes out of Waldo Point. \nBrad Gross: The last floating home was removed during this reporting period and disposed of by Rbra. So now all the floating homes and their ground\, their ground tackle\, identified in our agreement\, are now gone from Richardson Bay \nBrad Gross: more milestones. I’m gonna just move to slide number 3 here. No vessels in the eelgrass protection zone. By October 15\, th 2024. This is ongoing\, and there will be more again on this also. Later in the presentation. \nBrad Gross: the last 3 bullet points remove all occupied safe and seaworthy vessels\, remove all vessels and occupants\, and only transient seaworthy vessels in the anchor zone have due dates of October of 2026. \nBrad Gross: Very quickly our vessel buyback program\, this last reporting period\, the way these slides are set up. We have the previous reporting period on the left\, and then we will report on activities during this reporting period\, and and for the last reporting period. I’ll just read the numbers 5\, 1\, 8\, 39\,000 781\,721 vessels \nBrad Gross: for this reporting period. Those numbers are now 11 vessels and one floating home purchase\, 18 total vessels and floating homes properly disposed of. Since the reinstatement of the program in April of 2023\, \nBrad Gross: $120\,800 distributed since the reinstatement\, and $162\,800 distributed\, and 33 vessels disposed of since the program inception in 2\,022 \nBrad Gross: regarding our codes and ordinances\, we are constantly updating our codes and ordinances and the recent update which will go to our board in September for final approval\, and if approved\, this is just a new ordinance that will provide the harbor master with one more tool to efficiently remove vessels from the anchorage. \nBrad Gross: I’m going to move on to Eelgrass now and turn it over to Ms. Schwartz Lesberg. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: Hello! Good morning again. Everybody. I have a couple of fun updates for you. I get to talk about the \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: the environmental piece here\, so I’ll give you some updates about the Restoration. Grant that we have from EPA and some upcoming actions. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: Oh\, I can’t enter damn slides next slide\, please. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: So\, as a reminder\, Rbra was granted about 3 million dollars from us. EPA. San Francisco Bay Water Quality Improvement Fund that supports or supported the development of the Restoration Adaptive Management Plan mentioned by John earlier\, which was submitted to Bcdc. Last December. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: The Grant also funds the 1st 15 acres of eelgrass restoration in Richardson Bay specifically focused on the anchor scars. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: and our goal is to get those 15 acres planted by 2027. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: The Grant supports ongoing adaptive management. And so what that means is that it’s paying for scientists and restoration ecologists to go out there. Monitor\, what’s going on under the water with the plants\, how they’re surviving\, if they need additional support\, how we can change things from year to year\, and how we’re putting plants in the ground and making sure that we’re learning from what we’re doing as we go along. The Grant also supports significant partner engagement and stakeholder outreach \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: next slide. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: Since we were awarded the grant. All subcontracts and subawards have been executed\, and so that includes subcontracts to coastal policy solutions\, and to Merkel and associates Merkel and associates produced the figure on the left\, which I’ll explain more in a moment. It also includes sub awards to San Francisco State University and Audubon\, California. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: This past. So each year we do water bird monitoring\, starting in November\, and it continues through April. So the 2023\, 2024 monitoring season completed since last time we talked. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: and that includes 6 drone surveys of rafting water birds in Richardson Bay. So what that’s looking at is not necessarily species\, composition. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: or \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: but abundance\, but is really asking the question. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: where are birds gathering in large numbers to use the bay’s open waters? \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: The the other piece of a \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: we’re doing it out there. But \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: is the app \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: actual plan? \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: Okay? So in 2024 we had 2 events is unstable. If I’m coming in and out my apologies. I can always take my video off if you’re having any issues hearing me. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: But we had 2 planting events\, one in May and one in June. Those restoration events happen during the summer or early summer\, late spring\, early summer\, specifically to coincide with the maximum maximum extent of the growing season for eelgrass. That’s also when we get some of our \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: okay\, I’ve got a note from Brad to kill my camera. My audio is shaking. Just turned off my camera\, and those planting events also coincide with when we have our extreme low tides. During the day \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: we got about 6 acres in this season with the EPA money as sort of a coda to that. There’s also other funds that are used to support restoration in Richardson Bay. So we got an additional 3 acres in the ground. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: Using Costco busan mitigation dollars. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: Now\, what does that work include? It’s baseline data. So figuring out what is the current situation on the ground plan for where we’re going to be planting\, doing a donor site survey\, collecting the donor material\, active\, replanting\, and then also tagging marine debris. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: which I’ll talk about more in a moment. But to refer to this figure on the left. What we see here is an aerial photo or a base map\, basically of \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: the eelgrass bed in Richardson Bay. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: On the bottom is the shoreline of Sausalito. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: The light green or sort of yellowish color is the distribution of eelgrass based on survey data taken in 2\,022. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: There’s\, of course\, now car alarm going on outside the green dots are eel grass that was planted in 2024\, using EPA Grant dollars. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: The other color dots are eelgrass plantings that took place before this year. You are using cosmosan dollars. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: You can see that we’re really focusing on the northern portion of the eelgrass protection zone which coincides with where we see the maximum extent of vessel renewal. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: So if any folks have questions about \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: planting techniques\, surveying design\, anything like that\, happy to answer those \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: next slide. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: some upcoming actions. So this summer. Actually\, it’s probably already happened by now. We’ll be doing the aerial photography for our annual ill grass damage assessment. So that produces those really compelling photographs that shows the anchor scars from the air. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: This winter we’ll again be doing waterbird monitoring. Spring will start planting\, planning for next season’s restoration. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: and then next season will be. In addition to the Eelgrass restoration will be doing debris removal. There is a fair amount of \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: debris on the bay floor in the areas of these anchor scars. It’s not all specifically abandoned and derelict vessels on the bay floor\, but debris associated with them. So it’s things like skiffs or small boats that often sink and go unreported. General material that comes off the decks. There’s a lot of stuff down there. So Merkel. They they mapped and tagged a lot of that\, and they’ll be focusing on that for next year. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: I do \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: have. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: Well\, we can skip it. I have some photos of what the actual Restoration efforts look like. That\, Brad. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: if you would like me to share I and but we can always come back to that later. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: Let’s. \nBrad Gross: Come back to that later. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Yeah\, I was gonna say\, maybe we should come back to that later and keep the presentation moving. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: Sounds good. I’m all done. Thank you. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: I believe this is now Brad or Jim. \nBrad Gross: Do we have the harbor masters promoted \nBrad Gross: over to Malcolm. This is his section. We can’t get him. I can cover it. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: I don’t see him as a participant. \nBrad Gross: Well\, in order to \nBrad Gross: keep things moving\, I’ll just jump in here. This was I. I am filling in for harbour\, Master Jim Malcolm \nBrad Gross: and he says he’s on\, and he’s here. If someone can please promote Jim Malcolm Rbra \nBrad Gross: cause. I’m sure there may be some questions for him. We can get him onto this presentation. \nBrad Gross: Jim\, pipe pipe in any time you get on board. \nBrad Gross: In the meantime I’ll keep going. \nBrad Gross: This is our \nRBRA: Hello! I’m here. I got a problem. \nBrad Gross: Alright sorry I was stalling. Thank you\, everybody. \nRBRA: Thank you very much. And good morning\, Commissioners. My name is Jim Malcolm. I’m the harbour master for the Rbra. This will be my small section of our presentation today. I’d like to start by like I said. The slide says vessel census title on the side says vessels and floating homes in Richardson Bay. As Brad’s already mentioned\, we have no more floating homes we just leave that in there as a pleasant reminder for a great work accomplished \nRBRA: from everyone. Our current vessel census now is down to 31 \nRBRA: as was\, as was mentioned earlier this slide only goes back to October 2021. This is when I started with the agency\, the very beginning of 2021\, we were at 100\, about 155\, and then going back as 2\,01720 18\, we were up at about 2 55. So this is this definitely displays a lot of good work that 31 represents. Both. You know\, vessels engaged in in our housing people on a path to housing as well as \nRBRA: vessels that are involved in active enforcement\, not necessarily with housing\, but active enforcement. \nRBRA: Next slide\, please. \nRBRA: similar to other slides. That we have seen. I’ll be addressing this as in a format of \nRBRA: milestones\, you know\, as milestones. In the agreement we know what the original milestone was\, what it was last updated\, and then what it is currently starting there on the left \nRBRA: our milestone was October 15\, th 2\,023\, all post 2\,019 vessels to be removed from the anchorage. \nRBRA: In August of 22 we were down to 14. December 23\, we were down to 7\, and as of this update. We now have 3 of those vessels remaining. 2 of those 2 of those 3 are engaged with our housing program on our path to housing. \nRBRA: and they will be surrendering their vessels once they’re housed. I the best you know\, as as far as the time it takes to get housed once they’re engaged. That that is really up to our housing component\, but usually runs anywhere from 2 weeks to a month before the vessel is actually removed\, so we’ll be down shortly. Be down to one. \nRBRA: Next was is the removal of all floating homes\, as been mentioned a couple of times. Now that has been accomplished. We have 0. \nRBRA: Next is the no vessels inside the Eelgrass protection zone. There were 53 in July of 2242 August of 23 \nRBRA: 35 at our last update we now have 29\, and I will. Our next slide will be. I’ll be kind of speaking to what our plan is for those remaining vessels. \nRBRA: Next is our all occupied removal of all of our occupied\, safe and seaworthy vessels. Vessels with that are that enrolled in the safe and seaworthy program back in 2\,019\, when that program was stood up. \nRBRA: there were 10 of those in June of 2022\, 7 in August of 2023 on. \nRBRA: and then I’ll as well. 7 \nRBRA: at our last update. We’re down to 6. The reason these numbers are dropping these vessels per per the milestone. In the agreement these vessels are actually not required to be removed until the end of the agreement. In 2026. These folks are either electing to take housing the vessels were safe and seaworthy are safe\, and are\, are\, you know\, were enrolled as safe and seaworthy. They can take\, and\, you know. \nRBRA: put them in a marina\, seal them away\, do whatever they like to do. These. The reduction in numbers that we’re actually seeing\, though\, is more\, people are electing to go for the housing program and actually surrendering their vessels through the vessel. Buyback. \nRBRA: lastly\, is total vessels on the water. There were 57\, as of July of 2022\, 48\, in August of 2343 at our last update in December. \nRBRA: and then 31. As of this update 2 on 2 on authorized 30 day permits \nRBRA: 6 vessels engaged in active enforcement\, and 2 of those vessels are under nuisance abatement removal. \nRBRA: Next slide\, please. \nRBRA: as I mentioned. For the folks that are within the Eelgrass protection zone. \nRBRA: this is what you’re seeing. On the right of the slide is a copy of the notice that we’ve been delivering \nRBRA: to the folks that are out on in the Eelgrass Protection zone that we will be relocating down into the authorized anchorage area. Once we close out the Eaglegrass Protection zone. Speaking to enforcement. \nRBRA: we’ve had this period. We’ve had 35 citations issued 3 4 initial. Basically\, somebody comes in drops the anchor. They can stay for 72 h \nRBRA: once they have\, exceeded that 72 h they get an initial citation\, and then we give it a 30 day period for the give them time to either appeal or pay the citation. If they’re still there. After 30 days they get a second \nRBRA: same scenario another 30 days\, and then after that they get a 3.rd \nRBRA: After they’ve received their 3rd citation\, and they’re still there. 30 days later they get a a nuisance abatement notice\, which is basically the rbra declaring their vessel public nuisance and giving them a period of time to remove their vessel from the anchorage \nRBRA: or face impound. \nRBRA: We’ve had 4 nuisance abatements issued\, resulting in 2 vessel removals and one abatement. 2 vessel removals\, and one of those base vessels has already been abated during the past reporting period. The other vessel is still in progress. \nRBRA: All vessels on Richardson Bay\, as I mentioned are required to relocate out of the Eelgrass protection zone of this October. They were issued a \nRBRA: it doesn’t say one year\, but they were issued a 1 year. They were issued a 9 month notice. They were issued a 6 month. Notice a 3 month notice. We’re in the process of issuing 2 month notices\, and then they’ll also be issued a 1 month notice\, giving them all due proper notice that says that they need to relocate out of the illgrass protection zone into the authorized anchorage area. Next slide\, please. \nRBRA: and as you can see\, the the chartlet on the right side of your screen the beige area kind of at below the green is will be the new authorized anchorage area where we’re going to be relocating folks out of those green. Anybody who’s anchored in that green area is going to be relocated down into that \nRBRA: Beige area which will be the new anchorage area. And how are they going to know the new anchorage area? Our planning is underway \nRBRA: for eelgrass\, protection\, zone and anchorage signage? 5 signs will be placed on existing piles\, installation of one new pile and 3 floating blue buoys. \nRBRA: Our plans have all been approved by Bcdc. Staff permits are pending with other agencies. \nRBRA: and\, as I’ve mentioned\, all vessels are going to be receiving those 2 month and one month notices with the intention of having everybody relocated out of the Eelgrass Protection zone and into the new anchorage by October of this year. \nRBRA: Anybody kind of preempting a preempting questions. Anybody who either does not \nRBRA: will not\, does not\, or just absolutely heck. No\, we won’t go will fall into the enforcement side \nRBRA: of the Enforcement side of our operation. \nRBRA: as I’ve mentioned before\, with the citations ramping up to eventual nuisance\, abatement. The citation\, however\, the citations for remaining inside the eelgrass protection zone are significantly heftier \nRBRA: than just the average citations that have been issued for exceeding the 72 h anchorage. So it’s it’s going to be a slightly slightly steeper enforcement slope for folks that don’t want to be move out of the Eelbras Protection zone. So that is all I have. I’m now going to send it back over to Brad to speak about some housing. \nBrad Gross: Thank you\, Jim. I appreciate that. We’re gonna move into the housing. Update \nBrad Gross: the temporary housing update. There are\, as I said in the past there are 4 components to the housing program funding. A 3 million dollar grant from the State \nBrad Gross: was received in fiscal year 23\, supported by Senator Mcguire. That was received on March 28\, th 2\,023. This allowed the program to begin on March 1st 2023\, and we’ve been at it for 15 months. Now we’ve expended just under $400\,000\, \nBrad Gross: temporary housing support. We’ve extended the agreement between Rbra and health and human services through June of 2025\, and in turn Hhs and Episcopal Community Service have also extended their agreement through the end of next fiscal year. \nBrad Gross: Finally\, we’ve contracted to have a 1 year review of the Rbra temporary Housing Support program conducted. It was published in the beginning of the summer. \nBrad Gross: and in a nutshell. The report cites the aspects of the program\, the placement of the placement of individuals in secure housing while removing illegally anchored vessels from the anchorage\, and and it basically highlights the successes and the challenges of the program. And actually it ended up being a very positive report. This report\, if anybody is interested in reviewing it is available all on our website. \nBrad Gross: Marinas\, there’s been no activity report during this past period on marinas. \nBrad Gross: This is the tracking of the post 2019 vessels\, and as we committed when we 1st began tracking these vessels we\, this slide was presented the last time we met just 2 months after the 1st extension was enact enacted\, and\, as you can see\, they we were well on our way. 4 vessels were gone\, 4 people were housed \nBrad Gross: and 8 people were engaged in the program. This is again\, this is from December. This is the current slide and the the there’s some dramatic progress that’s shown here. Those yellow\, highlighted lines are vessels that are gone. People have either moved on\, been housed\, or their vessels have all the vessels have left the acreage. \nBrad Gross: So with now we have 9 vessels gone\, and 14 total people. How housed. \nBrad Gross: and all but one is engaged\, and as as a reminder we committed to have all of these vessels on this list\, either gone or engaged by October 15th of 2024\, so that gives us about 7 more weeks to get that last holdout engaged. \nBrad Gross: So the the final recap on the housing program again\, all the numbers from the last report on the left there. 4\, 15\, 7\, and 4 important. But the current program covering the last 7 months highlights. Our recent successes. 14 people are now housed. 20 people are participating. 6 people are in queue\, and 17 people now have a voucher\, and 2 are pending\, and 7 more vessels have been purchased in the vessel buyback program. \nBrad Gross: I showed this slide at our last meeting in December. This slide’s a merger of the vessel and housing programs\, and it’s a visual depiction of the successes of the programs. \nBrad Gross: As I stand. In the last time I showed the slide I mentioned that at that time that the evidence of success will be obvious by the colored bars at the bottom\, eventually intersecting with those 2 top lines. Those 2 top lines represent vessels and the housing opportunities and various programs are along the bottom\, and that dark blue\, the gray\, light orange\, green\, and the Burgundy lines represent people housed \nBrad Gross: people in process\, vessels turned in or removed\, and the people with vouchers\, and all these lines were at that time beginning to trend up. \nBrad Gross: This is the slide. Now this is for the last reporting period starting in December\, and\, as you can see\, from December of 2023 to July 2024. Everything’s trending in the right direction. \nBrad Gross: and eventually we will see an intersection of those lines\, and the \nBrad Gross: the 2 lines at the top will go flat where the other lines that colors that I mentioned will head to the top of the of the chart. \nBrad Gross: As I start to wrap things up\, I just I just wanna I wanna thank our Bra. Staff for their hard work and and their and our partners\, including\, of course\, Vcdc. But the executive director\, the chief counsel and and the staff\, but but most importantly\, the the flexibility and the partnership \nBrad Gross: to this committee of this committee. It’s resulting in some constant and noticeable success. \nBrad Gross: I think this. This agreement between Rbra Bcbc may be unique. I’m not sure. I don’t know if it’s the 1st of its kind. But definitely some of the programs developed\, based on this agreement are and they’re working. It may be a little slower than we managed. We we 1st imagined when starting. But we’re working. \nBrad Gross: You know\, we’re working with a unique and and \nBrad Gross: willful population. I think that’s a great way to put it. But the consistent and methodical approach we’ve been taking to these solutions are working\, and we’re confident that we will ultimately be able to accomplish the final goal of the anchorage truly operating as a transient anchorage\, and\, as I said\, people are are taking note. This is just a quick list of some of the great press that we’ve received along with our partners\, and Bcdc. Over the last few months. \nBrad Gross: and with that I conclude my presentation. I apologize for having a video off during the presentation\, but I wanted to make sure that we were able to get this out information out\, and I’d be glad to take any questions. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Excuse me\, thank you very much for your presentation. It was \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: very concise and I’m happy to see the progress that the rbra is made even since the last reporting period. Do. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Can you stop sharing your screen\, please\, because I can’t see anybody? \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you. \nBrad Gross: I’m sorry. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: No\, that’s okay. Rebecca. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: Thank you. Thank you for the presentations. 2 questions from your one of your initial slides. You reported that there are 31 vessels and \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: combined a number of 31 remaining to be removed or to move. It looks like if I go sort of back 31 vessels before that \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: we had something like 62 vessels in in Richardson Bay\, back in. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: I think it was \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: 2022 which suggests that it took about 2 years \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: to get 31 vessels out of there. So I’m wondering if that trajectory is \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: is what you expect to hold. In other words\, will it take another 2 years to get those remaining 31 vessels out? \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: That’s question number one. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: and my second question for the harbor master. I appreciate your description of all of the notices that go out after a year and 6 months and 3 months and one month\, and then they get into a nuisance situation\, and then there are more notices. And \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: what is the inventive \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: for anyone getting these notices to do anything \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: up until the time it becomes a nuisance situation. I mean\, if \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: if you get a notice at one year \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: why not just sit there for a year. What! What \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: incentive is there to do anything before those notices expire? \nBrad Gross: Let let me \nBrad Gross: start with the answer to the 1st question. Thank you\, Commissioner\, for the question. \nBrad Gross: The 31 vessels includes vessels that have come into the anchorage as of late meaning. There’s a handful of vessels and harbormaster. Malcolm can give you the exact number that are in an Enforcement program right now. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: And. \nBrad Gross: The the numbers that you stated. They’re rough numbers\, and and the numbers in the anchorage are always in flux because people are coming in and out. \nBrad Gross: but we can use those numbers\, and I would say that yes\, we’re probably on about for the last year the same number of reductions of vessels from the acreage that we’re expecting to take place for the next 18 months to 2 years. The reason for that\, Commissioner is that all of these vessels are occupied. \nBrad Gross: It was quicker when we had unoccupied vessels. They’re a little bit easier for us to remove and take action on. We don’t have people that respond. Therefore we can do a derelict vessel notice and and remove the vessel quicker. We have to make sure that we are giving the people on these vessels. Due process. Due process does take some time. That being said\, you asked the question\, and sorry. Jim\, I’ll I’ll just jump into the next one. You asked the question about enforcement and timing of Enforcement \nBrad Gross: person is allowed to come into the anchorage and anchor for 72 h\, not violation until after the 72 h. So if we project this out to 2026\, \nBrad Gross: and we still have vessels in the anchorage on October 15th of 2\,026. Ultimately\, our final day. Technically\, they’re not in violation \nBrad Gross: or 2 more\, or for 3 more days. \nBrad Gross: So let’s take a vessel that comes into the acreage. Now we’re making sure that we are taking all due process\, so that we are making sure that they have their ability to appeal. Though you write a citation\, the appeal process\, they have 30 days to appeal. They we do an appeal within 10 days. So it draws the timing out. \nBrad Gross: that being said\, as we get closer to our deadlines of October of 2024 for the illgrass protection zone\, October of 2025 for the remaining vessels. We are going to accelerate our notifications\, meaning instead of 10. This is the 1st that we’re announcing it. This has been in discussions with us and our attorneys. \nBrad Gross: We’re going to shorten that timeframe from \nBrad Gross: a citation appeal on 30 days. We’re to shorten that to 2 weeks\, so that in a matter of \nBrad Gross: a month to 6 weeks\, we will get to the nuisance abatement\, hearing which then\, if we’re successful\, gets us to a warrant which gives us 14 days to abate the nuisance. So we understand that it seems like it’s a long time right now. But we’re making sure\, basically\, that we’re trying to keep our \nBrad Gross: liability issues at a minimum. We’re a small agency. We don’t have a lot of money for these types of things. So we’re making sure that we can’t be successful. We get in front of a judge to get those warrants \nBrad Gross: and \nBrad Gross: and and all. \nRBRA: Also Commissioner to to answer another. Another of what I understood your question to be\, as far as the the motivation for somebody receiving a 6 month notice to go ahead and relocate out of the Eelgrass Protection zone. Historically\, vessels\, you know we had. If you take a look at those numbers\, as you pointed out on the slide. You know you had 66 vessels in 2022. Those vessels were spread out all over \nRBRA: basically the length of Richardson Bay. And as you look at that Chartlet\, you notice that you know\, the area of anchorage becomes significantly smaller. And so space\, you know\, for anybody who is who\, you know\, under under our agreement\, under our plans for housing individuals and the boats that can stay until 2025\, or can stay until 2026 space is at a premium. \nRBRA: and so for somebody who receives a 6 month notice \nRBRA: if they go ahead and they move\, or they receive a 2 month. Notice that area\, that new anchorage area right now\, as of my patrol yesterday only had about 4 boats in it. \nRBRA: We’re gonna have to take and fit if I still have. \nRBRA: Let’s say\, 23 boats that are authorized to be out there. Those are folks that are waiting for housing\, waiting for their turn at the housing program or waiting to waiting for the housing outreach to get to them. \nRBRA: That’s going to be 25 boats that need to move from the spread out region where they are now down into that finite anchor. So if they move sooner rather than later\, they’re not going to have to be further south\, further out into San Francisco\, you know\, closer to San Francisco Bay\, where it may not be quite as sheltered as being potentially closer. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: I I’m not. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: I’m not fully understanding. So the incentive. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: Is it a carrot or a stick that \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: or both\, that will cause somebody who gets\, say\, a 6 months notice to move any sooner than 6 months. \nRBRA: It’s a carrot\, because if they move sooner than 6 months\, 6 months\, they could potentially be still inside the legal anchorage. And you know. \nRBRA: 1520\, \nRBRA: 6\,000 yards closer \nRBRA: to the public dock. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: And that’s desirable\, I take it. \nRBRA: Yes\, it is. \nRBRA: Okay. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: Alright. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: Thank you. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Are there any other questions? \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, seeing none. I’m gonna open up the public comment. Margie\, do we have any but any public commenters. \nBoardroom SX80: I don’t see any hand raised. Cherry Elmore. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, thank you. I want to thank the Rbra representatives \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: for coming and giving a very comprehensive update. And I want to say\, you know. Congratulations\, you guys are. Yeah\, I guess it’s slow and steady. Wins the race. Of course we’re always looking for a little bit faster\, but we understand the challenges with dealing with \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: you know\, occupied vessels as opposed to derelict. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: unoccupied vessels. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Does anybody else have any comments. Or one last call for questions. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, remember to close the public comment. Public comment is closed. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: And so thank you very much \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: for the update\, and we’ll see you\, I guess\, next quarter. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you. \nBrad Gross: Thank you. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: Thank you. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, that brings us to item number 8\, which is a briefing on the compliance unit units activities. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So I’m gonna invite John Creech and Tony Desog \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: to deliver the presentation. \nBoardroom SX80: Good morning again\, Commissioners. I’m still John Creech\, still on the BC’s compliance team. I’m here with my counterpart\, Tony Desog. \nBoardroom SX80: Here’s an overview of our agenda. For this briefing we will discuss a few high level themes\, a bit of background on the compliance program\, and we’ll do our best to iterate how the compliance program works in practice. \nBoardroom SX80: In 2\,019 an audit resulted in the formation of the compliance program\, and it mentioned the 1st quote \nBoardroom SX80: which define the program as a systematic method of insurance\, of ensuring compliance with permit conditions to lessen risks that permit violations go undetected. \nBoardroom SX80: Another way to think about. The program is represented by the second quote\, which indicates that the compliance team takes over. After a new permit is issued some sort of enforcement resolution is reached or a report is submitted. \nBoardroom SX80: The point here is that prior to implementation of our units\, permits would get issued. Vcdc. Would address compliance matters in a reactive manner. Mostly when we would field inquiries from the public about permit violations. \nBoardroom SX80: So now\, when Bcdc issues a permit\, the compliance team acts as a liaison or a project manager to monitor deliverables required by the permits or orders\, and I’ll now pass it over to Tony. \nBoardroom SX80: Well\, thank you\, John. 1st off. It’s good to be here this morning. I will note that this is the 1st Enforcement meeting that I’ve attended. So it’s really good to be here. So let me quickly go over some of the background here. These 4 points John mentioned earlier\, the audit of 2\,019 \nBoardroom SX80: and \nBoardroom SX80: to reiterate\, reiterate. You know\, one important part of that audit was the belief that the Commission could prevent potential violations and as important decrease its enforcement workload through this compliance program. \nBoardroom SX80: Staff at the time expressed the view confirmed by the auditor that possibly 50% of violations were actually related to \nBoardroom SX80: noncompliance with permits such as failing to provide reports or blocking public access. Things like that. \nBoardroom SX80: Now\, on the second point of the year 2\,022 new hires\, while both John and I were hired in August 2\,022\, the program really began in earnest. In January of 2\,023\, roughly\, 18 months ago. \nBoardroom SX80: John will later discuss our work since the inception of the compliance program. But for now let me just quickly mention 2 highlights over the 18 month period. One is having to do with having updated the compliance web page on Bcdc’s website. \nBoardroom SX80: and a special thank yous and kudos to Ethan Levine\, and also Raylena. Ruiz for their great assistance and helping us streamline. That website for the compliance program. So now it’s easy to use and follow for permittees or members of the public who might want to contact us about compliance related issues that they see\, or maybe permates might have questions. \nBoardroom SX80: Now\, as for the internal procedures\, we are right now finalizing the internal procedures. When those procedures are finalized\, we will have on paper. The ways in which different programs of Bcdc. Such as the shoreline development program\, or such as the Bay Resources Program. \nBoardroom SX80: or even the Bcdc staff\, engineer or design analyst. You know\, we will have on paper the different ways in which programs of Bcdc interact with the compliant program and vice versa. \nBoardroom SX80: So let me now hand it over back to John\, who will start the discussion about how the compliance program works and has worked in the past 18 months. \nBoardroom SX80: Thanks\, Tony. Here are a few examples and categories of compliance work that includes working on settlement agreements and orders. \nBoardroom SX80: new permit compliance \nBoardroom SX80: processing annual reports and technical reports and helping return noncompliant parties to compliance. \nBoardroom SX80: So prior to going to work as a compliance officer\, I was an enforcement analyst \nBoardroom SX80: with this enforcement\, experience and background. I tend to handle the lion’s share of resolved enforcement cases\, including settlement agreements and order compliance. \nBoardroom SX80: You just heard an example of an instance\, where Bcdc. Was able to get creative to avoid enforcement proceedings by successfully utilizing us. Bcdc’s new compliance team \nBoardroom SX80: with the Oakland Alameda estuary. There is no formal enforcement action taken\, however\, compliance staff regularly works with individuals from Oakland and Alameda staff\, among others\, to ensure no enforcement. Actions are necessary\, and to ensure that the cities continue to \nBoardroom SX80: prioritize\, maintaining a safe\, clean\, and healthy estuary. \nBoardroom SX80: You also heard the example of how Bcdc. Staff is continuing to work with Rbra staff to ensure that they remain in compliance with their settlement agreement. \nBoardroom SX80: This work includes regular meetings with rbra\, staff\, and positive communication to stay on top of deliverable deliverables due\, and ensure that there is a comprehensive understanding of the situation on the water. \nBoardroom SX80: Tony will now speak to some specific permitting compliance matters \nBoardroom SX80: great. Well\, thanks\, John. In. In the last slide John mentioned how? Based upon his prior background in the enforcement program\, that has resulted in him handling the lions work of the settlement agreements. \nBoardroom SX80: On behalf of this compliance program. Now\, as for myself\, prior to joining the compliance program\, my background was in Bcdc’s shoreline development program. Get getting great guidance from Ethan Levine as well as Katherine Pan. \nBoardroom SX80: And I think it’s because of this background that I’ve taken really to enjoying the processing of recently issued new permits processing these new permits for compliance related questions or or purposes. \nBoardroom SX80: And right now I’m going to discuss one example of a new permit that that the Commission had approved in late 2022\, December 2022\, and it was a permit that the former Staffer\, analyst\, Shruti Sinha\, had processed. And this has to do with the 200 Twin Dolphin Office\, R. And D. Project in Redwood City. \nBoardroom SX80: Just really quickly. This project involved the redevelopment of an office campus. Whose 5 story office R&D buildings were mostly outside of the shoreline band but whose public access areas within the public within the Bcdc’s jurisdiction were greatly expanded as a result of the of the permit. \nBoardroom SX80: So because of this\, we\, in compliance once\, Reina\, from the administrative Clerical Staff\, let us know about the issuance of of this new permit\, we went about in compliance\, our work. So \nBoardroom SX80: in particular\, in handling new permits that are issued. What one of the 1st things that we do is\, you know\, just creating a checklist of all the deliverables corresponding to special conditions in the permit. \nBoardroom SX80: And for those deliverables that have this very specific deadline due dates we create in Microsoft outlook calendars\, reminders\, reminder notices that ping us \nBoardroom SX80: in advance of the due dates\, or on or on the actual due dates itself. So at this point\, it’s really using something as basic as Microsoft outlook which is really at the heart of our proactive monitoring system that we have in place in terms of monitoring \nBoardroom SX80: new permits that you issue\, and getting them to deliver or transmit to us their deliverables in the time that they agreed. \nBoardroom SX80: But you know\, as important as with the checklist. It’s really about sending out that letter that that congratulations letter to the new permittees. Not only\, you know\, sharing with them. Oh\, hey! Here’s a checklist. We know that you’re the new permitee. We we know\, you know\, what your requirements are. But you know\, nonetheless. Here’s this letter. We want to congratulate you on this \nBoardroom SX80: on this new permit\, and here are the due dates and but indirectly\, what we’re also saying is\, Hey\, we’ve got a system in place. To basically monitor you to to keep you hopefully on top of in terms of submitting your deliverables. And next slide. \nBoardroom SX80: This is just obviously you can’t read this. But this is just an example of of an email a checklist that we send out. This is actually a follow up email\, a follow up to the initial checklist letter that we sent out. And basically\, we’re in the green. Indicates\, refers to a a deliverable subject to a special condition \nBoardroom SX80: that they that the permitee of 200 twin Dolphin had already submitted. So we’re saying\, Okay\, you submitted this. You submitted this. You submitted this. \nBoardroom SX80: Now\, obviously you can’t read it\, but you can see yellow. The yellow indicates. Oh\, you know what you were supposed to do this deliverable by a certain timetable\, but we but we had not received it. So this is a a quick way of of reminding people. You need to get this into us. \nBoardroom SX80: You’ll also see at the bottom of this a bunch of deliverables where there is no color. That’s simply because a good number of deliverables\, as you well know. aren’t required to be trigger sent to us\, either. Not until a later point point in time\, down in the future. \nBoardroom SX80: or some deliverables such as sea level rise\, flooding reports of public access areas. They don’t need to be transmitted to us unless a certain triggering\, triggering event occurs. \nBoardroom SX80: So that’s just an example of how we follow up proactively and keeping people on their toes when in working with new permittees. But also in the compliance unit. You know\, we also want to work with existing permittees. You know\, people who’ve had permits either for several years\, or maybe even decades. And so next slide. \nBoardroom SX80: And so here we’re now going to talk about how the compliance program deals with existing permittees. When\, when we hear of situations where they are out of compliance. \nBoardroom SX80: In the situation of the Richmond Yacht Club. What triggered our review of the situation\, or the insertion of of the compliance unit. Into this situation was\, we received a complaint from a member of the public who who knew a lot of details about what was going on\, and the member of the public. Had\, you know\, let us know\, hey? \nBoardroom SX80: There’s been some unauthorized work that had been going on. You know\, make sure to take a look at this and we did. And so basically\, just really quickly. What the Richmond Yacht Club had done was \nBoardroom SX80: removed and replaced a beam that was underneath a wharf\, and the beam supports the wharf load the beam is called a glue lamb and so originally\, when we looked at the Permit history originally\, Richmond Yacht Club prior to\, you know\, getting the permit issued in August of 2023\, \nBoardroom SX80: only one year ago. Prior to getting the permit issued one year ago. They actually wanted to remove and replace the the glue lamb but as they started to do their work in September and October\, they decided\, or or no\, prior to the issuance of of the permit\, they said\, you know what we don’t need to remove the glue lamb. All we need to do is strengthen the pilings and that will support the wharf. adequately. \nBoardroom SX80: But as they did they\, as they received the permit in August of 2023\, and as they proceeded to do the work in September and October. They decided to remove the gluland in an event. And so you know\, someone in February someone let us know that that had been done. And so we went about. looking into the situation \nBoardroom SX80: and part and parcel of a compliance program is\, you know we want. I work with other staff members\, especially those who\, you know\, have the expertise to to analyze the situation in this case. staff Engineer Jennifer Hyman. \nBoardroom SX80: and we. Our conclusion was that yes\, you know the removal of the gluland and the replacement of it was an unauthorized activity. But our analysis of of the work was such that it it could be something that could be permitted on an after the fact basis. \nBoardroom SX80: So one of the things that I put together is a plan to what we call return to compliance plan. And and it’s basically\, you know\, the initial contact letter of the Icl that I I believe. You are familiar with and so \nBoardroom SX80: the icl had give and take with the permitee. They accepted the terms of of the Icl\, not only authorizing the glue lamp work on an after-the-act basis\, but they also did a few other minor work on an unauthorized basis\, having to do with the type of pilings that they also put in \nBoardroom SX80: and so we went about putting together a a letter that basically put a plan to get them back on track. And the letter itself then became the basis for Sam Fielding in the bay resources unit. Then to process a permit application? So that you know that that hopefully made things a a lot quicker in terms for \nBoardroom SX80: for Sam to process the after the fact permit which eventually was issued. You had issued it this past June. \nBoardroom SX80: So you know\, we found out about the situation in February\, and then we resolved it in June\, with the issuance of a new permit. But we still have to check up on it. You know we still have to check up\, you know. Are they doing the work in accordance with the with a permit that was issued the after the fact permit. \nBoardroom SX80: Now\, in the second case of a program at work is Innovation Point which is in Redwood City. And in this situation\, the permitee of Innovation Point\, which is an R&D office structure with a public access new shoreline and expanded. Public access area. \nBoardroom SX80: They were it was \nBoardroom SX80: It was April\, and they let us know that\, you know. Come\, May\, we will have finished. The project\, including the public access areas. And so at in May. At that time we will submit a notice of completion. \nBoardroom SX80: and so that then triggered. A review of because part and parcel of the notice of completion. Special condition. Is that? That then triggers a review of the of the Deliverables\, or the review of of all the conditions\, whether they’ve met it. And the notice receiving the notice of completion. Approval is important. \nBoardroom SX80: The permitees receiving of a notice of completion. Approval is important\, because that way the permitee\, then\, can use begin to use the authorized improvements. \nBoardroom SX80: So we looked through the the permit\, and lo and behold! We found several minor things that they can correct such as you know they didn’t. They didn’t update the Eco Atlas data entry that Todd Todd Halenbeck here at Bcdc works on and they also had failed to record the permit. So those were easily dealt with. \nBoardroom SX80: But there was one important glaring thing that they failed to do is so the permit says that prior to construction\, let alone prior to use\, and this is found in many permits. \nBoardroom SX80: the permitee is supposed to complete. and submit. A legal instrument dedicating the public access area as permanent public access area. And \nBoardroom SX80: so. And this is supposed to be done prior to construction\, and unfortunately they had not done that\, even though they were on the cusp of finishing everything already. So we went through a process by which\, \nBoardroom SX80: we put together a plan that would allow them to submit the notice of completion document. \nBoardroom SX80: Have Bcdc. Approve the document and and have our design analysts issue a a use permit so that they can begin to use the the improvements. And the theory being we want that we wanted to see people\, you know\, begin to use the the the the bay trail that was already mostly completed. \nBoardroom SX80: but as a side on a parallel path\, though by a certain date. By the end of July this year. They had to submit to us. The legal instrument dedicating the public access area as permanent public access area. And and they’d met that deadline. So so so that was good. \nBoardroom SX80: And one of the reasons why we also a lot\, you know\, went down this path is because this is a an amendment to a permit. And so the public act\, the original public access area. There was all there has always been in place a legal instrument\, dedicating the original public access area\, as as permanent public access area. \nBoardroom SX80: But by virtue of the new work\, because there was now 15\,000 square feet of new public access area because of the new public access area. They had to redo that whole \nBoardroom SX80: whole agreement. So what we said was\, you know\, there’s a there there is regardless. There’s still a public access. Dedication agreement in place. So so you know. So we can still you know\, move down the path of of \nBoardroom SX80: accepting the required new revamped public access area agreement after the completion of the construction. Because one is still in place. It’s just the\, you know\, the the slight modification. \nBoardroom SX80: So those are just 2 examples of recent examples of how we have worked in trying to resolve. An adult compliance situation with existing permittees. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: Thanks\, Tony. Many permetees are also responsible for submitting regular reports such as various annual reports\, pre construction reports\, post construction reports\, habitat mitigation reports\, monitoring reports. \nBoardroom SX80: etc. \nBoardroom SX80: We receive file review\, and in some instances are responsible for their approval\, conditional approval or denial. \nBoardroom SX80: Some submitted reports require specific skill sets and training to respond comprehensively. In these instances we’ll act as liaison or project manager to collaborate with our colleagues inside Bcdc. To ensure a comprehensive complete response is returned. \nBoardroom SX80: In order to fully review these documents\, we 1st must review and understand the underlying permit and its conditions verify that the permitee does not have any outstanding deliverables. \nBoardroom SX80: By doing this we are able to include in the response letter a section where we remind the permitee of any deliverables that have yet to be submitted\, and help them understand the best way to come back into compliance with the terms of their permit. \nBoardroom SX80: As we work to develop and implement the compliance program\, we are continuing to look for programmatic improvements\, we are currently finalizing our procedures for internal use. A draft has been circulated internally for comment\, and we hope to finalize those soon. \nBoardroom SX80: Also\, we have identified a need for an internal database that can be utilized across departments at Bcdc. For internal project and record management to improve\, workflow and efficiency. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you all very much for bearing with us. If you have any questions\, we’d be happy to do our best to answer them. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Great. Thank you\, John and Tony. This was a very comprehensive\, and now I feel like I have a a good idea of how the compliance program works. But but I do have a question\, though. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: I think \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: the purpose of the compliance program is to \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: reduce the number of cases \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: that are actually \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: reduce the number of cases that become enforcement actions. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So my question for you is\, how do we measure the program? Success? \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: I mean\, how how do we measure? \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: What could have been an Enforcement case but didn’t become an Enforcement case because of the compliance team? \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: And maybe maybe we don’t have enough data to do that yet\, because you guys\, have only been at it for 18 months. I mean\, I I get \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: everything that you’re doing is wonderful\, and it’s necessary. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: But \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: I’m kind of wondering about this measurement. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: right? I mean\, maybe it’s trying to prove a negative. I don’t know. But I’d like to hear your thoughts on that. \nMatthew Trujillo: I can speak to that chair. And the reason being is because \nMatthew Trujillo: when it comes to making \nMatthew Trujillo: compliance referrals from enforcement\, I I’m the one that basically manages that. \nMatthew Trujillo: I can kind of walk you through the process of how I do it. If you would like. \nMatthew Trujillo: Okay. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Well\, yeah\, because I think \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: I think that lets us know how effective the compliance program is being. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: I mean\, for for that one measure. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: which is not to say that \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: that the other things that the compliance program does those things are all very helpful. But I’m I’m curious as to this particular measure. \nMatthew Trujillo: Yes\, and I’ll speak to that. I’m glad you \nMatthew Trujillo: You made that qualification because I I just wanted to also \nMatthew Trujillo: basically state that \nMatthew Trujillo: I think that preventing enforcement \nMatthew Trujillo: issues\, you’re right. It’s it’s it’s 1 of the main goals. But they also work very closely with permits to ensure that permit is compliance\, which\, of course\, serves the same \nMatthew Trujillo: kind of kind of cool anyway\, when it comes to the way that we interact with them. \nMatthew Trujillo: so the public has one way of con contacting us when they have any concerns whatsoever\, and that’s through our Enforcement report form. \nMatthew Trujillo: And so what happens is that oftentimes\, you know\, I’m the one that monitors and and distributes and creates new cases. So when I see a complaint come in that doesn’t quite measure up or or indicate an actual violation\, which is what enforcement is meant to address. \nMatthew Trujillo: I will then \nMatthew Trujillo: tend to make a referral. I’ll either close the case. It’s not an issue\, or I’ll tend to make a referral for follow up at their discretion to compliance. \nMatthew Trujillo: And that has been \nMatthew Trujillo: I \nMatthew Trujillo: I don’t know that I can necessarily give you the numbers\, but that it is I would I would roughly put that at about a 50\, 50\, 60\, 40\, somewhere around there in terms of what? \nMatthew Trujillo: What number of cases come in\, and\, you know\, get channeled into enforcement versus channel into compliance. \nMatthew Trujillo: So they’ve been an extremely helpful \nMatthew Trujillo: a partner in keeping that caseload down and and helping us to reduce that caseload \nMatthew Trujillo: The other thing that they help with is when we issue an order or any kind of settlement. Our role in enforcement ends once that order or settlement is signed and issued\, and they move forward with compliance. And so\, therefore\, in theory\, though it hasn’t happened yet. \nMatthew Trujillo: They would handle such things as say\, referring a matter to the \nMatthew Trujillo: Attorney General’s office in the event that somebody violates an order issued by the Commission\, they would kind of handle that that route. So that also is a great relief in terms of the administrative burden on enforcement. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Well\, thank you for that. I mean it. It’s very clear to me how handling settlement settlement agreements. Is something that I think the compliance program was definitely meant to do \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and I can see how that is. Very beneficial for enforcement staff \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: where it kind of got a little bit murky for me is like\, say\, we get \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: a complaint that either somebody \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: didn’t post signage or the signage was there\, and it fell off\, or you know the benches are in disrepair. So that comes in\, something like that comes in\, and I assume that comes to you. And then so you make the decision as to whether or not it’s a compliance issue or whether or not it’s an enforcement issue. \nMatthew Trujillo: Generally speaking\, yes\, but that’s not to say that there is a conversation that happens around that\, and also generally I would say that when it comes to \nMatthew Trujillo: issues like you described where it’s a maintenance issue. With regard to a required piece of public access\, it’s actually built into. \nMatthew Trujillo: I would say\, almost all of our permits. \nMatthew Trujillo: A period of 30 days\, that a maintenance\, a a permitee\, has the opportunity to correct any maintenance\, deficiency after notification. \nMatthew Trujillo: and after such. And it’s not considered a violation. During those 30 days the phone becomes a violation once they fail to make the correction in the time allotted. \nMatthew Trujillo: But that’s how we kind of get into that. You know. Those weeds trying to figure out well\, is this associated with a permit? Is there a maintenance provision that would basically give them that that grace period. And if \nMatthew Trujillo: those questions \nMatthew Trujillo: if any\, if the answer to any of those questions is a no\, it means that there’s an actual violation \nMatthew Trujillo: right here right now that’s taking place. Therefore I will not give it to compliance. I will take it on in enforcement\, and make sure that those matters are addressed through our process. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, thank you. Rebecca. \nBoardroom SX80: Gilmore. \nBoardroom SX80: yeah. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Yes. Who? Who said that? \nBoardroom SX80: This is this is Tony! \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay. Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: Chair\, Gilmore\, if I could take a stab at the answer to your question as well\, just really\, briefly\, because your question also indirectly gets at. You know\, the procedures we’re putting together in terms of how the compliance unit works with the enforcement unit. \nBoardroom SX80: And we we put together? In our draft procedures kind of 2 sets of question tests like questions. And in the second set of questions\, one of the questions that we raise among the second set is\, is there enough information to let us know that \nBoardroom SX80: an an an alleged unauthorized work is something that could be authorized under normal procedures. So\, for example\, in the case of the the Richmond glulam situation that that we discussed\, yes\, it was\, it was unauthorized work. But the information that was submitted suggested that it could be authorized\, and so that in in that sense. \nBoardroom SX80: then then it’s the compliance units can take over and and begin to kind of create that path to compliance. And then Jennifer\, then\, you know\, does her further review. Beyond\, you know\, the initial set of information that receive\, you know\, if further review in terms of actually doing site visits and and talking with whoever put together in this case? Whoever put together the glulam \nBoardroom SX80: and then\, you know\, once we get more information as a result of that that even improves the path to compliance\, and then we’re able to give it over to Sam. But the long and short of it\, though\, is that in our procedures we have draft steps. As to you know how to decide. \nBoardroom SX80: What is a possible\, what gets sent to us on an enforcement basis. What could possibly then be dealt with compliance? So because by virtue of those of those steps that we have in place. That’s how we can begin to measure. You know how how many things came to us down this route. That eventually we \nBoardroom SX80: dealt with successfully\, ie. Got them to comply. \nBoardroom SX80: or and or how many did we eventually have to kick back to Matthew? So that would be one way to to deal with measuring performance. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Well\, thank you for that. And I think that’s something that you guys should keep in mind as you’re refining your procedures is\, how do we measure this? \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, Rebecca. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: Yeah. Thank you. So one of the things that we notice on the Enforcement Committee is\, there are \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: cases and issues that seem to have dragged on for a long time\, and they didn’t. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: They didn’t really come to our attention because the mechanisms for getting getting a non compliance issue to the Bcdc. Are are thin\, you know\, we have to rely on neighbors and whatnot. So at the end of each one of these enforcement matters. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: It seems like it would be worthwhile to do sort of a a little debrief. And maybe this is already happening. What could have happened differently to keep this out of the enforcement world. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: And I know that at least a couple of things have come up over the years one was an idea that we ask our permittees to certify. On some regular basis. I don’t know if it’s annually\, or whatever it probably depends on the permit. But certify to us. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: That they are in compliance. We. I’m remembering the situation where they built a bathroom that they were required to build on a near public access\, but then let it fall into disrepair\, which we never learned of\, or didn’t learn of it for many\, many years. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Isn’t it. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: So had they been required to certify to us that they were in compliance\, they would be either they would have had to review on their own what the requirements were\, and to say yes or no\, we’re still doing the things we’re supposed to be doing. So I don’t know what if anything ever happened with that idea \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: of inserting a certification requirement into our permits? \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: But to me you know that\, and to do sort of a lessons learned review of Enforcement actions to see if it can inform us \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: as to other things that we could be doing. I agree with Matthew\, that compliance and enforcement are basically\, they basically have the same goal. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: But obviously\, enforcement is a much more difficult step to take. So \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: doing\, that kind of a debriefing\, or\, you know\, lessons learned from enforcement actions. And then looking at this question of whether to add a certification requirement\, both of those things could be helpful. I there may be things about them that \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: make them unhelpful\, but you know I leave that to the experts to sort of figure out if that might benefit us. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you. John. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: Thank you\, Marie\, just sitting here thinking about that audit \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: reliving it. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: Yeah\, 5 years ago. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: and how far we’ve come? I mean a lot of these questions we’ve talked about\, and \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: Matthew was here\, and Adrian was here\, and who was the 3rd person Matthew \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: at that time. \nMatthew Trujillo: Skylar\, I believe. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: Oh\, yeah. And so it was a very small group\, tasked with a whole lot of work. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: And you know\, over the last 18 months they’ve had more help. And the one thing the audit showed was that \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: that we were behind because we didn’t have enough help. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: and I think it kind of backfired on the person to call for it\, because it ended up getting us more people\, and they’re requiring us to look at our procedures \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: because the group was just trying to keep just treading along\, trying to keep up with\, as \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: The violations came in\, and it was termed everything was termed a violation. Not so much a\, you know. A minor issue such as a sign has fallen down\, or something like that. But the whole\, all those issues about making sure that there was a deed restriction on that. All that got all the compliance part\, all the follow up\, all came out of that and \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: you know\, I think good work came out of that because of that audit\, and I think you have a good team in place\, and as they move along over the next 18 months\, and they’ll begin to refine that process. And we\, I think we will find less and less cases coming to the committee\, they will be will be done with all the old cases. It was something like over 300 at 1 point. Yeah\, to be this far along. It’s pretty remarkable. And \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: having one been one of them that sat through all that\, I \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: I’m \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: very surprised and pleased that we got as far as we did. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: But that audit proved to be \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: difficult to deal with\, but also proved to show that we were trying to do the work. We just didn’t have the people to do it. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: anyway. Thank you. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you\, John. As another person who was here during that audit. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: I I have to say that I think \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: it did not turn out the way the person who called for it came out. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: but I think in the long run it was very\, very beneficial to Bcdc. And particularly enforcement. As John said it\, it helped us get more staff and \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: really kind of focus on what it was that we needed to do\, and I think Staff has responded \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: just incredibly well. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: to the findings from that that audit report\, and I think really took things to heart\, and \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: in a relatively short period of time for a government agency has done \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: remarkable job of getting us to where we are today. So I just want to say congratulations to staff \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: And before I forget\, do we have any public comments. \nBoardroom SX80: No hands raised. Here\, Gilmore. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, so that was the open and the close of the public comment period. Anybody else have any comments? \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: I just. I just have one \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: sort of a comment question for Staff. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Can we? Once\, you guys finalize your internal procedures for the compliance program? Can we either see them\, or have a discussion on them\, because I think \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: it’s very helpful that we sort of understand\, for one of a better word\, the flow chart of how things kind of go from permit to compliance to enforcement. As we’re instituting these these new programs and procedures. \nBoardroom SX80: Sure thing. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay. Great. \nBoardroom SX80: 1. 1 more piece of good news that I don’t know has been shared with you yet. A lot of violations happen because Ecdc is relatively small agency\, and a lot of members of the public people have not heard of us. But we recently were able to get a. A new employee who will hopefully \nBoardroom SX80: proselytize and \nBoardroom SX80: help at the very least. Local communities understand? Bcdc and Bcdc’s authority and jurisdiction and hopefully \nBoardroom SX80: help \nBoardroom SX80: help. People understand how they can \nBoardroom SX80: prevent \nBoardroom SX80: enforcement cases by \nBoardroom SX80: staying in compliance. In the 1st place. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Well\, that is excellent news. So hopefully\, we will see that \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: as a result of all of these efforts\, a decrease in not only compliance cases\, but also enforcement cases which at the end of the day is what we all want. So \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: any other comments? \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, seeing none. I’m going to entertain a motion and a second to adjourn the meeting. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: Nobody wants to leave. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: Move. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: Second. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: All right. Any objections to that motion? By Commissioner Eisen\, and the second by Commissioner Vasquez? Any objections? \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Alright. This meeting is adjourned. Thank you\, everybody. Thank you. Staff. \n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Learn How to Participate\n				Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act\nAs 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 access Commission Meetings under the “Public Meetings” tab on the website and select the date of the meeting. \nHow to Provide Comments and Comment Time Limits\nPursuant to state law\, the Commission is currently conducting its public meetings in a “hybrid” fashion. Each meeting notice will specify (1) where the meeting is being primarily held physically\, (2) all teleconference locations\, which will be publicly-accessible\, and (3) 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 or a teleconference meeting location; (2) emailing comments in advance to public comment until 10 a.m. on the day of the meeting; and (3) participating via ZOOM during the meeting. \nIf 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. \nQuestions and Staff Reports\nIf 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. \nCampaign Contributions\nState 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. Other 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. \nAccess to Meetings\nMeetings 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.
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/august-28-2024-enforcement-committee-meeting/
CATEGORIES:Enforcement Committee
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20240808T093000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20240808T120000
DTSTAMP:20260429T234345
CREATED:20240130T045439Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240729T183241Z
UID:10000139-1723109400-1723118400@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:August 8\, 2024 Enforcement Committee Meeting (Cancelled)
DESCRIPTION:
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/august-8-2024-enforcement-committee-meeting/
CATEGORIES:Enforcement Committee
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20240724T093000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20240724T120000
DTSTAMP:20260429T234345
CREATED:20240130T045344Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240709T203459Z
UID:10000138-1721813400-1721822400@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:July 24\, 2024 Enforcement Committee Meeting (Cancelled)
DESCRIPTION:
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/july-24-2024-enforcement-committee-meeting/
CATEGORIES:Enforcement Committee
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20240711T093000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20240711T120000
DTSTAMP:20260429T234345
CREATED:20240130T045258Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240626T153112Z
UID:10000137-1720690200-1720699200@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:July 11\, 2024 Enforcement Committee Meeting (Cancelled)
DESCRIPTION:
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/july-11-2024-enforcement-committee-meeting/
CATEGORIES:Enforcement Committee
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20240626T093000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20240626T120000
DTSTAMP:20260429T234345
CREATED:20240130T045205Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240614T174432Z
UID:10000136-1719394200-1719403200@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:June 26\, 2024 Enforcement Committee Meeting (Cancelled)
DESCRIPTION:
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/june-26-2024-enforcement-committee-meeting/
CATEGORIES:Enforcement Committee
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20240611T093000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20240611T120000
DTSTAMP:20260429T234345
CREATED:20240130T045115Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240607T234532Z
UID:10000135-1718098200-1718107200@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:June 11\, 2024 Enforcement Committee Meeting (Cancelled)
DESCRIPTION:
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/june-11-2024-enforcement-committee-meeting/
CATEGORIES:Enforcement Committee
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20240521T093000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20240521T120000
DTSTAMP:20260429T234345
CREATED:20240130T045033Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240528T212536Z
UID:10000134-1716283800-1716292800@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:May 21\, 2024 Enforcement Committee Meeting (Cancelled)
DESCRIPTION:
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/may-21-2024-enforcement-committee-meeting/
CATEGORIES:Enforcement Committee
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20240507T093000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20240507T120000
DTSTAMP:20260429T234345
CREATED:20240130T044937Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240424T212319Z
UID:10000133-1715074200-1715083200@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:May 7\, 2024 Enforcement Committee Meeting (Cancelled)
DESCRIPTION:
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/may-7-2024-enforcement-committee-meeting/
CATEGORIES:Enforcement Committee
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20240424T093000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20240424T120000
DTSTAMP:20260429T234345
CREATED:20240130T044844Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240610T220342Z
UID:10000132-1713951000-1713960000@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:April 24\, 2024 Enforcement Committee Meeting
DESCRIPTION:This Enforcement meeting will be conducted in a hybrid format in accordance with SB 544 (2023). To maximize public safety while maintaining transparency and public access\, members of the public can choose to participate either virtually via Zoom\, by phone\, or in person at the location listed below. Physical attendance at Metro Center requires that all individuals adhere to the site’s health guidelines including\, if required\, wearing masks\, health screening\, and social distancing. \nPhysical Location \nMetro Center375 Beale St.\, TemazcalSan Francisco\, CA  94105(415) 352-3600 \nIf you have issues joining the meeting using the link\, please enter the Meeting ID and Password listed below into the ZOOM app to join the meeting. \nJoin the meeting via ZOOM \nhttps://bcdc-ca-gov.zoom.us/j/83554159479?pwd=IVg0CLNlhMyzk9Zrf0ceEiV6nsr7RZ.1 \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers1 (866) 590-5055Conference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID835 5415 9479 \nPasscode452399 \nIf you call in by telephone: \nPress *6 to unmute or mute yourselfPress *9 to raise your hand or lower your hand to speak  \n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Tentative Agenda\n				\nCall to Order\nRoll Call\nPublic Comment\nThe Committee will hear public comments on matters that are not on the agenda.\nApproval of Draft Minutes from the April 11\, 2024 Enforcement Committee meeting.\nBriefing to the Enforcement Committee on the Status of the City of Oakland’s Compliance with Commission Order CCD 2020.001.00.\nBCDC staff and City staff will report out to the committee on the current state of compliance with the terms and conditions of the Commission Order CCD 2020.001.00 requiring remedial actions at Union Point Park. The committee may choose to take action on this item.\n(John Creech) [415/352-3619; john.creech@bcdc.ca.gov]\nPublic comment letter\nBriefing on Oakland Alameda Estuary and Encampment Issue.\nThe Enforcement Committee will receive a briefing on actions taken to address shoreline encampments\, abandoned and derelict vessels\, and anchor-outs in the Oakland-Alameda Estuary by BCDC staff and the Cities of Oakland and Alameda.\n(John Creech) [415/352-3619; john.creech@bcdc.ca.gov]\nPublic comment letter\nAdjournment\n\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Meeting Minutes\n				\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Audio Recording & Transcript\n				 \nAudio Transcript\n[00:00:07] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: GOOD \n[00:00:07] MORNING\, EVERYONE. \n[00:00:12] >>MARGIE MALAN\, CLERK: GOOD \n[00:00:13] MORNING. \n[00:00:13] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: HANG ON. \n[00:00:14] I HAVE TO DO SOMETHING WITH MY \n[00:00:15] VOLUME HERE. \n[00:00:25] >>MARGIE MALAN\, CLERK: GOOD \n[00:00:25] MORNING\, EVERYBODY. THANK YOU \n[00:00:26] FOR JOINING US. CHAIR GILMORE WE \n[00:00:30] HAVE A QUORUM. \n[00:00:32] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: HOLD ON. \n[00:00:33] I’M STILL HAVING AUDIO PROBLEMS. \n[00:00:45] CAN YOU SAY SOMETHING TO ME THIS \n[00:00:47] MORNING? \n[00:00:52] >>MARGIE MALAN\, CLERK: GOOD \n[00:00:53] MORNING. \n[00:00:54] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: CAN YOU \n[00:00:55] HEAR ME? \n[00:00:57] >>LETTY BELIN: YES. \n[00:00:59] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: OKAY. \n[00:00:59] GOOD MORNING\, EVERYONE. AND I \n[00:01:01] SEE THAT IT IS 9:31\, AND THIS \n[00:01:07] MEETING OF THE BCDC ENFORCEMENT \n[00:01:09] COMMITTEE IS HEREBY CALLED TO \n[00:01:11] ORDER. \n[00:01:12] MY NAME IS MARIE GILMORE AND I \n[00:01:12] AM THE CHAIR OF THIS COMMITTEE. \n[00:01:13] FOR COMMISSIONERS\, INCLUDING \n[00:01:14] THOSE ATTENDING AT BEALE STREET\, \n[00:01:14] PLEASE ENSURE THAT YOUR VIDEO \n[00:01:15] CAMERAS ARE ALWAYS ON AND PLEASE \n[00:01:16] MUTE YOURSELVES WHEN YOU ARE NOT \n[00:01:16] SPEAKING. OUR FIRST ORDER OF \n[00:01:17] BUSINESS IS TO CALL THE ROLL. \n[00:01:18] MATTHEW\, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. \n[00:01:34] MATTHEW\, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. \n[00:01:37] COMMISSIONERS\, PLEASE UNMUTE \n[00:01:37] YOURSELVES WHILE HE DOES SO TO \n[00:01:38] RESPOND AND THEN MUTE YOURSELVES \n[00:01:39] AFTER RESPONDING. \n[00:01:43] >>MATTHEW TRUJILLO: GOOD \n[00:01:44] MORNING. COMMISSIONER BELIN? \n[00:01:46] >>LETTY BELIN: HERE. \n[00:01:49] >>MATTHEW TRUJILLO: COMMISSIONER \n[00:01:50] VASQUEZ? \n[00:01:52] >>JOHN VASQUEZ: HERE. \n[00:01:54] >>MATTHEW TRUJILLO: CHAIR \n[00:01:54] GILMORE. \n[00:01:55] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: HERE. \n[00:01:56] WE HAVE A QUORUM PRESENT AND ARE \n[00:01:57] DULY CONSTITUTED TO CONDUCT \n[00:01:57] BUSINESS. AND THAT BRINGS US TO \n[00:01:58] ITEM THREE ON OUR AGENDA\, PUBLIC \n[00:02:05] COMMENT. IN ACCORDANCE WITH OUR \n[00:02:08] USUAL \n[00:02:08] PRACTICE AND AS INDICATED ON THE \n[00:02:09] AGENDA\, WE WILL NOW HAVE GENERAL \n[00:02:10] PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON \n[00:02:14] TODAY’S AGENDA. WE’VE RECEIVED \n[00:02:17] NO GENERAL COMMENTS. IS THAT \n[00:02:19] STILL CORRECT\, MARGIE? \n[00:02:22] >>MARGIE MALMAN\, CLERK: YES\, \n[00:02:23] THAT IS CORRECT. \n[00:02:24] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: IN \n[00:02:25] ADVANCE OF THIS MEETING. FOR THE \n[00:02:27] MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC ATTENDING \n[00:02:28] ONLINE\, IF YOU WOULD \n[00:02:29] LIKE TO SPEAK EITHER DURING THE \n[00:02:30] GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD OR \n[00:02:30] FOR AN ITEM ON THE AGENDA\, \n[00:02:31] PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND IN THE \n[00:02:32] ZOOM APPLICATION BY CLICKING ON \n[00:02:32] THE PARTICIPANTS ICON AT THE \n[00:02:33] BOTTOM OF YOUR SCREEN AND LOOK \n[00:02:34] IN THE BOX WHERE YOUR NAME IS \n[00:02:34] LISTED UNDER ATTENDEES. FIND A \n[00:02:35] SMALL PALM ICON ON THE LEFT. IF \n[00:02:36] YOU CLICK ON THAT PALM ICON\, IT \n[00:02:36] WILL RAISE YOUR HAND\, OR IF YOU \n[00:02:37] ARE JOINING THIS MEETING BY \n[00:02:38] PHONE\, YOU MUST DIAL STAR 9 TO \n[00:02:39] RAISE YOUR HAND THEN DIAL STAR 6 \n[00:02:39] ON YOUR KEYPAD TO UNMUTE YOUR \n[00:02:40] PHONE WHEN THE HOST ASKS YOU IN \n[00:02:41] ORDER TO MAKE A COMMENT. THE \n[00:02:41] MEETING HOST WILL CALL \n[00:02:42] INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE RAISED \n[00:02:42] THEIR HANDS IN THE ORDER THEY \n[00:02:43] WERE RAISED. AFTER YOU ARE \n[00:02:44] CALLED UPON\, YOU WILL BE UNMUTED \n[00:02:44] SO THAT YOU CAN SHARE YOUR \n[00:02:45] COMMENTS. PLEASE ANNOUNCE \n[00:02:46] YOURSELF BY FIRST AND LAST NAME \n[00:02:46] FOR THE RECORD BEFORE MAKING \n[00:02:47] YOUR COMMENT. FOR MEMBERS OF THE \n[00:02:48] PUBLIC ATTENDING IN PERSON\, \n[00:02:48] PLEASE QUEUE UP AT THE SPEAKER’S \n[00:02:49] PODIUM AND WAIT TO BE CALLED \n[00:02:50] UPON TO SPEAK. COMMENTERS ARE \n[00:02:50] LIMITED TO THREE MINUTES TO \n[00:02:51] SPEAK. PLEASE KEEP YOUR COMMENTS \n[00:02:52] RESPECTFUL AND FOCUSED. WE’RE \n[00:02:52] HERE TO LISTEN TO ANY INDIVIDUAL \n[00:02:53] WHO REQUESTS TO SPEAK\, BUT EACH \n[00:02:54] SPEAKER HAS THE RESPONSIBILITY \n[00:02:55] TO ACT IN A CIVIL AND COURTEOUS \n[00:02:55] MANNER AS DETERMINED BY THE \n[00:02:56] CHAIR. WE WILL NOT TOLERATE HATE \n[00:02:57] SPEECH\, DIRECT THREATS\, INDIRECT \n[00:02:57] THREATS OR ABUSIVE LANGUAGE. WE \n[00:02:58] WILL MUTE ANYONE WHO FAILS TO \n[00:02:59] FOLLOW THOSE GUIDELINES. MARGIE\, \n[00:02:59] DO WE HAVE ANY COMMENTERS? \n[00:04:03] >>MARGIE MALMAN\, CLERK: CHAIR \n[00:04:10] GILMORE\, WE DO NOT HAVE A PUBLIC \n[00:04:13] SPEAKER IN THE ROOM OR ONLINE. \n[00:04:15] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: THANK \n[00:04:15] YOU. SO\, THAT MOVES US ON TO \n[00:04:20] ITEM NUMBER FOUR\, APPROVAL OF \n[00:04:22] DRAFT MINUTES FOR THE LAST \n[00:04:23] MEETING. WE HAVE ALL BEEN \n[00:04:25] FURNISHED DRAFT MEETINGS FROM \n[00:04:26] OUR LAST MEETING. COMMITTEE \n[00:04:29] MEMBERS\, I WOULD APPRECIATE A \n[00:04:30] MOTION AND A SECOND TO APPROVE \n[00:04:32] THESE. \n[00:04:39] >>JOHN VASQUEZ: SO MOVED. \n[00:04:40] >>LETTY BELIN: SECOND. \n[00:04:40] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: OKAY. \n[00:04:41] MOVED BY COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ \n[00:04:43] AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER \n[00:04:44] BELIN. DO WE HAVE ANY OBJECTIONS \n[00:04:46] TO APPROVING THESE MINUTES? DO \n[00:04:51] WE HAVE ANY ABSTENTIONS? OKAY. \n[00:04:57] THE MEETING MINUTES PASS \n[00:05:00] UNANIMOUSLY. SO\, NOW WE ARE ON \n[00:05:05] TO ITEM NUMBER 5\, WHICH IS A \n[00:05:10] BRIEFING TO THIS COMMITTEE ON \n[00:05:11] THE STATUS OF THE CITY OF \n[00:05:15] OAKLAND’S COMPLIANCE WITH \n[00:05:16] COMMISSION ORDER CCD \n[00:05:18] 2020.001.00. BCDC COMPLIANCE \n[00:05:25] STAFF AND OAKLAND CITY STAFF \n[00:05:27] WILL NOW REPORT OUT TO THIS \n[00:05:29] COMMISSION ON THE CURRENT STATE \n[00:05:31] OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE TERMS AND \n[00:05:33] CONDITIONS OF THE COMMISSION \n[00:05:36] ORDER REQUIRING REMEDIAL ACTIONS \n[00:05:38] AT UNION POINT PARK IN THE CITY \n[00:05:41] OF OAKLAND\, ALAMEDA COUNTY. I’M \n[00:05:44] GOING TO INVITE JOHN CREECH OF \n[00:05:47] OUR COMPLIANCE UNIT TO START US \n[00:05:49] OFF. JOHN? \n[00:05:56] >>SANJAY RANCHOD: CHAIR GILMORE\, \n[00:05:58] IT’S SANJAY RANCHOD\, I JUST \n[00:06:01] WANTED TO NOTE I HAVE JOINED THE \n[00:06:04] MEETING AS WELL. \n[00:06:05] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: THANK \n[00:06:05] YOU\, SANJAY. WELCOME\, JOHN\, \n[00:06:06] BEFORE YOU START\, CAN WE HAVE \n[00:06:08] THE CITY OF OAKLAND OFFICIALS \n[00:06:09] WHO ARE PRESENT PLEASE IDENTIFY \n[00:06:11] THEMSELVES? \n[00:06:17] >>JOE DEVRIES: GOOD MORNING\, \n[00:06:17] CHAIR GILMORE. THIS IS JOE \n[00:06:20] DEVRIES\, DEPUTY CITY \n[00:06:21] ADMINISTRATOR. I DO BELIEVE \n[00:06:22] OFFICER ALBINO IS HERE TO TALK \n[00:06:23] ON THE NEXT ITEM\, BUT I’M NOT \n[00:06:25] SURE BECAUSE I CAN’T SEE WHO \n[00:06:26] ELSE IS IN THE GALLERY. \n[00:06:29] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: OFFICER \n[00:06:30] ALBINO? I SEE HIM. \n[00:06:38] >>JOE DEVRIES: HE’S HERE FOR THE \n[00:06:39] NEXT ITEM. \n[00:06:39] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: OKAY. \n[00:06:40] GREAT. ALL RIGHT. JOHN? \n[00:06:53] >>JOHN CREECH: GOOD MORNING\, \n[00:06:55] COMMISSIONERS\, MY NAME IS JOHN \n[00:06:56] CREECH\, I’M ON BCDC’S COMPLIANCE \n[00:06:58] TEAM. I’M HERE TODAY TO \n[00:07:00] INTRODUCE ITEM NUMBER 5\, A \n[00:07:02] BRIEFING ON UNION POINT PARK. \n[00:07:03] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: JOHN\, \n[00:07:04] EXCUSE ME. COULD YOU SPEAK UP A \n[00:07:06] LITTLE BIT? I’M HAVING \n[00:07:08] DIFFICULTY HEARING YOU. THANK \n[00:07:08] YOU. \n[00:07:10] >>JOHN CREECH: THANK YOU FOR \n[00:07:11] LETTING ME KNOW. I’LL START \n[00:07:14] OVER. I’M JOHN CREECH\, I’M ON \n[00:07:16] BCDC’S COMPLIANCE TEAM. I’M HERE \n[00:07:18] TODAY TO INTRODUCE ITEM NUMBER \n[00:07:20] 5\, A BRIEFING ON UNION POINT \n[00:07:22] PARK. WE WILL THEN HEAR FROM THE \n[00:07:23] CITY OF OAKLAND ON THE STATUS OF \n[00:07:25] THEIR PARK AND THEIR PLANS FOR \n[00:07:27] MAINTAINING THE PARK. UNION \n[00:07:36] POINT PARK AND UNION POINT \n[00:07:38] MARINA ARE LOCATED IN OAKLAND\, \n[00:07:41] ALAMEDA COUNTY JUST SOUTH OF \n[00:07:43] COAST GUARD ISLAND BRIDGE ALONG \n[00:07:47] OAKLAND’S EMBARCADERO. IT IS \n[00:07:47] GOVERENED BY TWO ADMINISTRATIVE \n[00:07:50] BCDC PERMITS. UNION POINT PARK \n[00:07:51] WAS THE SUBJECT OF BCDC \n[00:07:51] ENFORCEMENT CASE ER 2018.028 AND \n[00:07:52] THAT CASE LED TO THE ISSUANCE OF \n[00:08:03] CEASE AND DESIST ORDER CCD \n[00:08:04] 220.001.00 TO THE CITY OF \n[00:08:05] OAKLAND ON OCTOBER 21\, 2020. AS \n[00:08:07] YOU MAY RECALL\, THE ISSUE OF \n[00:08:09] ENCAMPMENTS AT THE PARK HAS BEEN \n[00:08:10] THE SUBJECT OF MANY PUBLIC \n[00:08:12] COMMENTS OVER THE YEARS. BCDC \n[00:08:13] STAFF AND THE ENFORCEMENT \n[00:08:15] COMMITTEE BEGAN RECEIVING PUBLIC \n[00:08:17] COMMENTS ABOUT THE PARK AGAIN IN \n[00:08:18] LATE JANUARY OF THIS YEAR. CCD \n[00:08:27] 2020.01.00 REFERS TO THE \n[00:08:30] ENTIRETY OF UNION POINT PARK\, \n[00:08:31] THOUGH THE PARK ITSELF IS \n[00:08:36] PERMITTED USING TWO SEPARATE \n[00:08:38] PERMIT AUTHORIZATIONS. THE ORDER \n[00:08:38] COVERS THE ENTIRETY OF THE PARK \n[00:08:40] AND IS ISSUED TO THE CITY OF \n[00:08:40] OAKLAND. THE ORDER REQUIRED \n[00:08:43] OAKLAND TO DEVELOP AND IMPLEMENT \n[00:08:44] AN ENCAMPMENT CLOSURE PLAN AND A \n[00:08:47] PARK RESTORATION PLAN. ALL \n[00:08:49] PARTIES UNDERSTOOD THAT THE \n[00:08:51] ENCAMPMENT ENCLOSURE PLAN WOULD \n[00:08:52] TAKE TIME TO IMPLEMENT AND WAS \n[00:08:54] TO OCCUR IN STAGES. AS SUCH\, THE \n[00:08:55] CITY WAS TO ESTABLISH A REPRIEVE \n[00:08:57] ZONE TO CONSOLIDATE ENCAMPMENTS \n[00:08:59] AND THEN WORK TO CLEAR AND CLEAN \n[00:09:00] UP THE SURROUNDING AREAS. THE \n[00:09:02] CITY WAS TO PROVIDE NECESSARY \n[00:09:04] SERVICES INCLUDING SANITARY\, \n[00:09:06] OUTREACH\, HOUSING\, WEEKLY \n[00:09:09] GARBAGE COLLECTION SERVICES IN \n[00:09:11] THE REPRIEVE ZONE. BY FEBRUARY \n[00:09:13] 12\, 2021\, THE CITY WAS TO HAVE \n[00:09:16] CONDUCTED AN ENCAMPMENT CLOSURE \n[00:09:18] INTERVENTION IN THE ENTIRETY OF \n[00:09:20] THE PARK. THEN THE CITY WAS TO \n[00:09:23] IMPLEMENT ITS PARK RESTORATION \n[00:09:25] PLAN. BY APRIL 1\, 2022\, THE CITY \n[00:09:28] WAS TO HAVE FULLY RESTORED THE \n[00:09:30] PARK. IN THE INTEREST OF \n[00:09:34] PREVENTION\, THE CITY WAS TO \n[00:09:35] DEVELOP AND IMPLEMENT AN \n[00:09:37] ENCAMPMENT ENFORCEMENT PLAN BY \n[00:09:41] APRIL 15\, 2021\, AS WELL AS A \n[00:09:41] LONG-TERM MAINTENANCE PLAN BY \n[00:09:42] SEPTEMBER — EXCUSE ME\, BY \n[00:09:52] SEPTEMBER 1\, 2021. THE CITY OF \n[00:09:52] OAKLAND SUCCESSFULLY IMPLEMENTED \n[00:09:54] THE ALLOWED REPRIEVE ZONE AND \n[00:09:56] CLEANED UP THE PARK OUTSIDE OF \n[00:09:57] THE ZONE AS DOCUMENTED IN A \n[00:09:59] NOVEMBER 20\, 2021 EMAIL TO BCDC \n[00:10:01] STAFF. THEN\, CITY STAFF \n[00:10:04] CONFIRMED VIA EMAIL THAT THE \n[00:10:05] PARK HAD BEEN SUCCESSFULLY \n[00:10:07] CLEANED UP ON DECEMBER 11\, 2020. \n[00:10:10] THE CITY PROVIDED THE REQUIRED \n[00:10:12] PLANS FOR BCDC REVIEW IN \n[00:10:14] COMMENTS AND THE CITY WAS — \n[00:10:17] CITY REQUESTED AND WAS GRANTED \n[00:10:19] AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO COMPLETE \n[00:10:21] THE NECESSARY RESTORATION OF THE \n[00:10:22] PARK. THE COMMITTEE IS BEING \n[00:10:30] BRIEFED TODAY BECAUSE THERE \n[00:10:31] SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN SOME ISSUES \n[00:10:32] WITH ORDER COMPLIANCE AT THE \n[00:10:34] PARK RECENTLY. STARTING IN \n[00:10:35] JANUARY 2024\, BCDC STAFF AND THE \n[00:10:39] ENFORCEMENT COMMITTEE BEGAN \n[00:10:40] RECEIVING PUBLIC COMMENTS THAT \n[00:10:41] EXPRESSED CONCERNS OF \n[00:10:43] ENCAMPMENTS RETURNING TO UNION \n[00:10:44] POINT PARK. STAFF CONDUCTED A \n[00:10:46] SITE VISIT IN MARCH AND \n[00:10:47] CONFIRMED THE PRESENCE OF \n[00:10:49] SEVERAL TENTS THROUGHOUT THE \n[00:10:50] PARK AS WELL AS AN RV IN THE \n[00:10:51] SOUTHERN PARKING LOT. BCDC \n[00:10:53] SUBSEQUENTLY CONTACTED THE CITY \n[00:10:54] OF OAKLAND STAFF AND LEARNED \n[00:10:58] THEY WERE AWARE OF THE ISSUE BUT \n[00:11:00] WERE FACING CHALLENGES WITH THE \n[00:11:02] REQUIRED ALTERNATIVE SHELTER\, \n[00:11:03] AND THAT THERE WERE \n[00:11:04] INTERRUPTIONS IN THE CONTRACT \n[00:11:05] WITH THE OAKLAND OUTREACH TEAM\, \n[00:11:07] THIS TEAM PROVIDES FIRST CONTACT \n[00:11:10] WITH INDIVIDUALS ENCAMPED IN THE \n[00:11:11] PARKS. I WILL NOW INTRODUCE CITY \n[00:11:14] OF OAKLAND’S DEPUTY CITY \n[00:11:16] ADMINISTRATOR\, JOE DEVRIES. \n[00:11:24] >>JOE DEVRIES: THANK YOU\, JOHN. \n[00:11:26] SO\, I DON’T HAVE SLIDES. I JUST \n[00:11:28] WANT TO GIVE THE MOST RECENT \n[00:11:30] UPDATE. I THINK\, JOHN\, THAT WAS \n[00:11:32] VERY ACCURATE. WE\, YOU KNOW\, \n[00:11:34] LOOKING AT OUR LONG-TERM \n[00:11:38] ENFORCEMENT PLAN THAT WE AGREED \n[00:11:39] TO IN THE ORIGINAL CEASE AND \n[00:11:42] DESIST\, WE HAVE IMPLEMENTED THE \n[00:11:43] FIRST FEW STEPS OF THAT PLAN. AS \n[00:11:45] JOHN MENTIONED\, WE HAD A \n[00:11:47] DISRUPTION IN OUR OUTREACH \n[00:11:49] CONTRACT. THAT DISRUPTION ENDED \n[00:11:51] A FEW WEEKS AGO. WE WERE ABLE TO \n[00:11:53] SEND OUR OUTREACH WORKERS OUT TO \n[00:11:54] MAKE CONTACT WITH THE PERSONS IN \n[00:11:55] THE ENCAMPMENT AND EXPLAIN THE \n[00:11:57] PARK RULES AND THE REQUEST THAT \n[00:11:59] PEOPLE MOVE VOLUNTARILY. OR \n[00:12:02] ACCEPT OFFERS OF SHELTER. \n[00:12:06] UNFORTUNATELY WE DON’T HAVE \n[00:12:07] SHELTER BEDS TO OFFER RIGHT NOW. \n[00:12:08] WE HAVE ADDED THE ENCAMPMENT TO \n[00:12:10] THE WEEKLY AGENDA FOR THE \n[00:12:12] ENCAMPMENT MANAGEMENT TEAM\, \n[00:12:13] WHICH IS STEP TWO OF THE \n[00:12:14] LONG-TERM ENFORCEMENT PLAN THAT \n[00:12:15] WE AGREED TO. AND THAT TEAM \n[00:12:18] HOPES TO HAVE BEDS AVAILABLE TO \n[00:12:19] BE ABLE TO PERFORM A CLOSURE IN \n[00:12:22] EARLY JUNE AT THIS POINT\, BASED \n[00:12:24] ON BED AVAILABILITY. WE’VE ALSO \n[00:12:28] DEPLOYED OAKDOT\, THE DEPARTMENT \n[00:12:32] OF TRANSPORTATION VEHICLE \n[00:12:34] ENFORCEMENT UNIT THREE TIMES IN \n[00:12:35] THE PAST THREE MONTHS TO TRY TO \n[00:12:39] GAIN VOLUNTARY COMPLIANCE FOR \n[00:12:41] THE RV TO LEAVE THE PARKING LOT. \n[00:12:45] THEY HAVE REFUSED TO. SO\, IN \n[00:12:47] ORDER TO CLOSE THAT PORTION OF \n[00:12:50] THE ENCAMPMENT\, WE NEED TO \n[00:12:52] PROVIDE A SAFE RV PARKING SPOT. \n[00:12:54] WE DID OPEN A SAFE RV PARKING \n[00:12:56] SITE A YEAR AGO. IT IS CURRENTLY \n[00:12:58] FULL. SO\, WE’RE REALLY LOOKING \n[00:13:00] TO FIND A SPACE FOR THAT RV \n[00:13:02] BEFORE WE CAN CLOSE IT SO THAT \n[00:13:03] WE DON’T VIOLATE ANY OF OUR \n[00:13:05] LEGAL SETTLEMENTS OR OUR \n[00:13:08] ENCAMPMENT MANAGEMENT POLICY. \n[00:13:10] SO\, WE’LL CONTINUE TO PROVIDE \n[00:13:13] OUTREACH AT THE SITE UNTIL WE \n[00:13:15] SCHEDULE THE CLOSURE. AND THE \n[00:13:17] CLOSURE WILL BE SCHEDULED BASED \n[00:13:18] ON BED AVAILABILITY. HAPPY TO \n[00:13:24] ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. \n[00:13:27] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: THANK \n[00:13:28] YOU. I WASN’T SURE THAT YOU WERE \n[00:13:30] FINISHED. DO ANY COMMISSIONERS \n[00:13:33] HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. \n[00:13:36] DEVRIES? I JUST HAVE ONE \n[00:13:43] QUESTION. I UNDERSTAND\, YOU \n[00:13:47] KNOW\, THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS \n[00:13:49] AND HOW DIFFICULT IT IS TO \n[00:13:57] REMOVE THESE ENCAMPMENTS OR RVs \n[00:14:00] ONCE THEY’RE ESTABLISHED. I \n[00:14:02] THINK WHAT I WANT TO KNOW AND \n[00:14:03] MAYBE WHAT MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC \n[00:14:04] WANT TO KNOW IS GIVEN THE FACT \n[00:14:09] THAT THE CITY OF OAKLAND HAS \n[00:14:11] SPENT SO MANY RESOURCES ON \n[00:14:13] CLEANING UP THIS PARK\, WHY ISN’T \n[00:14:17] THERE MORE VIGILANCE IN TERMS OF \n[00:14:20] MONITORING THE PARK TO MAKE SURE \n[00:14:23] THAT THE ENCAMPMENTS DON’T GET A \n[00:14:26] FOOTHOLD IN THE FIRST PLACE? AND \n[00:14:29] IT MAY VERY WELL BE LACK OF \n[00:14:32] RESOURCES IN THE POLICE \n[00:14:35] DEPARTMENT OR WHATEVER. I WOULD \n[00:14:36] REALLY LIKE TO GET THIS ON THE \n[00:14:38] RECORD. THIS IS A QUESTION WE \n[00:14:40] GET A LOT. \n[00:14:44] >>JOE DEVRIES: I THINK YOU’RE \n[00:14:45] ASKING A QUESTION THAT \n[00:14:46] TRANSCENDS UNION POINT PARK. YOU \n[00:14:48] KNOW\, WE HAVE LAWS\, WE HAVE \n[00:14:50] RULES\, AND WE ALSO HAVE A \n[00:14:52] POPULATION THAT — THAT LIVES \n[00:14:54] OUTSIDE OF THOSE FOR A VARIETY \n[00:14:56] OF REASONS. YOU KNOW\, I FAILED \n[00:14:59] TO MENTION EARLIER\, WE DID ALSO \n[00:15:02] IMPLEMENT SOME SET-TED MEASURES. \n[00:15:07] YOU MAY RECALL\, LAST YEAR WE HAD \n[00:15:08] PEOPLE DRIVING INTO THE PARK\, WE \n[00:15:10] WERE ABLE TO QUICKLY GET THOSE \n[00:15:11] ENCAMPMENTS REMOVED\, AND WE \n[00:15:13] ACTUALLY PUT IN IN CONCRETE \n[00:15:15] BLOCKS TO AVOID CARS DRIVING \n[00:15:16] INTO THE PARK. THAT WAS A \n[00:15:19] SUCCESSFUL SET-TED ENDEAVOR. OPD \n[00:15:21] CAN GO AND ASK PEOPLE TO \n[00:15:23] VOLUNTARILY COMPLY WITH OUR PARK \n[00:15:25] RULES\, WITH OUR NO-CAMPING ZONE\, \n[00:15:28] WHICH IS CLEARLY BEEN POSTED \n[00:15:30] MULTIPLE TIMES. IF THEY DON’T\, \n[00:15:32] HOWEVER\, IT KICKS OVER TO THE \n[00:15:35] ENCAMPMENT MANAGEMENT TEAM. AND \n[00:15:36] THE ENCAMPMENT MANAGEMENT POLICY \n[00:15:39] IS REALLY CLEAR AND HAS BEEN \n[00:15:41] APPROVED BY A FEDERAL JUDGE THAT \n[00:15:42] WE CANNOT FORCE PEOPLE TO LEAVE \n[00:15:45] THE PARK UNLESS WE HAVE A \n[00:15:47] SHELTER BED FOR THEM. I THINK \n[00:15:52] THAT IS THE BIGGEST HURDLE WE \n[00:15:53] HAVE. WE HAVE EXPANDED OUR \n[00:15:55] SHELTER BED CAPACITY IN OAKLAND \n[00:15:56] SINCE 2017 BY SOMETHING LIKE \n[00:15:58] 800%. LITERALLY WENT FROM 100 \n[00:16:02] BEDS TO 800\, AND THEN WE ADDED \n[00:16:04] SAFE RV PARKING SITES ON TOP OF \n[00:16:06] THAT. AT THE SAME TIME\, THE \n[00:16:07] UNSHELTERED POPULATION HAS \n[00:16:12] TRIPLED. FOR ALL THOSE \n[00:16:13] EFFORTS — I WOULD ACTUALLY SAY \n[00:16:14] THE OTHER MAJOR HURDLE THE CITY \n[00:16:16] OF OAKLAND IS FACING IS THAT WE \n[00:16:18] ARE NOT MOVING PEOPLE OUT OF \n[00:16:20] SHELTER INTO PERMANENT HOUSING \n[00:16:22] BECAUSE THE PERMANENT HOUSING \n[00:16:23] DOESN’T EXIST. \n[00:16:26] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: MM-HMM. \n[00:16:28] >>JOE DEVRIES: THAT’S THE \n[00:16:29] BOTTLENECK THAT OUR CITY \n[00:16:30] STRUGGLES WITH DESPERATELY. WHEN \n[00:16:32] I STARTED DOING THIS WORK — \n[00:16:33] I’VE BEEN IN FRONT OF YOUR \n[00:16:35] COMMITTEE NOW SINCE BEFORE THE \n[00:16:36] PANDEMIC. YOU KNOW\, WE WOULD \n[00:16:40] MOVE SOMEONE INTO A CABIN\, FOR \n[00:16:42] EXAMPLE\, AND EXPECT A SIX-MONTH \n[00:16:44] STAY. AND WE — WITH OUR \n[00:16:47] ORIGINAL COMMUNITY CABIN \n[00:16:49] PROGRAM\, WE ACTUALLY MOVED TWO \n[00:16:52] THIRDS OF THE FIRST RESIDENTS OF \n[00:16:53] THOSE CABINS INTO PERMANENT \n[00:16:56] HOUSING WITHIN SIX MONTHS. \n[00:16:57] THAT’S NO LONGER THE CASE. WE \n[00:16:58] ARE FINDING THAT WE MOVE PEOPLE \n[00:16:59] INTO THESE CABIN SHELTERS OR \n[00:17:02] INTO SAFE RV SITES AND WE’RE NOT \n[00:17:05] EXITING THEM AT NEARLY THE PACE \n[00:17:08] WE WERE BECAUSE WE DON’T HAVE \n[00:17:09] THE HOUSING TO EXIT THEM TO. YOU \n[00:17:10] KNOW\, AS YOU KNOW\, THERE’S A \n[00:17:12] SUPREME COURT CASE THAT WAS \n[00:17:13] HEARD JUST ON MONDAY REGARDING \n[00:17:15] THE 9th CIRCUIT AND REALLY WILL \n[00:17:18] BE A MOMENT WHERE WE’RE REALLY \n[00:17:21] HOPING TO SEE WHAT THE SUPREME \n[00:17:23] COURT SAYS IN LATE JUNE AT THE \n[00:17:25] END OF THEIR SESSION. THAT COULD \n[00:17:27] SIGNIFICANTLY IMPACT OUR \n[00:17:29] OPERATIONS AND GIVE US MORE \n[00:17:31] LEEWAY. NOT TO GO INTO TOO MUCH \n[00:17:35] DETAIL\, BUT MY OPINION\, I’M NOT \n[00:17:36] AN ATTORNEY\, I’VE READ THE 9th \n[00:17:40] CIRCUIT CASE\, I HAD TO BE IN \n[00:17:41] FEDERAL COURT SIX TIMES ON THIS\, \n[00:17:43] I BELIEVE THE JUDGES MADE IT \n[00:17:45] CLEAR\, THE CITIES COULD REGULATE \n[00:17:47] TIME\, PLACE AND MANNER\, BUT IT’S \n[00:17:49] NOT BEEN INTERPRETED THAT WAY AT \n[00:17:51] THE LOCAL LEVEL. OUR LOCAL \n[00:17:53] FEDERAL JUDGES HAVE GOTTEN VERY \n[00:17:56] INTIMATELY INVOLVED IN WHAT TYPE \n[00:17:57] OF SHELTER WE OFFER\, WHAT \n[00:17:59] AMENITIES WE OFFER AT THE \n[00:18:00] SHELTER BEFORE WE’RE ALLOWED TO \n[00:18:01] TAKE ACTION WHEN A RESTRAINING \n[00:18:03] ORDER IS FILED AGAINST US. I’M \n[00:18:06] CITING WOOD STREET AS THE MOST \n[00:18:08] RECENT EXAMPLE WHERE THE JUDGE \n[00:18:09] WOULD NOT LET US CLOSE THE WOOD \n[00:18:11] STREET ENCAMPMENT UNTIL SOME \n[00:18:13] VERY DETAILED ASPECTS OF THE \n[00:18:15] COMMUNITY CABIN PROGRAM COULD BE \n[00:18:17] PROVED OR IMPLEMENTED. THINGS \n[00:18:19] SUCH AS WHETHER WE HAD THE \n[00:18:22] SHOWERS UP AND RUNNING\, EVEN \n[00:18:24] THOUGH WE HAD THE BATHROOMS UP \n[00:18:25] AND RUNNING. WHETHER WE PROVIDED \n[00:18:27] A COMMUNITY KITCHEN. THAT \n[00:18:29] DEFINITION OF WHAT IS ADEQUATE \n[00:18:31] EMERGENCY SHELTER BEING PLAYED \n[00:18:32] OUT IN A FEDERAL\, YOU KNOW\, \n[00:18:35] COURT LOCALLY I THINK HAS REALLY \n[00:18:38] MADE OPERATIONS DIFFICULT. I \n[00:18:39] THINK WHAT’S GOING TO HAPPEN AT \n[00:18:41] THE SUPREME COURT WILL REALLY \n[00:18:42] SHAPE THINGS MORE IN THE FUTURE. \n[00:18:47] SORRY\, I’VE GONE ON A LONG TIME \n[00:18:48] ABOUT THAT. I HOPE IT GIVES YOU \n[00:18:50] A BIT OF CONTEXT. REST ASSURED\, \n[00:18:52] THIS ENCAMPMENT IS ON THE EMTs \n[00:18:55] RADAR. IT IS GOING TO BE \n[00:18:56] PRIORITIZED. I WASN’T SURE IF I \n[00:18:58] SHOULD TALK ABOUT IT DURING THIS \n[00:18:59] AGENDA ITEM OR THE NEXT ONE\, WE \n[00:19:01] DID JUST HAVE A VERY MASSIVE \n[00:19:05] CLOSURE OF THE LEET DRIVE-IN \n[00:19:08] ENCAMPMENT. OUR CENSUS DATA FROM \n[00:19:11] UNION POINT PARK SHOWS IT’S \n[00:19:12] ABOUT FIVE OR SIX PEOPLE. ONCE \n[00:19:13] WE GET THOSE BEDS IT SHOULDN’T \n[00:19:16] AN DIFFICULT LIFT TO GET IT \n[00:19:18] CLOSED. WE JUST CLOSED A MUCH \n[00:19:20] LARGER ENCAMPMENT ON LEET DRIVE\, \n[00:19:22] WHICH THIS COMMITTEE WAS \n[00:19:23] INTERESTED IN IN TERMS OF THE \n[00:19:24] IMPACT ON WATER QUALITY BECAUSE \n[00:19:26] IT WAS ALONG THE CHANNEL. THAT\, \n[00:19:28] WE CONSIDER A SUCCESS. WITH EACH \n[00:19:31] SUCCESS WE TAP OUR RESOURCES AND \n[00:19:34] MAKE THE NEXT ONE TAKE THAT MUCH \n[00:19:36] LONGER TO IMPLEMENT. \n[00:19:40] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: THANK \n[00:19:40] YOU VERY MUCH. I DEFINITELY \n[00:19:41] APPRECIATE THE CONTEXT. I THINK \n[00:19:43] IT’S IMPORTANT FOR THE — I’M \n[00:19:48] SORRY? JOHN? YOU’RE MUTED. OKAY. \n[00:19:57] I REALLY APPRECIATE THE CONTEXT. \n[00:20:00] I THINK IT’S IMPORTANT THAT THE \n[00:20:02] PUBLIC UNDERSTANDS THE CONTEXT \n[00:20:05] AND THE CONSTRAINTS UPON WHICH \n[00:20:09] ALL OF THIS IS SURROUNDED BY OR \n[00:20:11] AFFECTED BY. BEFORE I GO TO \n[00:20:14] PUBLIC COMMENT\, DO ANY MEMBERS \n[00:20:16] OF THE COMMITTEE HAVE ANY \n[00:20:19] QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? SEEING \n[00:20:24] NONE. MARGIE\, DO WE HAVE ANY \n[00:20:27] PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS ITEM? \n[00:20:33] >>MARGIE MALMAN\, CLERK: YES\, WE \n[00:20:33] HAVE A PUBLIC SPEAKER HERE IN \n[00:20:36] PERSON. \n[00:20:47] >>SPEAKER: GOOD MORNING CHAIR \n[00:20:48] GILMORE\, COMMISSIONER AND STAFF. \n[00:20:51] MY NAME IS MICHAEL GORMAN\, I \n[00:20:54] RESIDE IN ALAMEDA. I COME TO \n[00:20:56] REPRESENT 300 TO 400 KIDS THAT \n[00:20:59] PARTICIPATE IN OUR SAILING \n[00:21:01] PROGRAM ALL YEAR LONG AND \n[00:21:02] ESPECIALLY IN THE SUMMER. IT \n[00:21:04] CONTINUES TO CONCERN US AND \n[00:21:05] DISGUST US THAT THE GARBAGE AND \n[00:21:08] HUMAN WASTE CONTINUES TO BE PUT \n[00:21:09] INTO THE WATERS OF THE OAKLAND \n[00:21:12] ESTUARY WHERE OUR KIDS SWIM AND \n[00:21:16] RECREATE. MANY ADULTS DO THE \n[00:21:18] SAME. I’M ALSO INVOLVED WITH A \n[00:21:20] BUSINESS IN OAKLAND ON KENNEDY \n[00:21:21] STREET. I’M THERE DAILY. I \n[00:21:25] WITNESSED THE NETWORK OF RVs \n[00:21:30] ANCHORED OUT — ILLEGALLY \n[00:21:32] ANCHORED-OUT BOATS AND OTHER \n[00:21:35] STREET PEOPLE WHO OBVIOUSLY \n[00:21:37] OPERATE A NETWORK OF DRUG \n[00:21:40] DISTRIBUTION AND THIEVERY AND \n[00:21:44] ITEMS CONTINUALLY MISSING OFF OF \n[00:21:47] PROPERTY OWNERS AND BOATS IN THE \n[00:21:48] AREA. IT’S NOT JUST BY \n[00:21:51] OBSERVATION. I’VE BEEN INVOLVED \n[00:21:53] WITH THE DEA\, HOMELAND SECURITY\, \n[00:21:58] THE COAST GUARD SPECIAL \n[00:22:00] INVESTIGATORS AND THE POLICE \n[00:22:01] DEPARTMENTS\, THERE HAVE BEEN \n[00:22:03] ARRESTS MADE OF THESE PEOPLE. \n[00:22:08] CONTINUES TO BE A PROBLEM. I \n[00:22:10] GUESS THE CULMINATION OF THIS \n[00:22:11] WAS LAST WEEK OR ABOUT TEN DAYS \n[00:22:13] AGO IN A SHOOTING AND MURDER IN \n[00:22:14] THE MIDDLE OF KENNEDY STREET \n[00:22:17] AMONGST THIS GROUP OF PEOPLE. \n[00:22:22] THE KIDS ARE MY MAIN CONCERN IN \n[00:22:24] ALAMEDA\, BUT THE BUSINESSES AND \n[00:22:25] PUBLIC IN OAKLAND AND THE \n[00:22:27] WATERFRONT AND PUBLIC WATERWAYS \n[00:22:29] ARE ALSO A CONCERN. BEING A \n[00:22:32] BOATER ALL MY LIFE AND \n[00:22:34] APPRECIATIVE OF THE WATER AND \n[00:22:35] ITS RESOURCE\, I LOOK TO BCDC AS \n[00:22:36] BEING THE MAIN CONTROLLER AND \n[00:22:41] WATCHKEEPER OF THOSE RESOURCES \n[00:22:43] FOR THE PUBLIC. FRANKLY\, THE \n[00:22:46] INTRUSION OF THE ANCHOR-OUTS\, \n[00:22:48] ILLEGAL ANCHOR-OUTS\, THE OTHER \n[00:22:51] THINGS THAT I MENTIONED ON LAND \n[00:22:53] AND WITHIN A FEW BLOCKS OF UNION \n[00:22:56] POINT PARK KEEP THE PUBLIC AWAY \n[00:22:57] FROM THE AREA. THE ONLY PEOPLE \n[00:22:59] WHO GO THERE ARE THOSE \n[00:23:00] PARTICIPANTS OF THOSE \n[00:23:02] ACTIVITIES. I’VE BEEN OVER THERE \n[00:23:04] FOR YEARS. I’VE YET TO SEE A \n[00:23:06] FAMILY WALKING A CHILD DOWN THAT \n[00:23:07] BAY TRAIL OR EVEN HARDLY A \n[00:23:11] INDIVIDUAL RIDING A BIKE OR \n[00:23:12] GOING DOWN THE BAY TRAIL IF \n[00:23:14] THEY’RE NOT PART OF WHAT I WOULD \n[00:23:15] CALL THE ILLEGAL COMMUNITY. I’VE \n[00:23:17] ALWAYS FELT BCDC HAS DONE A \n[00:23:19] GREAT JOB. I WANT TO THANK YOU \n[00:23:21] FOR YOUR PAST ACTIONS IN \n[00:23:22] CLEANING UP THE PARK. YOU HAVE \n[00:23:24] THE ULTIMATE CLOUT THROUGH THAT \n[00:23:26] PERMITTING PROCESS AND \n[00:23:28] ENFORCEMENT\, THIS COMMITTEE \n[00:23:31] ENFORCEMENT ACTION FOR THE CITY \n[00:23:32] OF OAKLAND. I WOULD URGE YOU TO \n[00:23:34] STEP IT UP. PUT MORE \n[00:23:36] ENFORCEMENT\, FIRM ENFORCEMENT \n[00:23:38] ACTION IN PLACE AND TRY TO GET \n[00:23:40] SOMETHING DONE ABOUT THIS \n[00:23:41] PROBLEM. I APPRECIATE OAKLAND’S \n[00:23:45] COMMENTS\, THE DEPUTY \n[00:23:48] ADMINISTRATOR’S COMMENTS ON \n[00:23:49] THEIR CONSTRAINTS AND \n[00:23:51] DIFFICULTIES\, I ALSO KNOW IT’S A \n[00:23:53] MATTER OF PRIORITIES. IF YOU \n[00:23:54] HAVE PRESSURE ON THEM FOR AN \n[00:23:56] ENFORCEMENT ACTION\, I’M SURE \n[00:23:57] THEIR PRIORITIES WILL INCREASE\, \n[00:23:59] ESPECIALLY IF IT INCLUDES \n[00:24:01] PENALTIES AND FINES. THANK YOU \n[00:24:03] FOR YOUR COMMENTS — THANK YOU \n[00:24:05] FOR LISTENING. \n[00:24:09] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: THANK \n[00:24:09] YOU\, SIR. I’M GOING TO ASSUME \n[00:24:11] THAT THOSE COMMENTS APPLY \n[00:24:15] EQUALLY TO ITEM NUMBER 6\, WHICH \n[00:24:18] IS A BRIEFING ON OUR \n[00:24:20] ALAMEDA-OAKLAND ESTUARY \n[00:24:22] ENCAMPMENT ISSUES. \n[00:24:24] >>SPEAKER: YES. \n[00:24:25] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: I’M NOT \n[00:24:26] SURE IF YOU MEANT TO SPEAK ON \n[00:24:31] THAT ITEM OR IF THESE COMMENTS \n[00:24:33] APPLY TO BOTH ITEMS. \n[00:24:35] >>SPEAKER: THE COMMENTS APPLY TO \n[00:24:36] BOTH. I PROBABLY FORGOT TO \n[00:24:38] COMMENT ON MY THANK YOU TO THE \n[00:24:41] OAKLAND POLICE DEPARTMENT\, \n[00:24:42] ALAMEDA POLICE DEPARTMENT FOR \n[00:24:43] ALL THEY ACCOMPLISHED ALREADY. \n[00:24:46] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: OKAY. \n[00:24:47] THANK YOU\, SIR. \n[00:24:49] >>MARGIE MALMAN\, CLERK: THANK \n[00:24:49] YOU VERY MUCH. WE HAVE ONE MORE \n[00:24:50] PUBLIC SPEAKER. PLEASE STATE \n[00:24:52] YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD AND YOU \n[00:24:53] HAVE THREE MINUTES. \n[00:24:55] >>SPEAKER: MY NAME IS CHRIS \n[00:24:56] McKAY\, I’M WITH THE EMBARCADERO \n[00:24:59] NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. A YEAR \n[00:25:02] AGO WE WERE PLANTING TREES IN \n[00:25:05] THE PARK. WE HAD A BUNCH OF \n[00:25:07] SCHOOL CHILDREN COME IN. WE \n[00:25:08] CLEANED UP GRAFFITI\, PICKED UP \n[00:25:10] LITTER\, EVERYBODY WAS TALKING \n[00:25:12] ABOUT\, YOU KNOW\, HOW GREAT THE \n[00:25:13] PARK WAS LOOKING AND WE COULD — \n[00:25:16] WHAT WE WERE GOING TO DO WITH \n[00:25:18] FIXING UP THE PLAYGROUND AND \n[00:25:19] PLANTING MORE TREES. A DAY AFTER \n[00:25:21] THAT\, SOMEBODY MOVED INTO THE \n[00:25:22] PARK WITH A TENT. NOBODY TOLD \n[00:25:25] THEM TO LEAVE. IT GREW AND MORE \n[00:25:27] PEOPLE SHOWED UP AND MORE PEOPLE \n[00:25:28] SHOWED UP. AND NOW I’VE \n[00:25:31] SUBMITTED PICTURES OF THIS\, \n[00:25:33] THERE’S BASICALLY A TWO-BEDROOM \n[00:25:34] HOUSE THAT’S BEEN BUILT IN THE \n[00:25:36] CENTER OF THE PARK RIGHT NEXT TO \n[00:25:38] THE PLAYGROUND. EVERY NIGHT \n[00:25:40] PEOPLE HAVE BONFIRES THERE. \n[00:25:43] THEY’RE SURROUNDED BY TRASH\, \n[00:25:45] HUMAN WASTE. RECENTLY THE GUY \n[00:25:48] HAS GOTTEN A DOG. I WAS — HAD \n[00:25:53] TO RUN YESTERDAY WHEN I WAS OVER \n[00:25:54] THERE TAKING PICTURES BECAUSE \n[00:25:56] THIS BIG BLACK DOG CAME OUT OF \n[00:25:59] THIS STRUCTURE AND I HEARD FROM \n[00:26:01] OTHER PEOPLE THAT HE’S ATTACKED \n[00:26:03] PEOPLE AND THAT THERE’S ANOTHER \n[00:26:04] DOG ROAMING THE PARK THAT \n[00:26:09] BELONGS TO ONE OF THE PEOPLE. \n[00:26:10] THE PARK IS ABANDONED. THERE’S \n[00:26:12] NOBODY THERE. NO ONE NOW WILL GO \n[00:26:14] NEAR IT WITH THIS DOG. I CAN \n[00:26:17] UNDERSTAND SOMEONE IN A TENT\, \n[00:26:19] BUT THIS GUY HAS BUILT A HOUSE \n[00:26:21] IN THE CENTER OF THE PARK AND \n[00:26:23] BEEN ALLOWED TO STAY THERE FOR \n[00:26:25] OVER SIX MONTHS. IT’S JUST \n[00:26:28] UNBELIEVABLE THAT THIS HAS \n[00:26:31] HAPPENED. THE AMOUNT OF TRASH IS \n[00:26:33] RIDICULOUS. THE CRIME ELEMENT \n[00:26:35] NOW. THERE WAS A SHOOTING\, AS \n[00:26:37] MICHAEL MENTIONED\, ON KENNEDY \n[00:26:43] STREET TWO WEEKS AGO. THIS CAME \n[00:26:45] FROM THE THEFT OF THE COPPER \n[00:26:46] WIRING FROM JACQUELINE SQUARE \n[00:26:48] MARINA. IT WAS TAKEN — IT WAS \n[00:26:52] STOLEN BY THE GUYS ON THE BOATS \n[00:26:54] FROM THE ANCHOR-OUT. THE POLICE \n[00:26:57] KNOW ALL ABOUT THIS. THEY STOLE\, \n[00:26:59] I DON’T KNOW HOW MANY THOUSANDS \n[00:27:00] OF DOLLARS WORTH OF COPPER WIRE. \n[00:27:03] THEY TOOK IT DOWN TO KENNEDY \n[00:27:04] STREET AND THEY STRIPPED IT ALL \n[00:27:06] THERE AND YOU CAN SEE THE — YOU \n[00:27:08] KNOW\, THE REMAINS FROM THE \n[00:27:10] STRIPPING. ANOTHER GANG OR A \n[00:27:13] GANG CAME AND ATTEMPTED TO ROB \n[00:27:16] THE GUY\, GRAY DUBEL\, THAT STOLE \n[00:27:20] THE WIRING. GRAY DUBEL SHOT THE \n[00:27:24] GUY IN THE HEAD AND KILLED HIM. \n[00:27:25] THIS WAS IN THE MIDDLE OF \n[00:27:27] KENNEDY STREET AT 3:30 IN THE \n[00:27:28] AFTERNOON\, WHICH IS AROUND THE \n[00:27:29] CORNER FROM THE DOWNTOWN CHARTER \n[00:27:32] ACADEMY WHERE ALL THE PARENTS \n[00:27:34] WERE PICKING UP THEIR KIDS AND \n[00:27:35] DRIVING DOWN KENNEDY TO GET ON \n[00:27:37] THE FREEWAY. WHAT’S GOING ON \n[00:27:39] THERE IS IT’S ALL TIED TOGETHER. \n[00:27:41] IT’S THE MURDER ON KENNEDY \n[00:27:43] STREET\, IT’S THE PEOPLE IN THE \n[00:27:45] PARK LIVING IN THE PARK\, AND \n[00:27:47] IT’S ALSO THE ANCHOR-OUTS. SO\, \n[00:27:51] SOMEWHERE THIS LINK HAS TO BE \n[00:27:53] BROKEN. I DON’T KNOW WHETHER \n[00:27:55] IT’S THE PARK\, GETTING RID OF \n[00:27:57] THE ANCHOR-OUTS\, CLOSING KENNEDY \n[00:27:59] STREET. WE’D LIKE TO SEE ALL \n[00:28:00] THREE OF IT\, THREE THINGS \n[00:28:03] HAPPEN. BECAUSE THIS IS \n[00:28:04] UNTENABLE. WE ASK BCDC\, USE ITS \n[00:28:09] ENFORCEMENT POLICY. THE CITY HAS \n[00:28:11] 23 MILLION OF UNSPENT MONEY FROM \n[00:28:16] MEASURE Q ALLOCATED FOR LEANING \n[00:28:17] UP THE PARKS. WHY HASN’T HAS \n[00:28:20] BEEN SPENT? YOU COULD PUT PEOPLE \n[00:28:22] IN RITZ CARLTON IF YOU NEED A \n[00:28:24] PLACE FOR THEM WITH THIS MONEY. \n[00:28:26] PLEASE DO SOMETHING. WE CAN’T \n[00:28:28] TAKE IT ANYMORE. THANK YOU. \n[00:28:34] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: THANK \n[00:28:35] YOU. \n[00:28:35] >>MARGIE MALMAN\, CLERK: THANK \n[00:28:36] YOU VERY MUCH. CHAIR GILMORE\, \n[00:28:38] THAT’S ALL WE HAVE FOR THE \n[00:28:42] PUBLIC SPEAKER IN-PERSON. WE \n[00:28:45] HAVE A COMMENTER ONLINE. \n[00:28:52] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: THANK \n[00:28:52] YOU. \n[00:29:01] >>MARGIE MALMAN\, CLERK: VH? \n[00:29:03] >>SPEAKER: HI. \n[00:29:07] >>MARGIE MALMAN\, CLERK: PLEASE \n[00:29:08] STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD \n[00:29:08] AND YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES. \n[00:29:11] [ BROKEN AUDIO ] \n[00:29:13] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: OKAY. WE \n[00:29:14] CAN’T HEAR YOU OR UNDERSTAND \n[00:29:15] YOU. \n[00:29:17] >>MARGIE MALMAN\, CLERK: VH? WE \n[00:29:24] CANNOT HEAR YOU. \n[00:29:29] [ BROKEN AUDIO ] \n[00:29:35] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: SORRY\, \n[00:29:36] WE CAN’T HEAR YOU. \n[00:29:43] >>SPEAKER: I’M A RESIDENT — CAN \n[00:29:46] YOU STILL NOT UNDERSTAND ME? \n[00:29:48] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: YOU’RE \n[00:29:49] FADING IN AND OUT. TRY AGAIN. \n[00:29:51] >>SPEAKER: I’M SORRY. I JUST \n[00:29:52] DON’T KNOW WHAT ELSE I CAN DO ON \n[00:29:54] MY END. \n[00:29:55] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: YOU’RE \n[00:29:56] FINE RIGHT NOW. \n[00:29:57] >>SPEAKER: OKAY. GREAT. I WOULD \n[00:29:58] RATHER NOT STATE MY NAME. I HAVE \n[00:30:02] SPOKEN MANY TIMES AT THESE \n[00:30:05] ENFORCEMENT COMMITTEE MEETINGS \n[00:30:07] IN THE PAST. I’M A RESIDENT AT \n[00:30:10] UNION POINT MARINA. I FEEL LIKE \n[00:30:15] IF I GIVE MY NAME\, I WILL BE A \n[00:30:19] TARGET FOR RETALIATION. AS A \n[00:30:26] RESIDENT\, VERY\, VERY GRATEFUL \n[00:30:29] FOR THE ANCHOR-OUT SITUATION \n[00:30:31] BEING IMPROVED. THERE’S STILL \n[00:30:33] TRAFFIC BACK AND FORTH PAST THE \n[00:30:35] MARINA\, PAST BUD BOAT ALL NIGHT \n[00:30:40] LONG OF — I DON’T KNOW WHAT’S \n[00:30:42] GOING ON. ALL NIGHT LONG THERE’S \n[00:30:44] TRAFFIC BACK AND FORTH FROM THE \n[00:30:45] REMAINING ANCHOR-OUTS GOING PAST \n[00:30:48] THE MARINA. THERE ARE FREQUENT \n[00:30:55] ARGUMENTS AND FIGHTS IN THE \n[00:30:57] PARKING LOT. THE SCENE HAS \n[00:31:00] STARTED — JUST GOING TO MY CAR \n[00:31:02] HAS STARTED TO FEEL UNSAFE \n[00:31:04] AGAIN. WHAT I TRULY DON’T \n[00:31:08] UNDERSTAND IS WHY THERE IS A \n[00:31:11] PUBLIC BATHROOM AT UNION POINT \n[00:31:15] PARK. THERE ARE MANY\, MANY\, \n[00:31:18] MANY\, MANY PARKS IN THE CITY OF \n[00:31:20] OAKLAND THAT DON’T HAVE PUBLIC \n[00:31:22] BATHROOMS AND DON’T HAVE \n[00:31:23] FOUNTAINS AND FAUCETS. THERE ARE \n[00:31:26] MANY\, MANY\, MANY MILES OF \n[00:31:29] SHORELINE AROUND THE BAY WHERE \n[00:31:31] THERE’S NO IMMEDIATE ACCESS TO \n[00:31:34] BATHROOMS AND WATER. AS LONG AS \n[00:31:36] THOSE BATHROOMS ARE THERE AND AS \n[00:31:38] LONG AS THOSE WATER FOUNTAINS \n[00:31:40] AND THOSE FAUCETS ARE THERE\, \n[00:31:41] PEOPLE ARE GOING TO BATHE THERE. \n[00:31:43] PEOPLE ARE GOING TO WASH THEIR \n[00:31:45] CLOTHES THERE. PEOPLE ARE GOING \n[00:31:46] TO — IT IS A — IT IS A MAGNET \n[00:31:50] FOR THE PROBLEM\, THE FACT THAT \n[00:31:52] THOSE FACILITIES ARE THERE. I \n[00:31:53] WOULD LIKE TO SEE THOSE \n[00:31:55] FACILITIES CLOSED. THEY WERE \n[00:31:57] CLOSED FOR A WHILE AFTER THE \n[00:32:00] ENCAMPMENT WAS REMOVED. IT \n[00:32:03] REALLY — IT REALLY HELPED. IT \n[00:32:05] WAS ACTUALLY THE REOPENING OF \n[00:32:07] THOSE BATHROOMS AND TURNING THE \n[00:32:11] WATER BACK ON THAT RE-STIMULATED \n[00:32:14] PEOPLE TO START MOVING BACK IN. \n[00:32:19] PLEASE — PLEASE DO SOMETHING \n[00:32:23] ABOUT THIS. I DON’T KNOW IF THIS \n[00:32:25] HAS BEEN SERIOUSLY CONSIDERED \n[00:32:29] SHUTTING DOWN THOSE BATHROOMS. \n[00:32:30] THEY SERVE — OTHER THAN — \n[00:32:36] OTHER THAN FACILITIES FOR THE \n[00:32:38] HOMELESS ENCAMPMENTS\, THEY \n[00:32:41] REALLY ARE NOT SERVING ANY OTHER \n[00:32:43] PUBLIC PURPOSE. THAT’S ALL FOR \n[00:32:45] THE MOMENT. THANK YOU. \n[00:32:49] >>MARGIE MALMAN\, CLERK: THANK \n[00:32:50] YOU VERY MUCH. CHAIR GILMORE\, \n[00:32:51] THAT’S ALL WE HAVE. \n[00:32:53] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: THANK \n[00:32:54] YOU\, MARGIE. I GUESS MY FINAL \n[00:32:58] QUESTION IS ONE FOR STAFF. \n[00:33:02] CLEARLY WE’VE ALL BEEN KEEPING \n[00:33:05] AN EYE ON THE SITUATION. DO WE \n[00:33:08] HAVE ANY IDEA WHEN THIS MIGHT \n[00:33:10] COME BACK TO US FOR AN UPDATE? \n[00:33:17] >>JOHN CREECH: IN MY NEXT \n[00:33:18] PRESENTATION I WILL PROPOSE TO \n[00:33:20] BRING OAKLAND AND ALAMEDA BACK \n[00:33:21] FOR A BRIEFING ON THE \n[00:33:25] OAKLAND-ALAMEDA ESTUARY\, AND IT \n[00:33:28] MAKES SENSE TO HAVE THEM ADDRESS \n[00:33:29] THIS ISSUE THEN AS WELL. \n[00:33:31] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: OKAY. \n[00:33:32] GREAT. I GUESS I JUST JUMPED THE \n[00:33:34] GUN. ANY OTHER COMMENTS FROM \n[00:33:36] COMMITTEE MEMBERS ON THIS ISSUE? \n[00:33:43] OKAY. SEEING NONE. LET’S MOVE ON \n[00:33:45] TO ITEM NUMBER 6\, WHICH IS A \n[00:33:48] BRIEFING ON THE ALAMEDA-OAKLAND \n[00:33:52] ESTUARY AND ENCAMPMENT ISSUE. \n[00:33:54] THIS COMMITTEE WILL RECEIVE A \n[00:33:56] BRIEFING ON THE ACTIONS TAKEN TO \n[00:33:57] ADDRESS SHORELINE ENCAMPMENTS\, \n[00:34:00] ABANDONED AND DERELICT VESSELS \n[00:34:02] AND ANCHOR-OUTS IN THE \n[00:34:05] ALAMEDA-OAKLAND ESTUARY BY BCDC \n[00:34:08] STAFF AND THE CITIES OF OAKLAND \n[00:34:10] AND ALAMEDA. BEFORE WE GET \n[00:34:14] STARTED\, CAN WE HAVE \n[00:34:17] REPRESENTATIVES FROM THE CITY OF \n[00:34:20] ALAMEDA AND OFFICER ALBINO \n[00:34:25] IDENTIFY THEMSELVES FOR THE \n[00:34:26] RECORD\, PLEASE? \n[00:34:31] >>JOSHUA CROSSLEY: LIEUTENANT \n[00:34:32] JOSHUA CROSSLEY\, CITY OF ALAMEDA \n[00:34:36] POLICE DEPARTMENT. \n[00:34:42] >>KALEO ALBINO: OFFICER KALEO \n[00:34:43] ALBINO\, OAKLAND POLICE \n[00:34:43] DEPARTMENT MARINE UNIT. \n[00:34:47] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: THANK \n[00:34:48] YOU AND WELCOME. I WILL INVITE \n[00:34:49] JOHN CREECH OF OUR COMPLIANCE \n[00:34:49] UNIT TO START THE BRIEFING. \n[00:34:51] JOHN? \n[00:35:02] >>JOHN CREECH: GOOD MORNING \n[00:35:02] AGAIN. I’M STILL JOHN CREECH ON \n[00:35:05] BCDC’S COMPLIANCE TEAM. THIS IS \n[00:35:08] ITEM 6\, A BRIEFING ON \n[00:35:10] OAKLAND-ALAMEDA ESTUARY. WE WILL \n[00:35:12] THEN HEAR FROM THE CITIES OF \n[00:35:13] ALAMEDA AND OAKLAND ON THE \n[00:35:15] PROGRESS THEY MADE TOWARDS \n[00:35:16] CLEANING UP THE ESTUARY \n[00:35:22] SHORELINE BAND AND THE PLANS FOR \n[00:35:24] PREVENTING ISSUES IN THE FUTURE. \n[00:35:27] THE ISSUES OF SHORELINE \n[00:35:28] ENCAMPMENTS\, ABANDONED AND \n[00:35:31] DERELICT VESSELS AND ANCHOR-OUTS \n[00:35:34] IN AND AROUND THE \n[00:35:35] OAKLAND-ALAMEDA ESTUARY IN \n[00:35:36] ALAMEDA COUNTY WAS INTRODUCED TO \n[00:35:36] THE ENFORCEMENT COMMITTEE AT THE \n[00:35:38] FEBRUARY 23\, 2022 MEETING. AT \n[00:35:40] THAT MEETING\, BCDC AND CITIES \n[00:35:41] AGREED TO CONTINUE TO \n[00:35:42] COLLABORATE AND REGULARLY RETURN \n[00:35:44] TO PROVIDE PROGRESS REPORTS TO \n[00:35:45] THE ENFORCEMENT COMMITTEE. THIS \n[00:35:48] COLLECTIVE ISSUE WAS BROUGHT \n[00:35:50] BACK TO THE ENFORCEMENT \n[00:35:51] COMMITTEE ON FEBRUARY 22\, 2023\, \n[00:35:54] WHERE THE COMMITTEE SUGGESTED \n[00:35:55] THAT BCDC’S NEWLY-FORMED \n[00:35:58] COMPLIANCE TEAM CONTINUE TO WORK \n[00:35:59] WITH THE CITIES TO ADDRESS THIS \n[00:36:00] ISSUE. BCDC STAFF HAVE BEEN \n[00:36:03] HOSTING MONTHLY CHECK-IN \n[00:36:05] MEETINGS WITH REPRESENTATIVES \n[00:36:05] FROM THE CITIES OF OAKLAND\, \n[00:36:07] ALAMEDA\, BOARD OF OAKLAND\, EAST \n[00:36:11] BAY REGIONAL PARKS\, OAKLAND PD \n[00:36:12] AND ALAMEDA PD. THESE MEETINGS \n[00:36:16] HAVE BEEN VERY BENEFICIAL TO \n[00:36:18] FACILITATE PRODUCTIVE \n[00:36:20] CONVERSATION AND KEEP THIS ISSUE \n[00:36:21] IN THE FOREFRONT OF PEOPLE’S \n[00:36:22] MINDS. THE COMMITTEE LAST HEARD \n[00:36:25] FROM THE CITIES OF ALAMEDA AND \n[00:36:27] OAKLAND AT THE JANUARY 24th \n[00:36:30] ENFORCEMENT COMMITTEE MEETING \n[00:36:30] AND STAFF PROPOSES TO INVITE THE \n[00:36:32] STAFFS OF ALAMEDA AND OAKLAND \n[00:36:33] BACK FOR THE AUGUST 8\, 2024 \n[00:36:36] COMMITTEE MEETING TO GIVE \n[00:36:37] ANOTHER UPDATE ON THE STATUS OF \n[00:36:38] THE ESTUARY. AT THE ENFORCEMENT \n[00:36:46] COMMITTEE BRIEFING IN JANUARY\, \n[00:36:47] WE LEARNED THAT THE ESTUARY WAS \n[00:36:50] SUCCESSFULLY CLEANED UP OF \n[00:36:52] ILLEGAL VESSELS AND ANCHOR-OUTS. \n[00:36:54] OFFICER KALEO ALBINO OF OAKLAND \n[00:36:57] PD BRIEFED THE COMMITTEE ABOUT \n[00:36:57] THE TASK FORCE HE ASSEMBLED \n[00:36:59] WHICH RESULTED IN OVER 400 HOURS \n[00:37:00] OF WATER PATROL AND ARRESTS \n[00:37:03] RELATED TO ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES \n[00:37:07] PERFORMED FROM ANCHOR-OUTS AND \n[00:37:09] 25 VESSELS BEING ABATED FROM THE \n[00:37:10] ESTUARY. THIS PICTURE SHOWS \n[00:37:15] ABATED VEHICLES PILED UP AND \n[00:37:16] JACK LONDON’S AQUATIC PARKING \n[00:37:17] LOT WHERE THEY WERE LOADED ON TO \n[00:37:18] DUMP TRUCKS AND HAULED OFF. \n[00:37:23] MOVING FORWARD\, BCDC STAFF AND \n[00:37:25] CITY STAFF ARE COMMITTED TO \n[00:37:27] CONTINUING TO REGULARLY CHECK IN \n[00:37:28] AND MONITOR THE STATUS OF THE \n[00:37:29] ESTUARY TO ENSURE IT REMAINS \n[00:37:31] CLEANED UP AND FREE OF ILLEGAL \n[00:37:33] VESSELS. BCDC STAFF IS PLEASED \n[00:37:36] WITH THE PROGRESS IN \n[00:37:37] COLLABORATION WITH OAKLAND AND \n[00:37:40] ALAMEDA DEMONSTRATED OVER THE \n[00:37:41] YEARS TO WORK TOWARDS GETTING \n[00:37:42] THE ESTUARY WHERE IT IS TODAY. \n[00:37:44] WE REALIZE THIS JOB IS NOT \n[00:37:46] COMPLETE\, WE’RE HAPPY WITH THE \n[00:37:47] PROGRESS AND DEDICATION THE \n[00:37:49] CITIES HAVE DEMONSTRATED. \n[00:37:52] PREVENTION IS BECOMING THE POINT \n[00:37:53] OF FOCUS FOR US AND THE CITIES. \n[00:37:55] WE LOOK FORWARD TO HEARING \n[00:37:56] REGULAR UPDATES ON HOW THEY ARE \n[00:37:58] KEEPING ESTUARY AND SHORELINE \n[00:38:00] BAND CLEAN AND ENSURING THAT THE \n[00:38:02] CITIES ARE DEVOTING THE \n[00:38:04] NECESSARY RESOURCES TO THE \n[00:38:06] SHORELINE AND TO THE ESTUARY. I \n[00:38:10] WILL NOW INTRODUCE LIEUTENANT \n[00:38:12] JOSH CROSSLEY OF ALAMEDA PD AND \n[00:38:16] THEN DEPUTY CITY ADMINISTRATOR \n[00:38:19] JOE DEVRIES\, OFFICER KALEO \n[00:38:23] ALBINO OF OPD\, AND I ALSO SAW \n[00:38:26] LIEUTENANT THEBEL FROM OPD IF HE \n[00:38:32] HAS ANYTHING TO ADD. THANK YOU. \n[00:38:35] >>JOSHUA CROSSLEY: GOOD MORNING\, \n[00:38:36] LUTENANT CROSSLEY\, ALAMEDA PD. \n[00:38:38] I’M THE HEAD OF OUR MARINE \n[00:38:40] PATROL UNIT. I’LL START WITH A \n[00:38:42] BRIEF UPDATE ON OUR S.A.V.E. \n[00:38:44] GRANTS AND FUNDING. OUR S.A.V.E. \n[00:38:46] ’22 GRANT\, GOING INTO THIS WEEK\, \n[00:38:49] WE HAD APPROXIMATELY 36\,000 LEFT \n[00:38:53] ON THAT. THE S.A.V.E. ’23 GRANT \n[00:38:57] WE HAVE 200\,000\, THE S.A.V.E. \n[00:39:00] ’24 WE HAVE 150\,000 THAT’S IN \n[00:39:03] THE PROCESS OF BEING APPROVED. \n[00:39:04] WE HAVE NO REPORTED ANCHOR-OUTS \n[00:39:07] ON OUR END OF THE ESTUARY AS OF \n[00:39:09] YESTERDAY. WE DO HAVE — WE DID \n[00:39:11] HAVE FOUR SUNKEN VESSELS OFF THE \n[00:39:13] ROCKWALL THERE THAT PARKER \n[00:39:17] DIVING IS IN THE PROCESS OF \n[00:39:18] REMOVING. THEY STARTED MONDAY. \n[00:39:19] THEY SHOULD BE DONE TODAY\, MAYBE \n[00:39:22] TOMORROW. THEY’RE PULLING UP ON \n[00:39:24] THE BOAT RAMP AND DISPOSING OF \n[00:39:27] THEM. WHILE THEY’RE DOING THAT\, \n[00:39:28] WE WENT AHEAD AND TOOK THREE OF \n[00:39:30] OUR V-TIPS WAITING IN LINE AND \n[00:39:33] HAD THEM DISPOSE OF THAT AS WELL \n[00:39:35] AS THEY WERE DOING THE SUNKEN \n[00:39:37] VESSELS. I HAVE A FINAL AMOUNT \n[00:39:39] THAT WILL PROBABLY TAKE UP ABOUT \n[00:39:40] 75\,000\, SO THAT SHOULD LEAVE US \n[00:39:42] WITH ABOUT 160\,000 LEFT ON THE \n[00:39:45] ’23 S.A.V.E. GRANT FOR OTHER \n[00:39:48] V-TIPS. WE PROBABLY HAVE 12 TO \n[00:39:51] 15 IN MIND THAT WE NEED TO GO \n[00:39:52] AND TAKE AND GET RID OF. SO\, \n[00:39:55] THAT’S THE CLEANUP. THE HOMELESS \n[00:39:57] ENCAMPMENT ISSUE\, THE ONLY ONE I \n[00:39:59] TALKED ABOUT LAST TIME WAS MAIN \n[00:40:01] STREET. THAT HAS SINCE PRETTY \n[00:40:03] MUCH BEEN CLEANED UP TO ONE \n[00:40:04] LITTLE SMALL AREA THERE. IT’S ON \n[00:40:06] THE OTHER SIDE\, NOT ON THE WATER \n[00:40:08] SIDE. IT’S NOT AFFECTING THE \n[00:40:10] SHORELINE THERE AT ALL. OUR BOAT \n[00:40:13] IS STILL GOING OUT ABOUT THREE \n[00:40:15] TO FOUR DAYS A MONTH. I WOULD — \n[00:40:19] PERSONALLY I WOULD LIKE IT TO GO \n[00:40:20] OUT THREE TO FOUR DAYS A WEEK\, \n[00:40:22] BUT WITH OUR BUDGET RESTRAINTS \n[00:40:24] AND OUR STAFFING ISSUES\, IT’S \n[00:40:25] ALL OVERTIME. WE WOULD HAVE TO \n[00:40:27] KEEP IT DOWN TO ABOUT THREE\, \n[00:40:28] FOUR DAYS A MONTH THAT WE’RE OUT \n[00:40:30] THERE PATROLLING THE ESTUARY. IF \n[00:40:33] ANYTHING POPS UP\, SOMETHING \n[00:40:34] MAJOR\, WE’LL SEND THEM OUT TO \n[00:40:35] TAKE CARE OF THE ISSUES. I \n[00:40:37] BELIEVE THAT’S ABOUT IT. \n[00:40:41] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: THANK \n[00:40:42] YOU. I’M NOT SURE IF WE GO TO \n[00:40:47] MR. DEVRIES OR OFFICER ALBINO. \n[00:40:52] >>JOE DEVRIES: IF I COULD\, \n[00:40:53] BEFORE OFFICER ALBINO JUMPS IN\, \n[00:40:55] I WANT TO REITERATE\, SINCE THIS \n[00:40:57] IS ABOUT SHORELINE AS WELL\, WE \n[00:40:59] DID HAVE A MAJOR OPERATION ON \n[00:41:01] LEET DRIVE. WE’RE EXCITED ABOUT \n[00:41:03] THAT. THAT WAS A REALLY BIG \n[00:41:07] ENTRENCHED ENCAMPMENT FOR A LONG \n[00:41:09] TIME WITH HUGE DEBRIS BEING \n[00:41:11] GENERATED. THAT’S ON THE \n[00:41:12] SHORELINE. FOR THE WATER\, I’LL \n[00:41:14] TURN IT OVER TO OFFICER ALBINO. \n[00:41:16] WHEN HE’S DONE\, I WANT TO TALK \n[00:41:17] ABOUT WHAT THE FUTURE IS LOOKING \n[00:41:19] LIKE OR WHAT OUR HOPES ARE. \n[00:41:26] OFFICER ALBINO? \n[00:41:28] >>KALEO ALBINO: GOOD MORNING. \n[00:41:28] THANK YOU\, JOHN\, THANK YOU\, JOE\, \n[00:41:30] THANK YOU LIEUTENANT CROSSLEY. I \n[00:41:34] WANT TO EXTEND MY COMMENTS OUT \n[00:41:35] TO MR. GORMAN\, MR. McKAY AND THE \n[00:41:37] OTHER PERSON WHO LIVES AT UNION \n[00:41:39] POINT. I SHARE YOUR CONCERNS AS \n[00:41:41] FAR AS THE ESTUARY CONCERNS. I \n[00:41:44] DIRECT MOST OF MY DAILY \n[00:41:45] RESOURCES TO THOSE CONCERNS. I \n[00:41:48] ALSO WANT TO SAY THAT I SHARE \n[00:41:51] THE SAME ISSUES THAT ARE GOING \n[00:41:53] FORWARD AND I HOPE THAT YOU GUYS \n[00:41:56] WILL BE RELIEVED TO HEAR IN THE \n[00:41:57] NEXT COUPLE OF MONTHS OR SO WITH \n[00:41:59] THE WORK WE HAVE PROJECTED AHEAD \n[00:42:01] OF US FOR THE REST OF THIS YEAR. \n[00:42:03] THANK YOU\, JOHN\, FOR THOSE \n[00:42:05] SLIDES ON THE ESTUARY. SINCE \n[00:42:08] THAT JANUARY 24th DATE\, WE HAVE \n[00:42:11] ABATED OR REMOVED APPROXIMATELY \n[00:42:12] 30 VESSELS FROM THE ESTUARY. WE \n[00:42:15] HAVE IMPLEMENTED THE DEPARTMENT \n[00:42:17] POLICIES THAT WE HAVE SET IN \n[00:42:19] PLACE OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF \n[00:42:20] YEARS WITH OUR NUISANCE VESSEL \n[00:42:22] ORDINANCE AND OUR ABANDONED \n[00:42:25] VESSEL ORDINANCE AS WELL. MY \n[00:42:27] DEPARTMENT HAS GRACIOUSLY GIVEN \n[00:42:30] ME THREE OFFICERS ON LOAN OVER \n[00:42:32] THE LAST SIX MONTHS. THAT HAS \n[00:42:34] BEEN A HUGE HELP FOR ME. PRIOR \n[00:42:37] TO THAT\, I’VE BEEN WORKING \n[00:42:39] ESSENTIALLY BY MYSELF OR HAVING \n[00:42:41] OTHER OFFICERS ON OVERTIME\, \n[00:42:43] WHICH HAS BEEN A CHALLENGE. THAT \n[00:42:45] LOAN IS ENDING SOON\, BUT I THINK \n[00:42:49] THE PATHWAY FORWARD WILL BE \n[00:42:51] OKAY\, CONTINUING OPERATIONS ON \n[00:42:53] OVERTIME OR SPECIAL ASSIGNMENT. \n[00:42:57] RECENTLY\, THE MEDIA HAS SHOWN TO \n[00:43:00] LIGHT THE RECENT CRIME CASE THAT \n[00:43:02] WE’VE HAD ON THE OAKLAND \n[00:43:03] ESTUARY. SPECIFICALLY THE \n[00:43:08] ANCHOR-OUTS OFF OF UNION POINT \n[00:43:09] PARK WHERE WE SERVED TWO \n[00:43:11] SIMULTANEOUS SEARCH WARRANTS AND \n[00:43:12] CONDUCTED THREE ARRESTS. THE \n[00:43:14] DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF ALAMEDA \n[00:43:17] COUNTY CHARGED THOSE SUSPECTS IN \n[00:43:19] THAT CASE AND THE CASE IS \n[00:43:20] CURRENTLY JUST WORKING ITS WAY \n[00:43:22] THROUGH THE COURT SYSTEM. WE DO \n[00:43:24] HAVE A PLAN IN PLACE FOR THOSE \n[00:43:25] THREE ANCHOR-OUTS. THERE HAS \n[00:43:27] BEEN SOME CONTRACTING DELAYS \n[00:43:30] WITH THE CITY ADMINISTRATION\, \n[00:43:32] BUT I’M HAPPY TO SAY THAT \n[00:43:36] ADMINISTRATIVE WORK IS COMING TO \n[00:43:37] A POSITIVE CLOSE AND WE WILL BE \n[00:43:39] CONTRACTING WITH LYNN MARINE TO \n[00:43:42] REMOVE MULTIPLE VESSELS OUT OF \n[00:43:44] THE ESTUARY. LIKELY THOSE THREE \n[00:43:47] ANCHOR-OUTS\, IF THEY DON’T LEAVE \n[00:43:48] BEFORE WE SEIZE THOSE VESSELS. \n[00:43:53] WE HAVE A PLAN IN PLACE OVER THE \n[00:43:54] NEXT COUPLE OF MONTHS TO REMOVE \n[00:43:57] 40 VESSELS OUT OF THE OAKLAND \n[00:44:00] MARINAS. THOSE ANCHOR-OUTS ARE \n[00:44:02] INCLUDED IN THAT 40-VESSEL \n[00:44:04] COUNT. THAT IS A PROJECT TO — I \n[00:44:08] GUESS A LONG-TERM WAY TO ATTACK \n[00:44:10] THIS PROBLEM\, REMOVING THESE \n[00:44:13] ABANDONED VESSELS WHERE PEOPLE \n[00:44:14] HAVE WALKED AWAY FROM THEIR \n[00:44:16] VESSELS INSIDE OF MARINAS \n[00:44:18] ESSENTIALLY\, WHERE THEY WILL PAY \n[00:44:20] FOR A SLIP INSIDE OF A MARINA\, \n[00:44:23] THEY CAN’T AFFORD TO FIX THEIR \n[00:44:25] BOAT AND THEY JUST SIMPLY JUST \n[00:44:27] STOP PAYING THEIR BILL. THEY \n[00:44:28] WON’T SHOW UP. THAT BURDEN IS \n[00:44:31] LEFT ON THE HARBORMASTERS. SO\, \n[00:44:35] THIS PROJECT IS LENDING A HAND \n[00:44:36] TO THE HARBORMASTERS LOCALLY TO \n[00:44:38] REMOVE THOSE 40 VESSELS OUT OF \n[00:44:41] THE MARINAS AND GET AHEAD OF \n[00:44:43] THIS PROBLEM OF HAVING THESE \n[00:44:45] VESSELS END UP AS ANCHOR-OUTS OR \n[00:44:47] SUNKEN BOATS INSIDE OF THE \n[00:44:49] OAKLAND ESTUARY. I WANT TO THANK \n[00:44:52] ALAMEDA POLICE FOR DOING YOUR \n[00:44:54] GUYS RECENT CLEANUP. ANY CLEANUP \n[00:44:57] THAT I THINK OR ANY ACTIVITY \n[00:45:00] THAT WE DO THAT MAKES THE \n[00:45:01] MEDIA — HAS A RIPPLE EFFECT \n[00:45:06] AMONGST BRINGING VESSELS TO THE \n[00:45:10] OAKLAND ESTUARY TO EITHER LEAVE \n[00:45:12] THERE\, STORE\, OR LIVE ABOARD\, I \n[00:45:15] THINK IT HELPS US ALL OUT AND IT \n[00:45:17] KEEPS THE ESTUARY CLEANER. OUR \n[00:45:22] FUTURE CHALLENGES THAT WE’RE \n[00:45:23] FACING ARE LOSING THOSE OFFICERS \n[00:45:25] ON LOAN. I WILL CONTINUE TO BE \n[00:45:27] VERBAL ABOUT MAYBE GETTING A NEW \n[00:45:30] LOAN ONCE OUR NEW CHIEF GETS SET \n[00:45:32] IN PLACE AT THE DEPARTMENT. I’LL \n[00:45:35] REATTACK THAT PLAN THERE. I’M \n[00:45:38] GOING TO CONTINUE DIRECTING MOST \n[00:45:41] OF MY TIME AND RESOURCES INTO \n[00:45:43] THE ANCHOR-OUT ISSUES. I’M \n[00:45:45] CURRENTLY APPLYING FOR $200\,000 \n[00:45:47] FOR THE NEXT CYCLE OF THE \n[00:45:49] S.A.V.E. GRANT THROUGH THE STATE \n[00:45:50] OF CALIFORNIA. WE STILL \n[00:45:52] CURRENTLY TO DATE HAVE $167\,000 \n[00:45:55] LEFT TO SPEND WITH OUR 2023 \n[00:45:59] GRANT\, AND THAT’S WHAT WE’LL \n[00:46:01] REMOVE THESE 40 VESSELS WITH. \n[00:46:03] WE’RE ALSO WAITING TO HEAR BACK \n[00:46:04] TO SEE IF WE’RE AWARDED THROUGH \n[00:46:07] NOAA FOR OUR MULTIMILLION DOLLAR \n[00:46:09] GRANT PROGRAM. I THINK WE’LL \n[00:46:10] HEAR BACK MAYBE IN THE FALL OR \n[00:46:11] THE WINTER OF THIS YEAR TO SEE \n[00:46:13] IF WE WERE AWARDED ANY FUNDING \n[00:46:15] FROM THAT. IF WE DO GET THAT \n[00:46:19] FUNDING\, THAT WILL BE A HUGE \n[00:46:21] DEAL FOR BOTH ALAMEDA AND \n[00:46:22] OAKLAND. WE’LL BE ABLE TO REMOVE \n[00:46:24] ALL OF THE VESSELS THAT ARE \n[00:46:26] SUNKEN BELOW THE WATER LINE IN \n[00:46:27] THE ESTUARY AS WELL AS A TON OF \n[00:46:29] PROJECTS ALONG THE SHORELINE AND \n[00:46:33] THE PARKING LOTS AS WELL. I \n[00:46:35] BELIEVE THAT’S ALL THAT I HAVE \n[00:46:36] FOR AN UPDATE ON THE OAKLAND \n[00:46:38] ESTUARY. IF YOU HAVE ANY \n[00:46:39] QUESTIONS FOR ME\, I’M FREE TO \n[00:46:41] TAKE THEM AT THIS TIME. \n[00:46:44] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: THANK \n[00:46:44] YOU. JOE? \n[00:46:48] >>JOE DEVRIES: JUST TO ROUND OUT \n[00:46:49] WHAT OFFICER ALBINO HAS SAID\, \n[00:46:51] HE’S DONE FANTASTIC WORK. THE \n[00:46:52] NOAA GRANT IS NOT JUST ABOUT \n[00:46:56] REMOVING THE SUNKEN BOATS\, SOME \n[00:46:58] OF THE BIGGER ONES THAT WILL \n[00:46:59] COST A LOT OF MONEY\, IT’S ALSO \n[00:47:01] ABOUT SHORELINE CLEANUP OF \n[00:47:03] MARINE DEBRIS AND REALLY DEGREE \n[00:47:06] IN GENERAL. IT’S A REALLY \n[00:47:08] INNOVATIVE GRANT PACKAGE THAT WE \n[00:47:10] PUT FORWARD THAT WORKS WITH I \n[00:47:12] HEART OAKLAND-ALAMEDA ESTUARY. \n[00:47:16] IT’S A CLEANUP PROGRAM AS WELL \n[00:47:18] AS AN EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM WHERE \n[00:47:20] THEY WILL TAKE STUDENTS OUT \n[00:47:22] ON — IN KAYAKS TO DO SHORELINE \n[00:47:25] CLEANUP WHILE EDUCATING THEM \n[00:47:27] ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE OF WATER \n[00:47:28] QUALITY AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL \n[00:47:30] IMPACTS THAT HUMANS ARE HAVING. \n[00:47:33] IT ALSO IS AN ECONOMIC WORK \n[00:47:36] FORCE DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITY IN \n[00:47:37] THAT THEY’LL BE HIRING SOME \n[00:47:39] STUDENTS AND THEY’LL BE MAKING \n[00:47:41] SOME MONEY DOING IMPORTANT WORK. \n[00:47:43] WE THINK IT’S A REALLY BALANCED \n[00:47:45] PROPOSAL. WE’RE REALLY KEEPING \n[00:47:47] OUR FINGERS CROSSED. THERE’S A \n[00:47:49] LOT OF PUBLIC OUTREACH INVOLVED. \n[00:47:51] WE BUILT IN MONEY FOR A BOAT \n[00:47:53] BUYBACK PROGRAM. OFFICER ALBINO \n[00:47:56] MENTIONED SOME OF THOSE BOATS \n[00:47:57] THAT PEOPLE WALK AWAY FROM AT \n[00:47:58] THE MARINA. WE BUILT IN AN \n[00:48:00] OUTREACH COMPONENT SO WE CAN LET \n[00:48:03] MARINA RESIDENTS KNOW AHEAD OF \n[00:48:04] TIME OR PEOPLE THAT HAVE BOATS \n[00:48:06] THAT THERE IS A PROGRAM\, SO THAT \n[00:48:07] THEY SHOULDN’T WALK AWAY OR SINK \n[00:48:08] THEIR BOAT. I THINK THIS COULD \n[00:48:10] BE A REALLY EXCITING OPPORTUNITY \n[00:48:12] IF WE GET THE GRANT. EVEN IF WE \n[00:48:14] ARE NOT SUCCESSFUL GETTING THIS \n[00:48:16] GRANT\, WE’VE WRITTEN A PROPOSAL \n[00:48:18] THAT I THINK WE CAN SHOP AROUND \n[00:48:21] TO OTHERS IF THIS ONE’S NOT \n[00:48:23] SUCCESSFUL. THAT’S ALL. \n[00:48:26] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: THANK \n[00:48:27] YOU. DO YOU HAVE ANYBODY ELSE \n[00:48:29] FROM YOUR STAFF HERE OR IS THAT \n[00:48:31] IT FOR YOU GUYS? \n[00:48:35] >>JOE DEVRIES: AGAIN\, WE HAVE \n[00:48:38] MR. THEBEL\, BUT I THINK OFFICER \n[00:48:41] ALBINO SAID EVERYTHING SO I \n[00:48:42] THINK WE’RE GOOD. \n[00:48:43] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: THANK \n[00:48:44] YOU. DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS \n[00:48:45] FROM COMMITTEE MEMBERS? NOT \n[00:48:53] SEEING ANY. MARGIE\, DO WE HAVE \n[00:48:55] ANY PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS ITEM? \n[00:49:04] >>MARGIE MALMAN\, CLERK: UM\, \n[00:49:05] ONLINE WE HAVE A COUPLE. \n[00:49:08] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: OKAY. \n[00:49:08] >>MARGIE MALMAN\, CLERK: FIRST \n[00:49:09] ONE IS MR. BROCK DE LAPPE. YOU \n[00:49:16] HAVE THREE MINUTES. \n[00:49:18] >>SPEAKER: GOOD AFTERNOON\, \n[00:49:19] COMMISSIONERS. I JUST WANT TO \n[00:49:21] COMMENT ON THE ESTUARY CLEANUP \n[00:49:24] ACTIVITIES THAT HAVE BEEN \n[00:49:24] UNDERTAKEN BY BOTH OAKLAND AND \n[00:49:27] ALAMEDA POLICE DEPARTMENTS. I \n[00:49:29] REALLY HAVE TREMENDOUS \n[00:49:31] APPRECIATION FOR THE WORK \n[00:49:32] THEY’VE DONE. THE ESTUARY RIGHT \n[00:49:34] NOW IS CLEANER THAN IT’S BEEN IN \n[00:49:36] PROBABLY CLOSE TO A DECADE. MY \n[00:49:40] CONCERN IS THAT AFTER A CLEANUP\, \n[00:49:44] JUST LIKE WE’VE SEEN IN UNION \n[00:49:47] POINT PARK\, IF THERE’S NOT \n[00:49:48] ONGOING ENFORCEMENT\, THE PROBLEM \n[00:49:50] WILL RECUR. AND THIS IS A \n[00:49:54] DISASTER. THIS IS AN ENDLESS \n[00:49:55] CYCLE OF CLEANUP AND THEN LET IT \n[00:49:59] BE REOCCUPIED. I’M VERY \n[00:50:02] CONCERNED THAT OFFICER ALBINO IS \n[00:50:05] LOSING THE TEMPORARY STAFFING \n[00:50:08] THAT HE HAS FOR THE MARINE \n[00:50:10] PATROL UNIT. AS GOOD AS HE IS\, \n[00:50:12] HE CANNOT DO THIS BY HIMSELF. I \n[00:50:16] ENCOURAGE BCDC TO ENCOURAGE THE \n[00:50:20] CITY OF OAKLAND TO MAKE SURE \n[00:50:22] THAT THERE’S SUFFICIENT STAFFING \n[00:50:25] FOR THE MARINE PATROL UNIT TO \n[00:50:27] GUARD AND PROTECT THE ESTUARY \n[00:50:29] GOING FORWARD. I ALSO WOULD LIKE \n[00:50:32] TO GIVE KUDOS TO THE ALAMEDA \n[00:50:35] POLICE DEPARTMENT. I’VE BEEN \n[00:50:37] MONITORING THE CLEANUP THAT’S \n[00:50:39] UNDER WAY AT THE ROCKWALL JETTY \n[00:50:43] ON THE SOUTHWEST END OF ALAMEDA. \n[00:50:45] THEY’RE REMOVING MANY SUNKEN \n[00:50:47] BOATS FROM THAT SITE. THAT’S A \n[00:50:50] TREMENDOUS ACHIEVEMENT. I WAS \n[00:50:53] UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT THAT \n[00:50:54] WAS FUNDED THROUGH YOUR S.A.V.E. \n[00:50:56] GRANT\, LIEUTENANT CROSSLEY. I’D \n[00:51:00] LIKE CLARIFICATION ON THAT \n[00:51:02] BECAUSE WHEN I WAS OUT AT THE \n[00:51:03] SITE YESTERDAY\, I WAS TOLD THAT \n[00:51:05] IT WAS ALAMEDA COUNTY FUNDING. I \n[00:51:07] JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT \n[00:51:09] THE APPROPRIATE AGENCY GOT \n[00:51:11] CREDIT FOR THAT CLEANUP. IN ANY \n[00:51:13] EVENT\, THAT’S A REAL BENEFIT TO \n[00:51:16] THE BAY. JUST LIKE THERE’S BEEN \n[00:51:19] PUBLICITY ABOUT THE PROBLEMS \n[00:51:22] THAT HAVE OCCURRED FROM THE \n[00:51:24] CRIME AND THE ANCHOR-OUTS\, I \n[00:51:27] THINK IT’S EQUALLY IMPORTANT \n[00:51:28] THAT THERE BE PRESS COVERAGE ON \n[00:51:32] THESE CLEANUP EFFORTS. IT SHOWS \n[00:51:34] THAT THE RESPONSIBLE AGENCIES \n[00:51:35] ARE TAKING THIS SERIOUSLY AND \n[00:51:38] THAT THERE ARE EFFORTS BEING \n[00:51:39] MADE TO CLEAN AND PROTECT THE \n[00:51:41] BAY AND THERE NEEDS TO BE CREDIT \n[00:51:44] FOR THAT AS WELL. AGAIN\, THANK \n[00:51:47] YOU FOR THE WORK THAT YOU’VE \n[00:51:48] DONE. I REALLY HOPE THAT GOING \n[00:51:50] FORWARD THERE IS SUFFICIENT \n[00:51:52] SUPPORT TO MAINTAIN REGULAR \n[00:51:55] MARINE PATROLS. IF YOU STOP IT \n[00:51:58] AT NUMBER ONE\, THERE WILL NEVER \n[00:51:59] BE TWO\, FOUR\, EIGHT\, 16\, 32 \n[00:52:03] BOATS IN THE ESTUARY AGAIN. \n[00:52:07] LET’S MAKE SURE THAT WE DON’T \n[00:52:09] BACKTRACK. LET’S MAKE SURE THAT \n[00:52:11] THERE IS APPROPRIATE STAFFING \n[00:52:13] FOR THE RESPECTIVE MARINE PATROL \n[00:52:15] UNITS. THANK YOU. \n[00:52:18] >>MARGIE MALMAN\, CLERK: THANK \n[00:52:18] YOU VERY MUCH. NEXT UP WE HAVE \n[00:52:20] VH. VH? \n[00:52:28] >>SPEAKER: CAN YOU HEAR ME? \n[00:52:30] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: YES. \n[00:52:31] >>SPEAKER: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. \n[00:52:32] YEAH. I MADE COMMENTS ON THE \n[00:52:35] EARLIER ITEM ON THE AGENDA. \n[00:52:39] FIRST\, I WANT TO REALLY \n[00:52:42] APPRECIATE OFFICER ALBINO FOR \n[00:52:45] HAVING ACKNOWLEDGED COMMENTS \n[00:52:47] FROM THE PUBLIC. IT JUST FEELS \n[00:52:56] GREAT TO KNOW WE’RE HEARD. I \n[00:52:57] WANT TO POSE THE QUESTION — I’M \n[00:52:59] NOT SURE WHY PUBLIC COMMENTS ARE \n[00:53:02] NOW BEING DONE AT THE END OF AN \n[00:53:05] AGENDA ITEM AS OPPOSED TO AT THE \n[00:53:07] BEGINNING\, BECAUSE THE EFFECT \n[00:53:09] OVER HERE IS THAT WE’RE MAKING \n[00:53:12] COMMENTS AND ASKING QUESTIONS \n[00:53:15] AND THERE IS NO POSSIBILITY THAT \n[00:53:21] SOMEBODY MIGHT TAKE THOSE INTO \n[00:53:23] ACCOUNT IN THEIR — IN THEIR — \n[00:53:27] BASICALLY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC \n[00:53:28] WHO BOTHER TO COME AND SHOW UP \n[00:53:30] AND SPEAK UP\, IT HANDS US A \n[00:53:32] DEAD-END. I WOULD REALLY \n[00:53:34] APPRECIATE THAT BEING MOVED BACK \n[00:53:35] TO COMMENTS AT THE BEGINNING OF \n[00:53:38] AN AGENDA ITEM. I’M GLAD TO HEAR \n[00:53:40] THERE’S A PLAN IN PLACE FOR THE \n[00:53:45] REMOVAL OF THE REMAINING \n[00:53:48] ANCHOR-OUTS AT UNION POINT AND \n[00:53:51] FOR DEALING WITH THE ABANDONED \n[00:53:53] VESSELS AT UNION POINT MARINA. \n[00:53:57] THRILLED TO HEAR THAT. AND THERE \n[00:54:00] IS A LONGSTANDING ENCAMPMENT \n[00:54:04] RIGHT NEAR WHERE THE — RIGHT \n[00:54:06] WHERE THE SHORELINE MEETS COAST \n[00:54:11] GUARD ISLAND BRIDGE. THERE’S A \n[00:54:13] BIG WHITE TENT WITH AN ENORMOUS \n[00:54:15] PILE OF TRASH NEXT TO IT. IT \n[00:54:17] APPEARS TO BE UNINHABITED FOR A \n[00:54:21] LONG TIME. THE KING TIDES \n[00:54:23] WENT — FLOODED IT COMPLETELY. \n[00:54:25] SO WHAT THERE IS IS JUST A \n[00:54:28] MOUNTAIN OF TRASH IN THAT CORNER \n[00:54:29] BY THE SHORE. I SEE NO REASON \n[00:54:32] WHATSOEVER\, GIVEN THAT NOBODY \n[00:54:34] APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN LIVING \n[00:54:35] THERE FOR QUITE AWHILE NOW. IT’S \n[00:54:38] ALL BEEN FLOODED\, EVERY TIME THE \n[00:54:39] TIDE GOES HIGH\, MORE TRASH GOES \n[00:54:41] INTO THE WATER. I SEE ABSOLUTELY \n[00:54:43] NO REASON WHY THE CITY OF \n[00:54:44] OAKLAND CAN’T MOVE AHEAD AND \n[00:54:46] HANDLE THAT DEBRIS. I UNDERSTAND \n[00:54:48] THAT THE REMOVAL OF THE VESSEL \n[00:54:50] THAT IS UP ON THE ROCKS ON THE \n[00:54:52] SHORE IS A MUCH BIGGER DEAL AND \n[00:54:54] THAT THAT’S GOING TO REQUIRE \n[00:54:57] SPECIAL FUNDING AND SO FORTH\, \n[00:54:58] BUT CERTAINLY THE CITY CLEANING \n[00:55:02] UP THE TRASH SURROUNDING AN \n[00:55:07] ABANDONED ENCAMPMENT TENT WOULD \n[00:55:10] REALLY APPRECIATE SEEING THAT \n[00:55:12] DONE. THANK YOU. \n[00:55:17] >>MARGIE MALMAN\, CLERK: ALL \n[00:55:18] RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. \n[00:55:18] CHAIR GILMORE\, THAT’S ALL WE \n[00:55:20] HAVE. I BELIEVE WE HAVE ONE \n[00:55:21] PUBLIC SPEAKER HERE IN PERSON. \n[00:55:25] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: OKAY. \n[00:55:27] >>MARGIE MALMAN\, CLERK: MR. \n[00:55:27] McKAY? \n[00:55:28] >>SPEAKER: YES\, MY NAME IS CHRIS \n[00:55:29] McKAY. I’M WITH THE EMBARCADERO \n[00:55:31] NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. I JUST \n[00:55:34] WANT TO REALLY ACKNOWLEDGE \n[00:55:37] OFFICER KALEO\, THE WORK HE’S \n[00:55:40] DONE AND ALSO BROCK DE LAPPE FOR \n[00:55:43] BRINGING THIS — KEEPING THIS IN \n[00:55:45] FOCUS. I SUBMITTED A PICTURE \n[00:55:49] YESTERDAY OF THE SHORELINE CLOSE \n[00:55:52] TO THE COAST GUARD ISLAND \n[00:55:54] BRIDGE. YOU CAN SEE IT. I THINK \n[00:55:58] IT’S ON YOUR WEBSITE. IT’S \n[00:55:59] REALLY A LOT OF TRASH. AS THE \n[00:56:01] TIDES CHANGE\, IT GETS PICKED UP \n[00:56:03] AND FLOATED OUT. YOU CAN SEE \n[00:56:04] THAT PICTURE. THERE’S NO ONE IN \n[00:56:07] THERE. IT WOULD SURE BE GREAT TO \n[00:56:10] SEE THAT GET CLEANED UP. I JUST \n[00:56:12] HOPE THAT THE FUNDING IS IN \n[00:56:14] PLACE FOR THESE PROJECTS AND I \n[00:56:18] REALLY APPRECIATE\, YOU KNOW\, \n[00:56:20] EVERYBODY — ALL YOU’RE DOING \n[00:56:22] AND EVERYBODY WORKING TOGETHER \n[00:56:23] BECAUSE OUR SHORELINE IS \n[00:56:26] CRITICAL. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. \n[00:56:27] BYE. \n[00:56:31] >>MARGIE MALMAN\, CLERK: THANK \n[00:56:31] YOU VERY MUCH. THAT’S ALL WE \n[00:56:33] HAVE. \n[00:56:35] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: THANK \n[00:56:36] YOU\, MARGIE. DO WE HAVE ANY \n[00:56:39] QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM \n[00:56:41] COMMITTEE MEMBERS? OH\, MR. \n[00:56:44] DEVRIES? \n[00:56:46] >>JOE DEVRIES: THANK YOU\, CHAIR \n[00:56:47] GILMORE. I WANTED TO THANK THE \n[00:56:48] CALLER WHO DIDN’T IDENTIFY \n[00:56:50] THEMSELVES AND THE GENTLEMAN \n[00:56:54] FROM EMBARCADERO COVE. I DIDN’T \n[00:56:55] KNOW THAT THAT ENCAMPMENT AT \n[00:56:57] COAST GUARD BRIDGE — I DID SEE \n[00:56:59] HIS PICTURE YESTERDAY. I DID NOT \n[00:57:01] KNOW THAT WAS AN ABANDONED \n[00:57:02] ENCAMPMENT. THAT DOES FALL UNDER \n[00:57:04] A DIFFERENT PROCESS FOR US. SO\, \n[00:57:06] WE CAN SEND PEOPLE OUT TO \n[00:57:08] CONFIRM THAT IT’S ABANDONED. IF \n[00:57:10] THEY CAN CONFIRM THAT\, THEY WILL \n[00:57:11] PICK UP THAT GARBAGE. I WILL \n[00:57:13] FOLLOW UP ON THAT ONE. I’M \n[00:57:15] ASSUMING MR. McKAY’S PICTURE\, \n[00:57:17] THAT WAS IN THE EMAIL YESTERDAY \n[00:57:19] THAT WAS COPIED TO ME\, IS OF \n[00:57:21] THAT SPOT. IF THAT’S THE ONE. TO \n[00:57:22] THE OTHER PERSON WHO DIDN’T \n[00:57:23] IDENTIFY THEMSELVES\, THEY’RE \n[00:57:25] WELCOME TO EMAIL ME IF THEY HAVE \n[00:57:27] ADDITIONAL PHOTOS AND \n[00:57:28] INFORMATION THAT IT’S BEEN \n[00:57:31] ABANDONED. I THINK THE FACT THAT \n[00:57:33] IT’S WASHED OUT DURING THE KING \n[00:57:34] TIDE IS GOOD EVIDENCE THAT IT’S \n[00:57:36] ABANDONED. I THINK WE SHOULD BE \n[00:57:37] ABLE TO GET THAT CLEANED UP \n[00:57:38] WITHOUT GOING THROUGH A LONG \n[00:57:40] ENCAMPMENT PROCESS. THANK YOU. \n[00:57:44] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: THANK \n[00:57:45] YOU. ANYBODY ELSE? OKAY. SO\, \n[00:57:50] NEXT STEPS\, IF WE CAN GET \n[00:57:52] AGREEMENT ON THIS IS TO ALL BE \n[00:57:57] BACK HERE — I BELIEVE IT WAS IN \n[00:57:58] EARLY AUGUST FOR A CHECK-IN? IF \n[00:58:02] THE DATE MEETS EVERYBODY’S \n[00:58:04] SCHEDULES. OKAY. IF THERE ARE NO \n[00:58:08] OTHER COMMENTS\, I’M GOING TO \n[00:58:11] CLOSE THIS ITEM. COMMITTEE \n[00:58:15] MEMBERS\, I WILL ENTERTAIN A \n[00:58:16] MOTION AND A SECOND TO ADJOURN \n[00:58:19] OUR MEETING. \n[00:58:23] >>LETTY BELIN: MOVE TO ADJOURN. \n[00:58:26] >>JOHN VASQUEZ: SECOND. \n[00:58:27] >>LETTY BELIN: OKAY. \n[00:58:28] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: OKAY. \n[00:58:29] COMMISSIONER BELIN MOVES. I \n[00:58:31] BELIEVE THAT WAS COMMISSIONER \n[00:58:33] VASQUEZ WHO SECONDED. YES. YES. \n[00:58:35] OKAY. ARE THERE ANY OBJECTIONS \n[00:58:38] TO THE MOTION TO ADJOURN? SEEING \n[00:58:41] NONE\, THIS MEETING IS ADJOURNED. \n[00:58:43] THANK YOU\, EVERYBODY\, FOR YOUR \n[00:58:45] ATTENDANCE AND YOUR COMMENTS. \n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Learn How to Participate\n				Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act\nAs 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 access Commission Meetings under the “Public Meetings” tab on the website and select the date of the meeting. \nHow to Provide Comments and Comment Time Limits\nPursuant to state law\, the Commission is currently conducting its public meetings in a “hybrid” fashion. Each meeting notice will specify (1) where the meeting is being primarily held physically\, (2) all teleconference locations\, which will be publicly-accessible\, and (3) 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 or a teleconference meeting location; (2) emailing comments in advance to public comment until 10 a.m. on the day of the meeting; and (3) participating via ZOOM during the meeting. \nIf 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. \nQuestions and Staff Reports\nIf 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. \nCampaign Contributions\nState 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. Other 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. \nAccess to Meetings\nMeetings 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.
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/april-24-2024-enforcement-committee-meeting/
CATEGORIES:Enforcement Committee
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20240411T093000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20240411T120000
DTSTAMP:20260429T234345
CREATED:20240130T044748Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240425T170723Z
UID:10000131-1712827800-1712836800@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:April 11\, 2024 Enforcement Committee Meeting
DESCRIPTION:This Enforcement meeting will be conducted in a hybrid format in accordance with SB 544 (2023). To maximize public safety while maintaining transparency and public access\, members of the public can choose to participate either virtually via Zoom\, by phone\, or in person at the location listed below. Physical attendance at Metro Center requires that all individuals adhere to the site’s health guidelines including\, if required\, wearing masks\, health screening\, and social distancing. \nPhysical Location \nMetro Center375 Beale St.\, Board RoomSan Francisco\, CA  94105(415) 352-3600 \nIf you have issues joining the meeting using the link\, please enter the Meeting ID and Password listed below into the ZOOM app to join the meeting. \nJoin the meeting via ZOOM \nhttps://bcdc-ca-gov.zoom.us/j/82268432336?pwd=vWmRaUTxRaJPMZif1FrXbYrkJfPJ8G.1 \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers1 (866) 590-5055Conference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID822 6843 2336 \nPasscode425623 \nIf you call in by telephone: \nPress *6 to unmute or mute yourselfPress *9 to raise your hand or lower your hand to speak  \n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Tentative Agenda\n				\nCall to Order\nRoll Call\nPublic CommentThe Committee will hear public comments on matters that are not on the agenda.\nApproval of Draft Minutes from the March 27\, 2024 Enforcement Committee meeting.\nEnforcement Report.Staff will update the committee on the current status of the enforcement program’s activities.(Matthew Trujillo) [415/352-3633; matthew.trujillo@bcdc.ca.gov]\nPublic Hearing and Vote on Recommended Enforcement Decision to Resolve Enforcement Case ER2017.004.The Committee will consider a Recommended Enforcement Decision including Proposed Cease and Desist and Civil Penalty Order CCD2024.002.00 issued to Joe and Heidi Shekou for failing to seek and obtain commission authorization to install and operate a commercial solar power plant at Freethy Blvd.\, Richmond\, Contra Costa County in the Commission’s jurisdiction.(Adrienne Klein) [415/352-3609; adrienne.klein@bcdc.ca.gov] Presentation\nAdjournment\n\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Meeting Minutes\n				\nApril 11\, 2024 meeting minutes \n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Audio Recording & Transcript\n				 \n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Learn How to Participate\n				Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act\nAs 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 access Commission Meetings under the “Public Meetings” tab on the website and select the date of the meeting. \nHow to Provide Comments and Comment Time Limits\nPursuant to state law\, the Commission is currently conducting its public meetings in a “hybrid” fashion. Each meeting notice will specify (1) where the meeting is being primarily held physically\, (2) all teleconference locations\, which will be publicly-accessible\, and (3) 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 or a teleconference meeting location; (2) emailing comments in advance to public comment until 10 a.m. on the day of the meeting; and (3) participating via ZOOM during the meeting. \nIf 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. \nQuestions and Staff Reports\nIf 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. \nCampaign Contributions\nState 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. Other 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. \nAccess to Meetings\nMeetings 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.
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/april-11-2024-enforcement-committee-meeting/
CATEGORIES:Enforcement Committee
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20240327T093000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20240327T120000
DTSTAMP:20260429T234345
CREATED:20240130T044652Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240610T202145Z
UID:10000130-1711531800-1711540800@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:March 27\, 2024 Enforcement Committee Meeting
DESCRIPTION:This Enforcement meeting will be conducted in a hybrid format in accordance with SB 544 (2023). To maximize public safety while maintaining transparency and public access\, members of the public can choose to participate either virtually via Zoom\, by phone\, or in person at the location listed below. Physical attendance at Metro Center requires that all individuals adhere to the site’s health guidelines including\, if required\, wearing masks\, health screening\, and social distancing. \n9:30 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. \nPhysical Location \nMetro CenterYerba Buena375 Beale StreetSan Francisco\, CA 94105415-352-3600 \nJoin the meeting via Zoomhttps://bcdc-ca-gov.zoom.us/j/84238175663?pwd=h5wM0q77lr20g6MGVMHwbJkxySP7jn.1 \nSee information on public participation \n\n\nTeleconference numbers(816) 423-4282Conference code374334 \n\n\nMeeting ID842 3817 5663Passcode659147 \n\n\nIf you call in by telephone: \n\nPress *6 to unmute or mute yourself\nPress *9 to raise your hand or lower your hand to speak\n \n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Tentative Agenda\n				\nCall to Order\nRoll Call\nPublic CommentThe Committee will hear public comments on matters that are not on the agenda. \nApproval of Draft Minutes from the March 14\, 2024 Enforcement Committee meeting.\nEnforcement Report.Staff will update the committee on the current status of the enforcement program’s activities.(Matthew Trujillo) [415/352-3633; matthew.trujillo@bcdc.ca.gov]\nPublic Hearing and Vote on Recommended Enforcement Decision and proposed settlement agreement to resolve Enforcement Case ER2015.024.00\, City of San Rafael\, Marin County.The Committee will consider whether to recommend to the Commission that it adopt a Recommended Enforcement Decision and Proposed Settlement Agreement to cause the City by May 10\, 2024\, to: 1. Re-open a closed public restroom to public use by May 10\, 2024\, and; 2. Pay an administrative civil penalty of $30\,000 unless the restroom is re-opened by April 27\, 2024\, in which case the administrative civil liability will be $15\,000.(Adrienne Klein) [415/352-3609; adrienne.klein@bcdc.ca.gov)Public Comment\nAdjournment\n\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Meeting Minutes\n				March 27\, 2024 Minutes \nTranscript for Items 6-7 \n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Audio Recording & Transcript\n				Audio recording \n \nAudio Transcript\n[00:00:06] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: GOOD \n[00:00:07] MORNING\, EVERYONE. BY MY WATCH\, \n[00:00:09] IT IS 9:37. AND THIS MEETING OF \n[00:00:14] THE BCDC ENFORCEMENT COMMITTEE \n[00:00:16] IS HEREBY CALLED TO ORDER. MY \n[00:00:20] NAME IS MARIE GILMORE AND I AM \n[00:00:21] THE CHAIR OF THIS COMMITTEE. FOR \n[00:00:23] COMMISSIONERS\, INCLUDING THOSE \n[00:00:25] ATTENDING AT BEALE STREET\, \n[00:00:27] PLEASE ENSURE YOUR VIDEO CAMERAS \n[00:00:28] ARE ALWAYS ON AND PLEASE MUTE \n[00:00:30] YOURSELVES WHEN YOU ARE NOT \n[00:00:31] SPEAKING. OUR FIRST ORDER OF \n[00:00:33] BUSINESS IS TO CALL THE ROLL. \n[00:00:36] MATTHEW\, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. \n[00:00:38] COMMISSIONERS\, PLEASE UNMUTE \n[00:00:40] YOURSELVES WHILE HE DOES SO TO \n[00:00:42] RESPOND AND THEN MUTE YOURSELVES \n[00:00:44] AFTER RESPONDING. \n[00:00:44] >>MATTHEW TRUJILLO: COMMISSIONER \n[00:00:46] EISEN. \n[00:00:47] >>REBECCA EISEN: HERE. \n[00:00:49] >>MATTHEW TRUJILLO: COMMISSIONER \n[00:00:52] VASQUEZ. \n[00:00:54] >>JOHN VASQUEZ: HERE. \n[00:00:56] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: HERE. WE \n[00:01:00] HAVE A QUORUM PRESENT AND ARE \n[00:01:02] DULY CONSTITUTED TO CONDUCT \n[00:01:03] BUSINESS. AND THAT BRINGS US TO \n[00:01:03] ITEM THREE ON OUR AGENDA\, PUBLIC \n[00:01:06] COMMENT PERIOD. SO\, IN \n[00:01:09] ACCORDANCE WITH OUR USUAL \n[00:01:10] PRACTICE AND AS INDICATED ON THE \n[00:01:11] AGENDA\, WE WILL NOW HAVE GENERAL \n[00:01:12] PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON \n[00:01:14] TODAY’S AGENDA. AND I DON’T \n[00:01:17] BELIEVE THAT WE HAVE RECEIVED \n[00:01:19] ANY GENERAL COMMENTS IN ADVANCE \n[00:01:21] OF THIS MEETING\, MARGIE? \n[00:01:26] >>MARGIE MALAN\, CLERK: YES\, THAT \n[00:01:27] IS CORRECT. \n[00:01:28] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: THANK \n[00:01:29] YOU. FOR MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC \n[00:01:30] ATTENDING ONLINE\, IF YOU WOULD \n[00:01:31] LIKE TO SPEAK EITHER DURING THE \n[00:01:33] GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD OR \n[00:01:38] FOR AN ITEM ON THE AGENDA\, \n[00:01:41] PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND IN THE \n[00:01:43] ZOOM APPLICATION BY CLICKING ON \n[00:01:44] THE PARTICIPANTS ICON AT THE \n[00:01:47] BOTTOM OF YOUR SCREEN AND LOOK \n[00:01:49] IN THE BOX WHERE YOUR NAME IS \n[00:01:53] LISTED UNDER ATTENDEES. FIND A \n[00:01:55] SMALL PALM ICON ON THE LEFT. IF \n[00:01:57] YOU CLICK ON THAT PALM ICON\, IT \n[00:02:00] WILL RAISE YOUR HAND\, OR IF YOU \n[00:02:02] ARE JOINING THIS MEETING BY \n[00:02:03] PHONE\, YOU MUST DIAL STAR 9 TO \n[00:02:06] RAISE YOUR HAND THEN DIAL STAR 6 \n[00:02:08] ON YOUR KEYPAD TO UNMUTE YOUR \n[00:02:11] PHONE WHEN THE HOST ASKS YOU IN \n[00:02:14] ORDER TO MAKE A COMMENT. THE \n[00:02:15] MEETING HOST WILL CALL \n[00:02:17] INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE RAISED \n[00:02:19] THEIR HANDS IN THE ORDER THEY \n[00:02:21] WERE RAISED. AFTER YOU ARE \n[00:02:22] CALLED UPON\, YOU WILL BE UNMUTED \n[00:02:24] SO THAT YOU CAN SHARE YOUR \n[00:02:25] COMMENTS. PLEASE ANNOUNCE \n[00:02:27] YOURSELF BY FIRST AND LAST NAME \n[00:02:29] FOR THE RECORD BEFORE MAKING \n[00:02:30] YOUR COMMENT. FOR MEMBERS OF THE \n[00:02:33] PUBLIC ATTENDING IN PERSON\, \n[00:02:34] PLEASE QUEUE UP AT THE SPEAKER’S \n[00:02:37] PODIUM AND WAIT TO BE CALLED \n[00:02:38] UPON TO SPEAK. COMMENTERS ARE \n[00:02:41] LIMITED TO THREE MINUTES TO \n[00:02:42] SPEAK. PLEASE KEEP YOUR COMMENTS \n[00:02:45] RESPECTFUL AND FOCUSED\, WE’RE \n[00:02:46] HERE TO LISTEN TO ANY INDIVIDUAL \n[00:02:48] WHO REQUESTS TO SPEAK\, BUT EACH \n[00:02:51] SPEAKER HAS THE RESPONSIBILITY \n[00:02:52] TO ACT IN A CIVIL AND COURTEOUS \n[00:02:55] MANNER AS DETERMINED BY THE \n[00:02:56] CHAIR. WE WILL NOT TOLERATE HATE \n[00:02:59] SPEECH\, DIRECT THREATS\, INDIRECT \n[00:03:02] THREATS OR ABUSIVE LANGUAGE. WE \n[00:03:05] WILL MUTE ANYONE WHO FAILS TO \n[00:03:06] FOLLOW THOSE GUIDELINES. MARGIE\, \n[00:03:09] DO WE HAVE ANY COMMENTERS? \n[00:03:13] >>CLERK: WE DO NOT HAVE — NONE\, \n[00:03:17] CHAIR GILMORE. \n[00:03:19] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: THANK \n[00:03:20] YOU. I ASSUME THAT MEANS THERE’S \n[00:03:22] NOBODY AT THE REMOTE LOCATIONS \n[00:03:24] WILLING TO SPEAK\, READY TO \n[00:03:26] SPEAK? \n[00:03:27] >>CLERK: CORRECT. \n[00:03:30] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: GREAT. \n[00:03:31] THANK YOU. OKAY. ON TO ITEM \n[00:03:33] NUMBER 4. WE’VE ALL BEEN \n[00:03:35] FURNISHED WITH DRAFT MINUTES \n[00:03:36] FROM OUR LAST MEETING. COMMITTEE \n[00:03:38] MEMBERS\, I WOULD APPRECIATE A \n[00:03:39] MOTION AND A SECOND TO APPROVE \n[00:03:41] THOSE. \n[00:03:42] >>REBECCA EISEN: SO MOVED. \n[00:03:44] >>JOHN VASQUEZ: SECOND. \n[00:03:45] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: OKAY. WE \n[00:03:46] HAVE A MOTION FROM COMMISSIONER \n[00:03:48] EISEN AND A SECOND FROM JOHN \n[00:03:50] VASQUEZ. ARE THERE ANY \n[00:03:50] OBJECTIONS TO THE MOTION? ANY \n[00:03:51] ABSTENTIONS? MOTION CARRIES \n[00:03:53] UNANIMOUSLY. THANK YOU ALL. ITEM \n[00:03:56] FIVE ON THE AGENDA IS OUR \n[00:03:57] ENFORCEMENT REPORT. THE \n[00:03:59] ENFORCEMENT POLICY MANAGER\, \n[00:04:02] MATTHEW TRUJILLO\, WILL NOW \n[00:04:03] PROVIDE THE ENFORCEMENT REPORT. \n[00:04:04] MATTHEW? \n[00:04:05] >>REBECCA EISEN: YOU’RE MUTED. \n[00:04:07] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: MATTHEW\, \n[00:04:10] YOU’RE MUTED. \n[00:04:13] >>MATTHEW TRUJILLO: SORRY ABOUT \n[00:04:29] THAT. GOOD MORNING\, CHAIR\, \n[00:04:31] COMMITTEE MEMBERS\, AND GREETINGS \n[00:04:33] TO ALL THE PUBLIC IN ATTENDANCE. \n[00:04:34] I HAVE A VERY SHORT UPDATE \n[00:04:37] REPORT TODAY\, BUT REST ASSURED \n[00:04:39] THAT WE ARE WORKING HARD EVERY \n[00:04:40] DAY CONDUCTING SITE VISITS AND \n[00:04:42] PATROLS\, DISCUSSING AND \n[00:04:45] EVALUATING CONTINUOUS PROGRAM \n[00:04:47] IMPROVEMENTS AND PUSHING \n[00:04:48] PROGRESS ON OUR CASE QUEUES AND \n[00:04:51] DOING BUSINESS AS USUAL. FIRST \n[00:04:53] I’D LIKE TO WELCOME STAFF \n[00:04:56] ATTORNEY MICHAEL NG\, WHO IS \n[00:05:03] SITTING IN FOR GREG\, WHO IS \n[00:05:05] UNAVAILABLE THIS MORNING. THANK \n[00:05:07] YOU FOR BEING HERE\, MICHAEL. THE \n[00:05:09] ONLY ITEM I HAVE TODAY IS A CASE \n[00:05:12] UPDATE SINCE MY LAST UPDATE THAT \n[00:05:14] I DELIVERED ON JANUARY 24th OF \n[00:05:16] 2024. IN THE PAST TWO MONTHS WE \n[00:05:18] OPENED 11 NEW CASES AND RESOLVED \n[00:05:20] 8 CASES. AS OF TODAY\, THERE ARE \n[00:05:21] 78 UNRESOLVED CASES IN THE \n[00:05:22] QUEUE. THAT’S ALL I HAVE TO \n[00:05:23] REPORT OUT TODAY. SO\, I’LL BE \n[00:05:25] GLAD TO ENTERTAIN ANY FOLLOW UP \n[00:05:26] QUESTIONS ABOUT THE STATUS OF \n[00:05:28] THE PROGRAM FROM THE COMMITTEE \n[00:05:30] AT THIS TIME. \n[00:05:31] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: ANY \n[00:05:32] MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE WITH \n[00:05:33] QUESTIONS? THAT WAS ALMOST AT \n[00:05:37] THE SAME TIME\, BUT I THINK I SAW \n[00:05:39] JOHN FIRST. \n[00:05:41] >>JOHN VASQUEZ: MATTHEW\, THE \n[00:05:42] QUESTION OF WHITE SLOUGH IN \n[00:05:44] VALLEJO\, YOU KNOW\, THERE’S A LOT \n[00:05:48] OF HOMELESS ENCAMPMENT IN THE \n[00:05:50] CITY\, THE COUNTY\, CALTRANS\, I’M \n[00:05:52] NOT SURE WHO’S RESPONSIBLE \n[00:05:53] FOR — WHAT’S THE WORD — \n[00:05:59] HELPING TO CLEAN THE PLACE UP. \n[00:06:00] DOES THAT FALL UNDER BCDC’S \n[00:06:03] JURISDICTION? \n[00:06:05] >>MATTHEW TRUJILLO: YES\, IT \n[00:06:06] DOES. YES\, WE HAVE AN \n[00:06:10] ENFORCEMENT CASE PENDING THAT WE \n[00:06:12] ARE WORKING ON. IT’S A VERY \n[00:06:16] LARGE-SCALE PROBLEM AT WHITE \n[00:06:19] SLOUGH. \n[00:06:21] >>JOHN VASQUEZ: YES. \n[00:06:22] >>MATTHEW TRUJILLO: IN TERMS OF \n[00:06:25] THE EXTENT OF THE HOMELESS. THE \n[00:06:30] JURISDICTIONAL QUESTIONS ARE \n[00:06:31] VERY KIND OF NUANCED. FOR \n[00:06:32] EXAMPLE\, BECAUSE WHITE SLOUGH IS \n[00:06:36] REALLY AN OFFSHOOT OF THE NAPA \n[00:06:40] RIVER OR IT ORIGINATES FROM \n[00:06:44] THE NAPA RIVER\, WHICH IS A \n[00:06:46] CERTAIN WATERWAY BY \n[00:06:47] EXTENSION. WHITE SLOUGH\, \n[00:06:48] ITSELF\, IS CONSIDERED PART OF \n[00:06:50] THAT CERTAIN WATERWAY REGIME \n[00:06:52] WHICH MEANS WE DO NOT HAVE \n[00:06:53] SHORELINE BAND\, WHICH MEANS \n[00:06:54] THAT ANYTHING OCCURRING ON \n[00:06:58] THE SHORELINE IS\, TECHNICALLY\, \n[00:06:59] WHAT DOES NOT FALL WITHIN A \n[00:07:01] TRADITIONAL JURISDICTION. \n[00:07:03] THERE ARE SOME QUESTIONS \n[00:07:04] BECAUSE WHITE SLOUGH \n[00:07:06] HAS ITS OWN LAW AND IT HAS ITS \n[00:07:10] OWN AREA. SO\, THERE \n[00:07:16] ARE SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT HOW \n[00:07:17] FAR WE CAN — \n[00:07:19] >>JOHN VASQUEZ: OKAY. \n[00:07:21] >>MATTHEW TRUJILLO: — GO IN \n[00:07:22] TERMS OF ENFORCEMENT. \n[00:07:24] >>JOHN VASQUEZ: CAN YOU SEND ME \n[00:07:25] AN EMAIL ON THAT SO I CAN HELP \n[00:07:27] OUR FOLKS TRY TO WORK THROUGH \n[00:07:28] IT? \n[00:07:29] >>MATTHEW TRUJILLO: OKAY. I DO \n[00:07:30] WANT TO MAKE ONE MORE POINT IF I \n[00:07:31] MAY. \n[00:07:32] >>JOHN VASQUEZ: YES. \n[00:07:33] >>MATTHEW TRUJILLO: ABOUT THE \n[00:07:34] OWNERSHIP. THERE ARE A NUMBER OF \n[00:07:35] OWNERS — PRIVATE OWNERS AND \n[00:07:39] PUBLIC OWNERS\, SO THAT FURTHER \n[00:07:42] COMPLICATES THIS MATTER. THERE’S \n[00:07:43] ONLY ONE PARCEL OR ONE OWNER \n[00:07:46] THAT HAS A PERMIT THAT WE CAN \n[00:07:49] ACTUALLY TAKE ACTION ON. THAT \n[00:07:52] HAPPENS TO BE WE BELIEVE THE \n[00:07:56] STATE OF CALIFORNIA\, EITHER THEM \n[00:07:57] OR THE CITY\, THERE’S SOME \n[00:08:00] DISAGREEMENT ABOUT THAT\, \n[00:08:01] DEPENDING ON WHAT THEIR CONTRACT \n[00:08:02] WITH ONE ANOTHER SAYS. AND WE \n[00:08:04] MAY BE ABLE TO TAKE MORE \n[00:08:06] ASSERTIVE ACTION IN THE \n[00:08:08] SHORELINE\, BASED ON THAT \n[00:08:10] PERMIT. \n[00:08:11] >>JOHN VASQUEZ: WELL\, THANK YOU. \n[00:08:12] WE’RE LOOKING FOR HELP. \n[00:08:14] >>MATTHEW TRUJILLO: OKAY. \n[00:08:15] >>JOHN VASQUEZ: NOBODY SEEMS TO \n[00:08:16] KNOW WHO’S ON FIRST AND — I \n[00:08:19] THINK WHO’S ON FIRST\, ISN’T IT? \n[00:08:23] THANK YOU. \n[00:08:24] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: ISN’T \n[00:08:26] OPENING DAY TOMORROW? JUST — \n[00:08:29] ANYWAY\, REBECCA? \n[00:08:31] >>REBECCA EISEN: THANK YOU. \n[00:08:33] MATTHEW\, I CAN’T REMEMBER FROM \n[00:08:36] THE LAST TIME YOU REPORTED TO US \n[00:08:39] ON THE TOTAL NUMBER OF CASES \n[00:08:42] PENDING\, IS 78 MORE OR LESS? \n[00:08:44] >>MATTHEW TRUJILLO: 78 IS MORE. \n[00:08:45] I BELIEVE THE LAST TIME I \n[00:08:47] REPORTED OUT — WELL\, \n[00:08:49] UNFORTUNATELY\, STRICTLY \n[00:08:51] SPEAKING\, THE JANUARY 24TH \n[00:08:53] ENFORCEMENT REPORT WOULD NOT \n[00:08:56] OPEN FOR ME THIS MORNING. I HAD \n[00:08:58] TO GO BACK ONE. THAT WAS AT 71. \n[00:09:00] SO IT WAS AROUND THAT. WE’VE \n[00:09:01] GONE UP A LITTLE\, UNFORTUNATELY. \n[00:09:03] >>REBECCA EISEN: IS IT POSSIBLE \n[00:09:05] TO HAVE SOME KIND OF A DYNAMIC \n[00:09:08] REPORT THAT IS JUST CURRENT AT \n[00:09:10] ALL TIMES? YOU KNOW\, YOU ADD AND \n[00:09:12] SUBTRACT FROM IT AND HAVE IT \n[00:09:15] AVAILABLE ON THE WEBSITE? IS \n[00:09:17] THAT POSSIBLE? IS THERE SOME \n[00:09:19] CONCERNS ABOUT DOING IT THAT \n[00:09:21] WAY? \n[00:09:23] >>MATTHEW TRUJILLO: I THINK THE \n[00:09:25] ANSWER TO BOTH THOSE QUESTIONS \n[00:09:28] IS YES. I THINK WE HAVE TALKED \n[00:09:30] ABOUT MAYBE TRYING TO DO \n[00:09:32] SOMETHING OF THAT NATURE\, HAVING \n[00:09:34] A REALTIME COUNT. THE PROBLEM IS \n[00:09:36] IT WOULD BE — BECAUSE WE DON’T \n[00:09:38] HAVE A VERY ROBUST SYSTEM THAT \n[00:09:39] WE CAN AUTOMATE\, WE HAVE TO DRAW \n[00:09:40] FROM A NUMBER OF RESOURCES AND \n[00:09:42] IT WOULD TAKE A LOT OF CURATING\, \n[00:09:43] WHICH MEANS A LOT OF TIME. AND \n[00:09:45] SO\, I’M NOT SURE IF IT’S \n[00:09:46] SOMETHING WE COULD REALISTICALLY \n[00:09:47] PULL OFF OR MAINTAIN FOR THE \n[00:09:49] LONG TERM. \n[00:09:50] >>REBECCA EISEN: AND I KNOW THAT \n[00:09:51] THE FOLKS ARE LOOKING AT OUR \n[00:09:52] PROCESSES AND TRYING TO FIGURE \n[00:09:54] OUT WAYS THAT WE CAN IMPROVE. I \n[00:09:55] DON’T KNOW IF THAT REPORTING \n[00:09:59] ASPECT OF IT IS PART OF WHAT \n[00:10:01] THEY’RE LOOKING INTO. MAYBE \n[00:10:03] THEY’LL HAVE SOME SUGGESTIONS TO \n[00:10:05] MAKE IT EASIER. GOD KNOWS WE \n[00:10:07] DON’T NEED ANYBODY SPENDING MORE \n[00:10:09] TIME ON MATTERS LIKE THAT. THANK \n[00:10:11] YOU. \n[00:10:13] >>MATTHEW TRUJILLO: SURE. \n[00:10:15] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: I HAVE A \n[00:10:16] QUESTION. WE HAD TALKED QUITE \n[00:10:19] AWHILE AGO ABOUT GETTING A NEW \n[00:10:26] COMPUTER PROGRAM TO HELP WITH \n[00:10:27] TRACKING OUR PERMITS AND JUST \n[00:10:30] BASICALLY TRACKING WHAT’S GOING \n[00:10:35] ON. I KNOW THAT WE HAD ISSUES \n[00:10:38] BECAUSE OF\, ONE\, OBVIOUSLY \n[00:10:41] FUNDING\, BUT\, TWO\, NOT WANTING \n[00:10:45] TO REINVENT THE WHEEL AND TO SEE \n[00:10:48] WHO HAD MAYBE OTHER SYSTEMS IN \n[00:10:51] PLACE FOR TRACKING SIMILAR \n[00:10:54] THINGS TO WHAT WE DO. SO\, AT \n[00:10:58] SOME FUTURE MEETING\, CAN WE GET \n[00:11:01] JUST A BRIEF UPDATE ON WHAT’S \n[00:11:04] GOING ON WITH ALL OF THAT? I’M \n[00:11:06] SURE IT’S A COMPLEX SUBJECT AND \n[00:11:09] I’M NOT SURE YOU HAVE TIME TO DO \n[00:11:11] IT NOW. \n[00:11:12] >>MATTHEW TRUJILLO: THIS IS \n[00:11:13] TRUE. ALSO\, I DON’T HAVE MUCH IN \n[00:11:15] THE WAY OF INFORMATION. I CAN \n[00:11:16] TELL YOU THAT THERE IS — THAT’S \n[00:11:17] AN ONGOING DISCUSSION. THERE’S \n[00:11:19] ONGOING WORK. I’M NOT PERSONALLY \n[00:11:20] INVOLVED WITH THAT. I BELIEVE WE \n[00:11:22] ACTUALLY HAVE MAYBE A DEDICATED \n[00:11:24] TEAM\, IF NOT A DEDICATED STAFF \n[00:11:26] PERSON BRINGING THAT INTO \n[00:11:28] FRUITION. I’M THINKING IF THERE \n[00:11:30] IS A BRIEFING\, I CAN BRING ONE \n[00:11:32] HERE\, BUT IT MIGHT BE SOMETHING \n[00:11:33] WE WOULD WANT TO BRING TO THE \n[00:11:35] COMMISSION AS A WHOLE. I’LL TAKE \n[00:11:36] THAT BACK — THAT FEEDBACK BACK \n[00:11:38] TO MY BOSSES AND LET THEM KNOW. \n[00:11:40] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: THAT \n[00:11:41] WOULD BE GREAT. EITHER HERE OR \n[00:11:43] FOR THE FULL COMMISSION\, I FEEL \n[00:11:44] LIKE WE HAD A LOT OF DISCUSSIONS \n[00:11:46] ABOUT IT AT ONE POINT IN TIME. I \n[00:11:48] FEEL LIKE IT JUST DROPPED OFF \n[00:11:50] THE RADAR. SO — \n[00:11:52] >>MATTHEW TRUJILLO: OH\, NO. \n[00:11:53] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: I MEAN \n[00:11:55] FOR THE COMMISSION AND THE \n[00:11:56] COMMITTEE. I’M SURE THERE’S A \n[00:11:58] LOT OF WORK GOING ON BEHIND THE \n[00:11:59] SCENES. I FEEL LIKE IT’S BEEN A \n[00:12:01] LONG TIME SINCE ANYBODY’S \n[00:12:03] BRIEFED US ON WHAT — WHAT THE \n[00:12:04] PROGRESS IS\, WHAT THE POTHOLES \n[00:12:06] ARE\, AND THINGS LIKE THAT. \n[00:12:08] >>MATTHEW TRUJILLO: I TOTALLY \n[00:12:10] UNDERSTAND. YES\, I WILL — OKAY. \n[00:12:12] I WILL TAKE THAT BACK. \n[00:12:13] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: THANK \n[00:12:15] YOU. DO ANY MEMBERS OF THE \n[00:12:17] PUBLIC HAVE QUESTIONS ON THE \n[00:12:20] ENFORCEMENT REPORT? SEEING \n[00:12:25] NONE — \n[00:12:27] >>MARGIE MALAN\,CLERK: NONE. \n[00:12:29] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: THANK \n[00:12:31] YOU\, MARGIE. WE’RE GOING ON TO \n[00:12:34] ITEM NUMBER SIX\, WHICH IS A \n[00:12:36] HEARING AND VOTE ON THE \n[00:12:38] RECOMMENDED ENFORCEMENT DECISION \n[00:12:39] TO RESOLVE ER 2015.024.00\, THE \n[00:12:41] CITY OF SAN RAFAEL. SO IT’S — \n[00:12:43] WE’LL HAVE A PRESENTATION AND \n[00:12:44] VOTE ON PROPOSED RESOLUTION TO \n[00:12:51] ADOPT A PROPOSED SETTLEMENT \n[00:12:56] AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF SAN \n[00:12:58] RAFAEL\, WHO IS THE OWNER OF \n[00:13:00] RECORD OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY \n[00:13:02] OF ER 2015.024.00 STARKWEATHER \n[00:13:05] PARK IN SAN RAFAEL\, MARIN \n[00:13:11] COUNTY. THE CITY HAS CLOSED THE \n[00:13:14] REQUIRED PUBLIC RESTROOM AT THE \n[00:13:18] PARK FOR APPROXIMATELY 38 YEARS \n[00:13:21] AND COUNTING. IF THIS COMMITTEE \n[00:13:25] VOTES TO ADOPT THIS RECOMMENDED \n[00:13:27] ENFORCEMENT DECISION\, WHICH \n[00:13:30] INCLUDES A PROPOSED SETTLEMENT \n[00:13:34] AGREEMENT\, THEN IT WILL BE PUT \n[00:13:35] UP FOR A VOTE OF APPROVAL OR \n[00:13:37] REJECTION BY THE FULL COMMISSION \n[00:13:39] AT ITS APRIL 18\, 2024 MEETING\, \n[00:13:41] WHICH IS SCHEDULED TO BE HELD \n[00:13:43] ONLINE AND IN PERSON AT THE \n[00:13:45] METRO CENTER LOCATED AT 375 \n[00:13:47] BEALE STREET IN SAN FRANCISCO \n[00:13:50] COMMENCING AT 1:00 P.M. \n[00:13:52] AFTER BCDC STAFF GIVES ITS \n[00:13:54] PRESENTATION\, THE RESPONDENT \n[00:13:58] WILL BE INVITED TO PRESENT ANY \n[00:14:01] REMARKS IT WISHES TO ENTER INTO \n[00:14:03] THE RECORD. THEN I’LL ALLOW \n[00:14:05] PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS ITEM. AND \n[00:14:06] AFTERWARDS\, WE THE COMMITTEE\, \n[00:14:08] SHALL HOLD OUR DISCUSSION AND \n[00:14:10] VOTE ON STAFF’S RECOMMENDATION. \n[00:14:13] PRESENTATIONS MADE BY THE \n[00:14:15] PARTIES AS WELL AS PUBLIC \n[00:14:18] COMMENTS TO FOLLOW SHALL BE \n[00:14:21] LIMITED TO RESPONDING TO THE \n[00:14:24] EVIDENCE ALREADY MADE PART OF \n[00:14:27] THE ENFORCEMENT RECORD. THIS \n[00:14:30] COMMITTEE SHALL NOT ALLOW THE \n[00:14:32] INTRODUCTION OF NEW EVIDENCE OR \n[00:14:34] ORAL TESTIMONY. SO\, AT THIS \n[00:14:35] TIME\, WILL THE REPRESENTATIVE OR \n[00:14:37] REPRESENTATIVES FOR THE CITY OF \n[00:14:39] SAN RAFAEL PLEASE IDENTIFY \n[00:14:40] THEMSELVES FOR THE RECORD? \n[00:14:41] >>CONNOR MACLEAN: I’M CONNOR \n[00:14:43] MACLEAN\, ATTORNEY ON BEHALF OF \n[00:14:45] SAN RAFAEL. \n[00:14:47] >>FABIOLA GUILLEN: I’M FABIOLA \n[00:14:49] GUILLEN\, I’M WITH THE DEPARTMENT \n[00:14:50] OF PUBLIC WORKS AND THE CITY OF \n[00:14:51] SAN RAFAEL. \n[00:14:54] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: THANK \n[00:14:55] YOU SO MUCH AND WELCOME. NOW \n[00:14:57] WE’LL HEAR PRESENTATION BY \n[00:14:59] STAFF. I’M GOING TO INVITE \n[00:15:00] ENFORCEMENT ANALYST ADRIENNE \n[00:15:04] KLEIN TO GIVE HER REMARKS. \n[00:15:06] >>ADRIENNE KLEIN: GOOD MORNING\, \n[00:15:11] CHAIR GILMORE\, COMMISSIONERS. \n[00:15:15] NICE TO MEET YOU CONNOR AND FABI \n[00:15:17] IN PERSON. I HAVE A SLIDE \n[00:15:21] PRESENTATION\, I BELIEVE IT WILL \n[00:15:23] BE — THERE IT IS. THANK YOU \n[00:15:27] VERY MUCH. SO\, WE CAN GO TO THE \n[00:15:29] NEXT SLIDE\, PLEASE. THIS FORMAL \n[00:15:31] ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDING AS NOTED \n[00:15:34] IS TO RESOLVE A SINGLE PERMIT \n[00:15:36] VIOLATION INVOLVING A CLOSED \n[00:15:38] PUBLIC RESTROOM AT STARKWEATHER \n[00:15:40] PARK IN — ON FRANCISCO \n[00:15:41] BOULEVARD IN THE CITY OF SAN \n[00:15:43] RAFAEL. SO\, THE PRESENTATION IS \n[00:15:45] NOT LONG. LESS THAN TEN MINUTES. \n[00:15:49] IT WILL IDENTIFY THE SITE WHERE \n[00:15:51] THE VIOLATION IS OCCURRING\, \n[00:15:53] BRIEFLY REVIEW THE PERMIT AND \n[00:15:55] ENFORCEMENT HISTORY\, SUMMARIZE \n[00:15:56] THE TERMS OF THE SETTLEMENT \n[00:15:57] AGREEMENT THAT WILL RESOLVE THE \n[00:15:59] VIOLATIONS\, AND AS NOTED BY \n[00:16:00] CHAIR GILMORE\, CONCLUDE WITH THE \n[00:16:01] STAFF RECOMMENDATION. NEXT \n[00:16:02] SLIDE. SO\, THE NEXT THREE SLIDES \n[00:16:04] IDENTIFIES STARKWEATHER PARK IN \n[00:16:05] THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL NEAR THE \n[00:16:07] WESTERN TERMINUS OF THE \n[00:16:09] RICHMOND-SAN RAFAEL BRIDGE. YOU \n[00:16:11] CAN SEE A RED CIRCLE THERE. NEXT \n[00:16:13] SLIDE ZOOMS IN. ANOTHER RED \n[00:16:15] CIRCLE SHOWING THE OFFICE PARK. \n[00:16:18] AND NEXT SLIDE\, PLEASE. SO\, WITH \n[00:16:20] THIS THIRD IMAGE\, THERE IS \n[00:16:25] ADEQUATE DETAIL THAT THE \n[00:16:32] RESTROOM BUILDING IS VISIBLE \n[00:16:34] INSIDE THE RED CLOUD-SHAPED \n[00:16:35] BUBBLE AT THE BOTTOM LEFT IN THE \n[00:16:38] IMAGE. FRANCISCO BOULEVARD IS \n[00:16:42] LOCATED BELOW THE BOTTOM OF THE \n[00:16:44] IMAGE\, AND THE SHORELINE TRAIL \n[00:16:46] THAT YOU CAN SEE BETWEEN THE \n[00:16:49] RESTROOM BUILDING AND THE BEACH \n[00:16:52] CONTINUES TO THE NORTH AND WEST \n[00:16:54] ABOVE THE TOP OF THE IMAGE. SO\, \n[00:16:57] AS YOU CAN SEE AND AS NOTED IN \n[00:16:58] THE PUBLIC COMMENT RECEIVED FROM \n[00:17:00] BRUCE BEYAERT FROM THE TRAILS \n[00:17:02] FROM RICHMOND ACCESS COMMITTEE\, \n[00:17:04] THIS IS AN IMPORTANT PUBLIC \n[00:17:05] ACCESS SITE NOT JUST FOR THE \n[00:17:06] LOCAL MARIN COUNTY COMMUNITY\, \n[00:17:07] BUT ALSO FOR EAST BAY RESIDENTS \n[00:17:09] WHO MAY CHOOSE TO USE THE \n[00:17:10] RICHMOND-SAN RAFAEL BRIDGE \n[00:17:12] PUBLIC ACCESS. AND THE RESTROOM \n[00:17:13] IS A VALUABLE PUBLIC BENEFIT \n[00:17:17] WHICH HAS BEEN ABSENT FOR TOO \n[00:17:20] LONG. NEXT SLIDE. THIS IMAGE \n[00:17:23] FROM GOOGLE EARTH IS A STREET \n[00:17:26] VIEW OR GROUND VIEW OF THE \n[00:17:30] RESTROOM LOOKING TO THE NORTH. \n[00:17:33] THE BEACH IS TO THE RIGHT. \n[00:17:35] FRANCISCO BOULEVARD IS BEHIND \n[00:17:38] THE IMAGE. AND THE PARK\, THE \n[00:17:40] PUBLIC PARKING REQUIRED BY THIS \n[00:17:41] PERMIT IS LOCATED JUST TO THE \n[00:17:43] RIGHT OF THE IMAGE THAT WE SAW \n[00:17:45] IN THE LAST — THE LAST IMAGE \n[00:17:48] THAT I SHOULD HAVE POINTED OUT \n[00:17:53] THERE. SO\, GO AHEAD TO THE NEXT \n[00:17:57] SLIDE\, PLEASE. THE FORMAL \n[00:18:00] ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDING SEEKS TO \n[00:18:02] RESOLVE A SINGLE VIOLATION\, THE \n[00:18:05] FAILURE TO MAINTAIN A PUBLIC \n[00:18:07] RESTROOM IN VIOLATION OF PERMIT \n[00:18:11] CONDITION II.B.4 OF THE \n[00:18:13] 1978.028.05 PERMIT. NEXT SLIDE. \n[00:18:15] SO\, WE’LL SPEND MOST OF THE TIME \n[00:18:20] HERE. VERY BRIEFLY\, THE PERMIT \n[00:18:26] AUTHORIZES A PORTION OF TWO \n[00:18:29] COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS AND FILL \n[00:18:32] PLACEMENT FOR PAVED ROADS AND \n[00:18:33] PARKING IN THE COMMISSION’S \n[00:18:35] 100-FOOT SHORELINE BAND \n[00:18:37] JURISDICTION. AS JUST NOTED\, THE \n[00:18:40] PERMIT REQUIRES A SERIES OF \n[00:18:43] PUBLIC ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS AS \n[00:18:45] USUAL. AND AGAIN\, AS USUAL\, \n[00:18:47] REQUIRES THOSE IMPROVEMENTS TO \n[00:18:49] BE MAINTAINED. AND IN THIS CASE\, \n[00:18:51] THE RESTROOM WAS OPENED\, BUT \n[00:18:54] CLOSED AND THEN FROM THAT POINT \n[00:18:57] NOT MAINTAINED OPEN. THE \n[00:19:01] COMMERCIAL FACILITY HAS BEEN IN \n[00:19:06] USE SINCE AT LEAST 1987\, AND \n[00:19:08] WHILE THE PUBLIC RESTROOM\, AS I \n[00:19:10] JUST NOTED WAS OPENED AND \n[00:19:12] CONSTRUCTED PURSUANT TO APPROVED \n[00:19:15] PLANS IN SEPTEMBER OF 1985\, IT \n[00:19:17] WAS CLOSED SIX MONTHS LATER IN \n[00:19:19] MARCH 1986\, AND HAS REMAINED \n[00:19:20] CLOSED SINCE THEN. BCDC BECAME \n[00:19:23] AWARE OF THIS CLOSURE IN 2015\, \n[00:19:25] AND OPENED AN ENFORCEMENT CASE \n[00:19:29] AND NOTIFIED RESPONDENT OF ITS \n[00:19:32] PERMIT VIOLATION. DESPITE MORE \n[00:19:35] THAN SEVEN YEARS OF EFFORT BY \n[00:19:38] BOTH CITY STAFF AND BCDC STAFF\, \n[00:19:40] ESPECIALLY CITY STAFF\, THE \n[00:19:43] RESTROOMS REMAINED CLOSED. AS A \n[00:19:46] RESULT\, BCDC ISSUED A VIOLATION \n[00:19:49] REPORT ON JANUARY 30\, 2024 TO \n[00:19:51] CAUSE RESOLUTION OF THIS \n[00:19:54] LONGSTANDING VIOLATION. I’M NOT \n[00:19:57] SPENDING TIME ON THE DETAILS \n[00:20:00] DURING THAT SEVEN-YEAR PERIOD. \n[00:20:03] THEY ARE LAID OUT IN THE \n[00:20:05] FINDINGS WITH THE SETTLEMENT \n[00:20:08] AGREEMENT AND THEN THE VIOLATION \n[00:20:10] REPORT THAT WAS PUBLISHED. IF \n[00:20:13] THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS\, THEY \n[00:20:15] CAN BE ANSWERED\, IF RELEVANT. \n[00:20:17] SO\, COMING RIGHT UP TO THE \n[00:20:19] PRESENT\, A WEEK PRIOR TO ISSUING \n[00:20:21] THE VIOLATION REPORT\, I MADE \n[00:20:23] CONTACT WITH FABIOLA\, AND GOT A \n[00:20:26] VERY POSITIVE UPDATE WHICH WAS \n[00:20:29] THAT IN THE INTERVENING TIME \n[00:20:32] BETWEEN THE LAST ENFORCEMENT \n[00:20:34] ANALYST AND MYSELF WORKING ON \n[00:20:37] THE CASE\, THE RESTROOM\, IN FACT\, \n[00:20:40] HAD BEEN RESTORED ACCORDING TO \n[00:20:42] STAFF-APPROVED PLANS. SO\, THAT \n[00:20:46] STEP HAD BEEN ACHIEVED. HOWEVER\, \n[00:20:49] THE NOT SO GOOD NEWS WAS THAT \n[00:20:51] THERE WAS ANOTHER ISSUE\, WHICH \n[00:20:55] WAS THAT THE ELECTRICAL CONDUIT \n[00:20:57] WAS INSTALLED ON PRIVATE\, NOT \n[00:21:00] PUBLIC PROPERTY\, RENDERING PG&E \n[00:21:02] UNWILLING TO TURN POWER ON TO \n[00:21:04] THE RESTROOM UNTIL THAT PRIVATE \n[00:21:07] PROPERTY OWNER HAD PROVIDED AN \n[00:21:09] EASEMENT TO THE CITY. IN ORDER \n[00:21:12] TO SPEED THAT PROCESS UP\, THE \n[00:21:15] CITY NEGOTIATED WITH PG&E AND \n[00:21:18] THE PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNER TO \n[00:21:22] ACCEPT A LETTER WHILE AN \n[00:21:25] EASEMENT IS IN PROCESS. SO\, PG&E \n[00:21:28] AGREED THAT A LETTER WOULD \n[00:21:31] SUFFICE WITH THE COMMITMENT THAT \n[00:21:34] AN EASEMENT WOULD BE \n[00:21:37] FORTHCOMING. AND THAT RESULTED \n[00:21:40] IN PG&E BEING WILLING TO \n[00:21:42] SCHEDULE AN APPOINTMENT\, SITE \n[00:21:44] VISIT TO TURN ON THE POWER ON \n[00:21:47] APRIL 10TH. SO\, THAT IS ALL \n[00:21:50] POSITIVE NEWS. SO\, WITH THAT\, ON \n[00:21:55] MARCH 4TH\, BCDC COUNSEL AND CITY \n[00:22:00] OF SAN RAFAEL COUNSEL HELD A \n[00:22:04] CONFIDENTIAL NEGOTIATION THAT \n[00:22:06] RESULTED IN AN AGREEMENT TO \n[00:22:09] SETTLE THIS MATTER AS FOLLOWS. \n[00:22:11] WE CAN NOW MOVE TO THE NEXT \n[00:22:14] SLIDE. AND\, SO\, THE SETTLEMENT \n[00:22:16] AGREEMENT — IN THE SETTLEMENT \n[00:22:20] AGREEMENT\, THE CITY AGREES BY \n[00:22:24] THE 10TH TO OPEN THE RESTROOM TO \n[00:22:26] THE PUBLIC AND SUBMIT EVIDENCE \n[00:22:29] OF HAVING DONE SO. PHOTOGRAPHIC \n[00:22:32] EVIDENCE AND A PERMIT NOTICE OF \n[00:22:35] COMPLETION THAT CONFIRMS THAT \n[00:22:37] THE FACILITIES HAVE BEEN \n[00:22:40] INSTALLED CONSISTENT WITH THE \n[00:22:43] APPROVED PLANS. AS PART OF THIS \n[00:22:46] SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT\, THE CITY \n[00:22:49] HAS AGREED TO PAY CIVIL PENALTY. \n[00:22:51] THE FULL PENALTY WOULD BE \n[00:22:54] $30\,000 BY MAY 10TH\, OR IF THE \n[00:22:56] CITY DEMONSTRATES THAT IT HAS \n[00:22:58] OPENED THE PUBLIC RESTROOM AS \n[00:23:01] PER THE PRIOR COMMITMENT\, \n[00:23:04] ACCORDING TO APPROVED PLANS AND \n[00:23:06] ALL BY APRIL 27TH\, THEN THE \n[00:23:09] CIVIL PENALTY WOULD BE HALF OF \n[00:23:12] 30\,000\, 15\,000 WOULD BE DUE BY \n[00:23:14] MAY 6TH. IN ADDITION TO OPENING \n[00:23:17] THE PUBLIC RESTROOM\, THERE IS A \n[00:23:19] TEMPORARY PORTA-POTTY\, THAT \n[00:23:24] SHOULD BE REMOVED\, AND THERE IS \n[00:23:27] SOME MISSING LANDSCAPING THAT \n[00:23:29] WILL ALSO BE RESTORED. WITH \n[00:23:32] THAT\, NEXT SLIDE\, STAFF IS \n[00:23:34] THEREFORE RECOMMENDING THAT THE \n[00:23:36] COMMITTEE RECOMMEND THAT THE \n[00:23:39] FULL COMMISSION ADOPT THE \n[00:23:41] PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT TO \n[00:23:44] RESOLVE ENFORCEMENT CASE \n[00:23:47] 2015.024. THAT CONCLUDES THE \n[00:23:49] STAFF PRESENTATION. THANK YOU. \n[00:23:52] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: THANK \n[00:23:54] YOU\, ADRIENNE. I WOULD LIKE TO \n[00:23:57] INVITE REPRESENTATIVES FROM THE \n[00:24:01] CITY OF SAN RAFAEL TO MAKE THEIR \n[00:24:03] PRESENTATION OR WHATEVER \n[00:24:06] COMMENTS YOU WOULD LIKE TO MAKE. \n[00:24:09] >>CONNOR MACLEAN: HI THERE\, \n[00:24:11] CONNOR MACLEAN\, ATTORNEY ON \n[00:24:13] BEHALF OF CITY OF SAN RAFAEL. \n[00:24:16] ADRIENNE\, THANKS SO MUCH FOR \n[00:24:18] WORKING WITH US ON THIS. WE \n[00:24:21] REALLY APPRECIATE IT. I THINK \n[00:24:23] THIS IS A RESULT — THIS \n[00:24:24] SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT IS A RESULT \n[00:24:25] THAT IS GOOD FOR EVERYONE. IT’S \n[00:24:27] GOOD FOR THE CITY BECAUSE IT \n[00:24:29] SAVES THE CITY MONEY THAT THE \n[00:24:30] CITY CAN USE TO ACTUALLY OPEN \n[00:24:31] THIS RESTROOM\, WHICH IS WHAT \n[00:24:33] EVERYONE HERE WANTS. YOU KNOW\, \n[00:24:35] THE CITY IS ON THE VERGE OF \n[00:24:36] OPENING IT\, AND IT’S A RESULT \n[00:24:38] THAT IS BENEFICIAL TO THE \n[00:24:41] PUBLIC\, TO BCDC AND TO THE CITY. \n[00:24:43] I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY REALLY \n[00:24:45] QUICK\, LET ME KNOW\, MICHAEL\, IF \n[00:24:47] THIS IS YOUR READING OF THE \n[00:24:49] AGREEMENT\, TOO. ADRIENNE\, I \n[00:24:54] THINK SOME OF THE TIMELINE WAS A \n[00:24:58] LITTLE BIT OFF. THE AGREEMENT IS \n[00:25:01] APRIL 27TH\, OPEN THE BATHROOM\, \n[00:25:06] RESTORE — REMOVE THE TEMPORARY \n[00:25:13] TOILET\, HAVE THE WATER FOUNTAINS \n[00:25:16] AVAILABLE\, THEN — SORRY\, APRIL \n[00:25:23] 27TH IS OPEN BATHROOM AND OPEN \n[00:25:25] WATER FOUNTAIN AND WATER BOTTLE \n[00:25:26] FILLING STATION. MAY 6TH IS \n[00:25:28] REMOVE TEMPORARY TOILET\, THERE \n[00:25:31] IS CURRENTLY A PORTA-POTTY \n[00:25:34] THERE\, HAND WASHING STATION\, \n[00:25:36] RESTORE LANDSCAPING. THAT’S BY \n[00:25:38] MAY 6TH. MAY 10TH IS PAYMENT \n[00:25:40] DATE IN ANY CASE. SO MAY 10TH IS \n[00:25:41] IF THAT STUFF DOESN’T HAPPEN\, \n[00:25:45] THEN ON MAY 10TH THE CITY OWES \n[00:25:46] $30\,000. IF THOSE THINGS \n[00:25:48] HAPPENED BY APRIL 27TH AND MAY \n[00:25:50] 6TH\, THEN ON MAY 10TH THE CITY \n[00:25:51] OWES $15\,000. I JUST WANTED TO \n[00:25:53] CONFIRM THAT IS THE — THE \n[00:25:55] CORRECT TIMELINE. \n[00:25:57] >>ADRIENNE KLEIN: I’LL PULL UP \n[00:26:01] THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT. I \n[00:26:04] DIDN’T NEGOTIATE IT\, SO MAYBE I \n[00:26:07] READ IT INCORRECTLY. \n[00:26:09] >>CONNOR MACLEAN: YEAH. IT’S ON \n[00:26:12] — IF YOU WANT TO PULL UP THE \n[00:26:14] SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT\, IT’S PAGE \n[00:26:15] SEVEN\, POINT THREE. \n[00:26:27] >>MICHAEL NG: MICHAEL NG\, STAFF \n[00:26:29] ATTORNEY. I ALSO WAS NOT \n[00:26:31] INVOLVED IN THE DRAFTING OF \n[00:26:34] THIS\, I DID READ IT LAST NIGHT. \n[00:26:36] I THINK MY RECOLLECTION — I’M \n[00:26:38] PULLING IT UP. ADRIENNE’S ON MY \n[00:26:41] COMPUTER AT THE MOMENT SO I’M \n[00:26:43] PULLING IT UP ON MY PHONE. MY \n[00:26:46] RECOLLECTION IS THAT CONNOR’S \n[00:26:47] CHARACTERIZATION OF THE TIMING \n[00:26:49] REQUIREMENTS IS ACCURATE. LET ME \n[00:26:50] JUST TAKE A MINUTE TO JUST TAKE \n[00:26:52] A LOOK AT IT AGAIN. SO\, MAY 10TH \n[00:26:54] BEING THE DATE THAT EITHER THE \n[00:27:04] 30\,000 OR THE 15\,000 IS PAID \n[00:27:11] DEPENDING ON WHAT CORRECTIVE \n[00:27:15] ACTION — IF THE CORRECTIVE \n[00:27:18] ACTION IS TAKEN BY APRIL 27TH \n[00:27:22] WITH REGARD TO MAKING THE \n[00:27:28] PERMANENT RESTROOM FACILITIES \n[00:27:31] AND WATER FOUNTAIN/BOTTLE \n[00:27:33] FILLING STATION AVAILABLE BY \n[00:27:35] APRIL 27TH\, AND BY MAY 6TH \n[00:27:37] RESTORING AND REMOVING THE \n[00:27:39] TEMPORARY TOILET AND HAND \n[00:27:41] WASHING STATION AND RESTORING \n[00:27:43] THE LANDSCAPE BEHIND THE \n[00:27:45] RESTROOM. IS THAT YOUR — I \n[00:27:47] THINK THAT’S CONSISTENT WITH \n[00:27:48] WHAT YOU JUST SAID? \n[00:27:50] >>CONNOR MACLEAN: THAT’S RIGHT. \n[00:27:51] THAT’S THE CITY’S UNDERSTANDING \n[00:27:52] AS WELL. \n[00:27:54] >>MICHAEL NG: YEAH. THIS — \n[00:27:56] OBVIOUSLY THIS GOES WITHOUT \n[00:27:58] SAYING\, BUT IF THOSE\, I GUESS\, \n[00:28:01] MILESTONES ARE NOT MET\, PAYMENT \n[00:28:06] BY MAY 10TH OF THE 30\,000 IS \n[00:28:12] ALSO THE DATE BY WHICH THE CITY \n[00:28:15] WOULD HAVE THE PERMANENT \n[00:28:18] RESTROOM OPEN? \n[00:28:23] >>CONNOR MACLEAN: YEAH. YEAH\, I \n[00:28:26] MEAN — \n[00:28:28] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: WAIT A \n[00:28:29] MINUTE. I’M CONFUSED NOW. IT \n[00:28:32] SOUNDS LIKE THE RESTROOM HAD TO \n[00:28:34] BE OPENED BY THE 27TH\, AND IF \n[00:28:36] THAT DIDN’T HAPPEN\, THE 30\,000 \n[00:28:38] WAS DUE — HOLD ON HERE. \n[00:28:40] >>CONNOR MACLEAN: ON THE 10TH. \n[00:28:48] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: ON MAY \n[00:28:50] 10TH. BUT THERE’S NOTHING THAT \n[00:28:51] SAYS THAT IF YOU MISS THE APRIL \n[00:28:52] 27TH DATE THAT THE RESTROOM HAS \n[00:28:55] TO BE OPEN BY MAY 10TH. IS THAT \n[00:28:57] TRUE? \n[00:28:59] >>MATTHEW TRUJILLO: NO\, THAT’S \n[00:29:01] NOT TRUE. PART ONE OF PAGE SEVEN \n[00:29:04] CEASE AND DESIST CONTAINS THE \n[00:29:07] PHRASE — \n[00:29:10] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: I SEE IT \n[00:29:13] NOW. THANK YOU. \n[00:29:15] >>MICHAEL NG: SO I THINK WE’RE \n[00:29:17] COVERED. \n[00:29:19] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: OKAY. \n[00:29:22] SO\, I’M GOING TO ASK THE CITY OF \n[00:29:24] SAN RAFAEL\, DO YOU AGREE TO THE \n[00:29:26] TERMS OF THE SETTLEMENT \n[00:29:28] AGREEMENT? \n[00:29:30] >>CONNOR MACLEAN: YEAH. WE’RE AT \n[00:29:33] A SIMILAR PLACE IN ACCEPTING \n[00:29:35] THIS AGREEMENT AS YOU ARE. STAFF \n[00:29:40] RECOMMENDED THE APPROVAL. THE \n[00:29:42] CITY MANAGER SIGNED\, BUT THE \n[00:29:44] CITY MANAGER ONLY HAS AUTHORITY \n[00:29:46] TO SIGN FOR THINGS UP TO \n[00:29:47] $20\,000. SO\, THIS WILL BE ON THE \n[00:29:49] CITY’S AGENDA FOR THE APRIL 15TH \n[00:29:51] CITY COUNCIL HEARING\, AT WHICH \n[00:29:53] STAFF WILL RECOMMEND THE CITY \n[00:29:57] COUNCIL ENTER INTO AND APPROVE \n[00:29:59] THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND WE \n[00:30:01] EXPECT THE CITY COUNCIL WILL \n[00:30:04] ACCEPT. \n[00:30:06] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: OKAY. \n[00:30:08] GREAT. DO ANY MEMBERS OF THE \n[00:30:10] ENFORCEMENT COMMITTEE HAVE \n[00:30:13] CLARIFYING QUESTIONS OR ANY \n[00:30:15] QUESTIONS FOR EITHER STAFF OR \n[00:30:17] THE CITY? \n[00:30:19] >>JOHN VASQUEZ: MARIE\, THIS IS \n[00:30:21] JOHN. \n[00:30:22] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: YEAH. \n[00:30:23] >>JOHN VASQUEZ: WHAT IF NOTHING \n[00:30:25] HAPPENS? \n[00:30:26] >>MATTHEW TRUJILLO: DO YOU MEAN \n[00:30:27] IF THE CITY JUST — DO YOU MEAN \n[00:30:29] IF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT IS \n[00:30:33] NOT APPROVED OR IF THE CITY DOES \n[00:30:34] NOT LIVE UP TO THE TERMS OF THE \n[00:30:35] SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT? \n[00:30:37] >>JOHN VASQUEZ: DOES NOT LIVE UP \n[00:30:38] TO THE TERMS. SOMETHING HAPPENS. \n[00:30:39] >>MATTHEW TRUJILLO: IN THAT \n[00:30:40] EVENT\, WE HAVE A COUPLE OF \n[00:30:43] OPTIONS. I’M CHANNELING A \n[00:30:45] DISCUSSION WITH GREG I HAD ABOUT \n[00:30:47] THIS YESTERDAY. OPTION — THE \n[00:30:49] POTENTIAL OPTION WOULD BE TO \n[00:30:51] THEN REFER THE MATTER DIRECTLY \n[00:30:53] TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OR TO \n[00:30:55] ISSUE AN ORDER THAT ORDERS THE \n[00:30:58] CITY TO COMPLY WITH THE TERMS OF \n[00:31:01] THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT. \n[00:31:08] >>JOHN VASQUEZ: DOES THE FINE \n[00:31:10] INCREASE THEN? \n[00:31:11] >>MATTHEW TRUJILLO: FROM OUR \n[00:31:15] PERSPECTIVE\, NO. BECAUSE WE’RE \n[00:31:17] ALREADY MAXED OUT. WE CAN’T \n[00:31:19] CHARGE MORE THAN 30\,000. \n[00:31:21] HOWEVER\, I’M LESS CLEAR ABOUT \n[00:31:23] HOW IT WORKS IF THIS WERE TO GO \n[00:31:25] TO COURT. \n[00:31:27] >>JOHN VASQUEZ: IT STARTED IN \n[00:31:28] 2015. IT’S BEEN NOW NINE YEARS? \n[00:31:30] >>MATTHEW TRUJILLO: YES. \n[00:31:32] >>JOHN VASQUEZ: ALL RIGHT. THANK \n[00:31:33] YOU. \n[00:31:38] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: ANY \n[00:31:42] OTHER — REBECCA? \n[00:31:44] >>REBECCA EISEN: SO\, THIS MAY BE \n[00:31:48] FOR MICHAEL\, BUT DOES THE FULL \n[00:31:50] COMMISSION NEED TO ALSO APPROVE \n[00:31:51] THIS SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND IF \n[00:31:53] SO\, IN THE PRESENTATION TO THE \n[00:31:56] COMMISSION\, I THINK THERE SHOULD \n[00:31:59] BE SOME DESCRIPTION\, SUMMARY \n[00:32:02] DESCRIPTION OF WHAT HAPPENED \n[00:32:05] BETWEEN ’86 AND 2015. WHY THERE \n[00:32:10] WAS NO EFFORT TO ENFORCE THE \n[00:32:16] PERMIT DURING THAT 20-SOME-YEAR \n[00:32:19] PERIOD. ALSO\, A SUMMARY \n[00:32:20] DESCRIPTION OF WHY THE \n[00:32:23] NEGOTIATIONS BETWEEN 2015 AND \n[00:32:28] NOW HAVE TAKEN THIS LONG. \n[00:32:29] >>MATTHEW TRUJILLO: OKAY. WE CAN \n[00:32:31] DO THAT. \n[00:32:34] >>REBECCA EISEN: AM I RIGHT THAT \n[00:32:35] THE COMMISSION NEEDS TO APPROVE \n[00:32:37] THIS SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ALSO? \n[00:32:39] >>MATTHEW TRUJILLO: YOU ARE \n[00:32:40] CORRECT. YES. \n[00:32:42] >>REBECCA EISEN: I THINK WE \n[00:32:43] SHOULD. PEOPLE ARE GOING TO ASK. \n[00:32:45] I WOULD — I WOULD BE ASKING \n[00:32:46] NOW\, BUT I — I GATHER — GO \n[00:32:50] AHEAD. \n[00:32:51] >>ADRIENNE KLEIN: I APOLOGIZE IF \n[00:32:52] I DID NOT PROVIDE ENOUGH \n[00:32:57] BACKGROUND. WE WERE — STAFF WAS \n[00:33:02] NOT AWARE\, COMMISSIONER EISEN\, \n[00:33:04] BEFORE 2015 THAT THE RESTROOM \n[00:33:05] WAS CLOSED. THE CITY\, IN FACT\, \n[00:33:10] SUBMITTED A REQUEST TO AMEND \n[00:33:15] THEIR PERMIT TO REMOVE THE \n[00:33:18] PUBLIC RESTROOM REQUIREMENT IN \n[00:33:20] 2015. AND THAT IS HOW THE BCDC \n[00:33:22] FOUND OUT THAT THE RESTROOM WAS \n[00:33:26] CLOSED. STAFF — THE CITY\, I \n[00:33:28] BELIEVE\, EVENTUALLY WITHDREW \n[00:33:30] THAT REQUEST BASED ON DIRECTION \n[00:33:31] FROM STAFF THAT THEY WERE \n[00:33:32] UNLIKELY TO MAKE A \n[00:33:34] RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL TO \n[00:33:35] THE COMMISSION AS THAT AMENDMENT \n[00:33:37] WAS CONSIDERED TO BE — LIKELY \n[00:33:42] TO BE A MATERIAL PERMIT \n[00:33:44] AMENDMENT. WE THEN — THIS WAS \n[00:33:47] ACTUALLY MATTHEW’S ENFORCEMENT \n[00:33:49] CASE. SO\, WE USED THE 35-DAY \n[00:33:54] STANDARDIZED FINE LETTER AS THE \n[00:33:55] FIRST TOOL ALONG WITH A LOT OF \n[00:33:58] COMMUNICATION. MATTHEW \n[00:34:00] NEGOTIATED THE PORTA-POTTY\, SO \n[00:34:02] THAT AT LEAST THERE WOULD BE A \n[00:34:06] PUBLIC RESTROOM FACILITY WHILE \n[00:34:08] THE PERMANENT RESTROOM FACILITY \n[00:34:09] WAS BEING REFURBISHED. SO\, IT \n[00:34:11] HAD BEEN CLOSED FOR SO LONG\, I \n[00:34:14] DON’T THINK I EVER KNEW EXACTLY \n[00:34:16] THE DETAILS FROM READING THE \n[00:34:18] RECORD OF THE CONDITION OF THE \n[00:34:20] RESTROOM\, BUT IT WASN’T ABLE TO \n[00:34:22] BE SIMPLY OPENED. I THINK IT \n[00:34:24] NEEDED TO BE WHOLLY \n[00:34:27] RECONSTRUCTED. AND SO THERE WERE \n[00:34:29] A SERIES OF EVENTS THAT I MIGHT \n[00:34:31] CHARACTERIZE AS A BIT OF A \n[00:34:33] TRAGIC COMEDY IN THAT THE CITY\, \n[00:34:35] I BELIEVE\, WITH FULL GOOD FAITH \n[00:34:37] INTENDED ON MANY DIFFERENT \n[00:34:38] OCCASIONS TO TAKE STEP X AND \n[00:34:40] OPEN THE RESTROOM. AND AT THE \n[00:34:41] POINT THAT STAFF WOULD CHECK IN \n[00:34:43] WHEN THAT DUE DATE\, THAT CITY \n[00:34:53] SELF-IMPOSED DUE DATE CAME\, \n[00:34:55] THERE WAS YET ANOTHER TECHNICAL \n[00:34:57] REASON WHY THEY COULDN’T THEN \n[00:34:59] OPEN THE RESTROOM FOR ANOTHER \n[00:35:01] YEAR. SO\, THIS SERIES OF EVENTS \n[00:35:04] OCCURRED OVER THIS EIGHT-YEAR \n[00:35:06] PERIOD. AND STAFF WAS FOR THE \n[00:35:08] MOST PART ENGAGED DURING THAT \n[00:35:11] ENTIRE PERIOD OF TIME. THE LAST \n[00:35:13] COUPLE YEARS WE — I THINK WE \n[00:35:14] HAVEN’T BEEN ENGAGED SO \n[00:35:16] ACTIVELY. COMPLIANCE ANALYST\, \n[00:35:17] FORMER ENFORCEMENT ANALYST JOHN \n[00:35:19] KREECH WAS WORKING ON THE CASE \n[00:35:21] FOR A COUPLE OF YEARS AND IN \n[00:35:23] CLOSE CONTACT WITH FABIOLA. SHE \n[00:35:26] WASN’T PART OF THE PROJECT \n[00:35:30] ORIGINALLY\, BUT BECAME\, I \n[00:35:33] BELIEVE\, THE CITY LEAD. DURING \n[00:35:36] THE PERIOD THAT WE WEREN’T IN \n[00:35:38] CONTACT\, THE CITY DID \n[00:35:41] RECONSTRUCT THE RESTROOM\, WHICH \n[00:35:43] IS GREAT. AND THEN\, AS I HAD \n[00:35:45] MENTIONED\, THEY ENCOUNTERED IN \n[00:35:48] THIS SERIES OF EVENTS ANOTHER \n[00:35:51] OBSTACLE\, UNEXPECTED\, NOT \n[00:35:53] INTENTIONAL\, AND THEY SEEMED TO \n[00:35:57] HAVE NOW WORKED THEIR WAY \n[00:36:01] THROUGH THAT. IT WOULD BE \n[00:36:04] CURIOUS TO KNOW IF THERE’S AN \n[00:36:06] UPDATE ON HOW LONG IT WILL TAKE \n[00:36:09] PG&E TO TURN ON THE POWER. SO\, I \n[00:36:11] HOPE THAT ANSWERS YOUR QUESTION. \n[00:36:13] I’M HAPPY TO PROVIDE MORE \n[00:36:15] DETAILS IF YOU HAVE FURTHER \n[00:36:17] QUESTIONS. \n[00:36:19] >>REBECCA EISEN: IT DOES\, BUT IT \n[00:36:20] ALSO LEADS ME TO THINK ABOUT \n[00:36:22] WHAT LESSONS CAN BE LEARNED FROM \n[00:36:37] THIS. PART OF THE PROBLEM SOUNDS \n[00:36:37] LIKE WE RELY OR AT LEAST HAVE IN \n[00:36:38] THE PAST LARGELY RELIED ON \n[00:36:40] SOMEBODY COMING TO US AND \n[00:36:42] SAYING\, GUESS WHAT\, THAT \n[00:36:43] BATHROOM’S NOT OPEN. WE DON’T \n[00:36:46] HAVE ANY METHOD FOR MAKING SURE \n[00:36:49] PERMIT HOLDERS BRING TO OUR \n[00:36:51] ATTENTION ANY ISSUES WITH \n[00:36:53] COMPLIANCE WITH THE PERMIT. \n[00:36:55] THERE MAY BE A DOZEN OTHER \n[00:36:57] THINGS\, BUT I THINK\, YOU KNOW\, \n[00:37:00] GIVEN THAT WE’VE GOT 30-SOME \n[00:37:01] YEARS INVESTED IN THIS\, MAYBE WE \n[00:37:03] CAN SPEND A FEW MINUTES THINKING \n[00:37:08] ABOUT WHAT LESSONS CAN BE \n[00:37:10] LEARNED FROM THIS AND IF THERE \n[00:37:12] CAN BE IMPROVEMENTS IN PROCESSES \n[00:37:16] GIVEN WHAT’S HAPPENED IN THIS \n[00:37:19] CASE\, WHETHER WE CAN USE IT AS A \n[00:37:25] LEARNING — SOUNDS LIKE WE CAN’T \n[00:37:27] GET MORE MONEY OUT OF IT\, MAYBE \n[00:37:30] WE CAN GET SOME LEARNING OUT OF \n[00:37:32] IT. \n[00:37:35] >>MATTHEW TRUJILLO: WELL\, SO \n[00:37:37] WE — YES. WE LEARNED A LOT FROM \n[00:37:39] THIS CASE. AS YOU PROBABLY HAVE \n[00:37:41] DISCERNED\, THIS CASE WAS OPEN \n[00:37:44] PRIOR TO THE REINVIGORATION \n[00:37:47] ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM BEFORE WE \n[00:37:48] HAD THE ESTABLISHMENT WHICH WAS \n[00:37:50] THE RECOMMENDATION BY THE \n[00:37:51] AUDITOR OF A COMPLIANCE PROGRAM \n[00:37:53] AS WELL AS ANOTHER \n[00:37:54] RECOMMENDATION\, WHICH IS TO DO \n[00:37:56] MORE IN TERMS OF GETTING OUT \n[00:37:59] INTO THE COMMUNITY TO MONITOR\, \n[00:38:01] PATROL THE SITE. WHILE I DON’T \n[00:38:03] BELIEVE BECAUSE THIS WAS AN \n[00:38:04] ACTIVE CASE\, I BELIEVE THAT \n[00:38:08] THE — CORRECT ME IF I’M WRONG\, \n[00:38:09] ADRIENNE\, THEY WERE ONLY LOOKING \n[00:38:11] AT RESOLVED CASES\, THIS IS \n[00:38:12] CERTAINLY ONE THAT WAS TOP OF \n[00:38:14] MIND THROUGHOUT THAT PROCESS. \n[00:38:16] I’M NOT GOING TO NECESSARILY \n[00:38:18] MAKE EXCUSES FOR WHY IT’S TAKEN \n[00:38:19] SO LONG POST-AUDIT\, OTHER THAN \n[00:38:21] JUST TO SAY THAT THE \n[00:38:23] PRACTICALITIES HAVE NOT ALLOWED \n[00:38:24] US TO RESOLVE THIS CASE FULLY. \n[00:38:26] THIS PG&E ISSUE\, FOR EXAMPLE\, \n[00:38:29] HAS BEEN GOING ON FOR A COUPLE \n[00:38:33] OF YEARS\, AT LEAST\, WHERE WE \n[00:38:36] CHECKED IN\, WHAT’S GOING ON WITH \n[00:38:40] THE RESTROOM. IT’S PG&E. THEN \n[00:38:44] EVENTUALLY THE REASON WHY IT’S \n[00:38:47] NOW IN FRONT OF YOU IS BECAUSE \n[00:38:49] WE JUST NEEDED — WE NEED \n[00:38:52] RESOLUTION. WE CAN’T HAVE THESE \n[00:38:54] LONGSTANDING CASES\, EIGHT\, NINE \n[00:38:57] YEARS IS TOO LONG FOR ANY CASE \n[00:38:59] TO STAY OPEN POST-AUDIT\, POST \n[00:39:01] REINVIGORATION. WE’RE TRYING TO \n[00:39:02] MOVE THOSE THINGS THROUGH. YES\, \n[00:39:04] WE DO LEARN FROM THESE. \n[00:39:06] UNFORTUNATELY THIS WILL NOT \n[00:39:07] PROBABLY BE THE ONLY EXAMPLE \n[00:39:08] THAT COMES BEFORE YOU OF A \n[00:39:10] LONGSTANDING CASE THAT TAKES \n[00:39:11] FOREVER TO RESOLVE\, BUT WE’RE ON \n[00:39:12] TOP OF IT. \n[00:39:14] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: JOHN? \n[00:39:16] >>JOHN VASQUEZ: THANK YOU\, \n[00:39:18] REBECCA. WE WENT THROUGH THIS \n[00:39:19] SOME YEARS AGO. HOW DO WE CHECK \n[00:39:25] BACK AND MAKE SURE THAT THE \n[00:39:26] PERMITS ARE COMPLETED? WE RELIED \n[00:39:28] ON OTHER AGENCIES TO DO THOSE \n[00:39:30] IMPROVEMENTS\, IN SOME CASES IT’S \n[00:39:31] THE DEVELOPER\, IN SOME CASES \n[00:39:33] IT’S THE CITY. BECAUSE WE — WE \n[00:39:34] ONLY HAD A FEW MEMBERS IN THE \n[00:39:36] ENFORCEMENT AND THE AUDIT \n[00:39:38] INDICATED THAT THAT WAS PART OF \n[00:39:40] THE PROBLEM\, TOO. WE’VE HAD \n[00:39:42] THESE DISCUSSIONS OVER THE \n[00:39:43] YEARS. MARIE CAN REMEMBER US \n[00:39:44] STARTING WITH THE AUDIT\, LOOKING \n[00:39:46] AT THE WAY ENFORCEMENT WAS \n[00:39:48] HANDLED. IT WAS A LOT OF WORK \n[00:39:49] FOR THE SMALL GROUP OF STAFF WE \n[00:39:51] HAD. IT WAS ENOUGH JUST TO WORK \n[00:39:52] ON THE STAFF THAT CAME BEFORE \n[00:39:54] US\, LET ALONE BEING ABLE TO LOOK \n[00:39:56] BACK AND SAY DID THAT PERMIT GET \n[00:39:58] COMPLETELY COMPLETED? DID \n[00:40:00] EVERYBODY CHECK THINGS OFF? WE \n[00:40:02] EVEN TALKED ABOUT IN THE CASE OF \n[00:40:06] BUILDING\, MAYBE WE’RE THE LAST \n[00:40:09] PERSON THAT SIGNS OFF FOR THE \n[00:40:12] OCCUPANCY PERMIT. IN THE PAST WE \n[00:40:16] HAVE BEEN RELYING ON OTHER \n[00:40:18] AGENCIES\, AS I SAID EARLIER\, TO \n[00:40:20] MAKE SURE THE WORK HAD BEEN \n[00:40:22] DONE\, YOU KNOW\, PATHWAYS MIGHT \n[00:40:24] BE TOO SMALL. THIS CASE\, THE \n[00:40:27] BATHROOM NEVER GOT OPENED\, BUT \n[00:40:28] WHO REALLY SUFFERED WAS THE \n[00:40:30] PUBLIC ITSELF FOR SO LONG. YES\, \n[00:40:32] WE DO RELY ON THE COMMUNITY TO \n[00:40:34] LET US KNOW WHEN THINGS ARE \n[00:40:36] NOT — WE’LL GET THERE\, BUT\, AS \n[00:40:38] MATTHEW SAID\, SOME OF THESE \n[00:40:40] OLDER CASES\, THEY’VE JUST BEEN \n[00:40:41] HANGING AROUND. I KNOW AS A \n[00:40:43] MEMBER OF THE COMMISSION\, \n[00:40:45] SOMETIMES IT’S FRUSTRATING\, BUT \n[00:40:47] HAVING SPENT ALL THAT TIME GOING \n[00:40:49] THROUGH THE AUDIT AND WORKING ON \n[00:40:51] SOME NEW RULES AND SOME NEW \n[00:40:52] PROCEDURES FOR — AND MORE \n[00:40:55] STAFF\, AGAIN\, IT WAS A SMALL \n[00:40:57] STAFF\, A LOT OF WORK TO DO. \n[00:41:01] >>MATTHEW TRUJILLO: IF I MAY ON \n[00:41:05] THAT NOTE\, WE ARE CURRENTLY \n[00:41:07] LOOKING AT GOING THROUGH THE \n[00:41:09] PROCESS OF A MISSION-BASED \n[00:41:11] REVIEW ON THE REGULATORY OR \n[00:41:13] PERMIT SIDE WHERE WE’RE LOOKING \n[00:41:15] AT HOW AND WHETHER WE SHOULD \n[00:41:16] RE-CONCEPTUALIZE OUR PERMIT \n[00:41:19] CONDITIONS AND I’M WONDERING IF \n[00:41:21] PERHAPS WE’RE LOOKING AT\, FOR \n[00:41:22] EXAMPLE\, INCORPORATING MORE \n[00:41:30] COMPLIANCE INTO THAT\, TOO. I \n[00:41:31] BELIEVE THAT THAT WILL BE COMING \n[00:41:32] BEFORE THE COMMISSION FOR A \n[00:41:33] BRIEFING AND THE VERY NEAR \n[00:41:34] FUTURE. \n[00:41:37] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: OKAY. \n[00:41:38] THANK YOU\, REBECCA\, FOR THAT \n[00:41:40] QUESTION. THIS KIND OF BRINGS MY \n[00:41:41] SET OF COMMENTS FULL-CIRCLE. \n[00:41:44] NUMBER ONE\, IT IS NOT UNUSUAL \n[00:41:47] AND AS A MATTER OF FACT VERY \n[00:41:49] COMMON FOR PUBLIC AGENCIES TO \n[00:41:52] RELY ON THE PUBLIC TO BE THEIR \n[00:41:55] EYES AND EARS BECAUSE MOST \n[00:41:57] PUBLIC AGENCIES JUST DO NOT HAVE \n[00:42:06] THE RESOURCES IN TERMS OF PEOPLE \n[00:42:07] TO ACTUALLY BE OUT ON THE \n[00:42:08] GROUND\, YOU KNOW\, LOOKING FOR \n[00:42:09] VIOLATIONS OR\, YOU KNOW\, \n[00:42:11] WHATEVER. WHETHER IT’S US\, THE \n[00:42:12] CITY OF SAN RAFAEL\, OTHER \n[00:42:13] CITIES\, WE RELY ON THE PUBLIC TO \n[00:42:15] BE OUR EYES AND EARS. THAT’S \n[00:42:17] NUMBER ONE. NUMBER TWO\, THIS \n[00:42:19] GETS BACK TO WHAT I ASKED ABOUT \n[00:42:22] EARLIER IN TERMS OF SOFTWARE. \n[00:42:24] WE’VE HAD DISCUSSIONS ABOUT HOW \n[00:42:28] HARD IT IS TO TRACK OUR PERMITS \n[00:42:29] IN TERMS OF COMPLIANCE — NOT IN \n[00:42:31] TERMS OF\, LIKE\, ARE THEY OUT OF \n[00:42:33] COMPLIANCE\, BUT WHAT ARE THE \n[00:42:35] TIMELINES THAT ARE SET IN THESE \n[00:42:37] PERMITS FOR COMPLIANCE? LIKE\, WE \n[00:42:40] ISSUE A PERMIT TODAY\, AND \n[00:42:42] THERE’S SEVERAL MILESTONES THAT \n[00:42:43] HAVE TO BE TRACKED. IN THE PAST\, \n[00:42:46] IT’S BEEN HARD TO DO THAT \n[00:42:49] BECAUSE STAFF HAS BEEN DOING IT \n[00:42:52] BASICALLY BY HAND OR WITH THE \n[00:42:54] SPREADSHEET. AND THAT’S PART OF \n[00:42:55] MY COMMENT ABOUT\, YOU KNOW\, WHAT \n[00:42:58] SOFTWARE OR SYSTEMS DO WE HAVE \n[00:43:00] IN PLACE TO MAKE IT EASIER TO \n[00:43:03] TRACK THAT KIND OF THING? SO\, I \n[00:43:07] KIND OF FEEL LIKE THIS CAME BACK \n[00:43:10] FULL CIRCLE TO WHAT I ASKED \n[00:43:12] ABOUT\, YOU KNOW\, IN THE \n[00:43:14] BEGINNING. IT’S A PROBLEM\, \n[00:43:16] BECAUSE I HAVE NO IDEA\, IF\, FOR \n[00:43:21] INSTANCE\, THE SOFTWARE WE NEED \n[00:43:23] EXISTS\, AND IF IT DOES\, HOW MUCH \n[00:43:26] IT COSTS OR IF IT HAS TO BE \n[00:43:28] CREATED FROM SCRATCH AND HOW \n[00:43:29] MUCH THAT COSTS. THESE ARE ALL \n[00:43:32] ISSUES THAT I THINK\, YOU KNOW\, \n[00:43:34] WE AT BCDC HAVE TO GRAPPLE WITH. \n[00:43:36] I’M SURE THERE ARE A LOT OF \n[00:43:39] OTHER PUBLIC ORGANIZATIONS AND \n[00:43:41] CITIES THAT ARE DOING THE SAME \n[00:43:43] THING. SO — OKAY. IT OCCURS \n[00:43:48] TO ME THAT I HAVE NOT ASKED \n[00:43:50] FOR — REBECCA? \n[00:43:53] >>REBECCA EISEN: I JUST HAD A \n[00:43:54] QUICK FOLLOW-UP. I DON’T KNOW IF \n[00:43:58] OUR PERMITS ALREADY HAVE THIS IN \n[00:44:00] THEM\, BUT IS IT POSSIBLE TO \n[00:44:01] HAVE — IT SOUNDS LIKE THE CITY \n[00:44:03] OF SAN RAFAEL ITSELF MAY NOT \n[00:44:05] HAVE BEEN AWARE THAT IT — YOU \n[00:44:08] KNOW\, A PART OF ITS PERMIT \n[00:44:09] OBLIGATIONS HAD NOT BEEN \n[00:44:11] FULFILLED OR HAD LAPSED. IS \n[00:44:13] THERE SOME PROCESS IN THE PERMIT \n[00:44:14] WHERE EVERY — I DON’T KNOW\, \n[00:44:16] EVERY FIVE YEARS OR SOMETHING \n[00:44:18] THAT THE PERMITEE CONFIRMS OR \n[00:44:19] REAFFIRMS THAT THE PERMIT \n[00:44:23] CONDITIONS ARE STILL BEING MET? \n[00:44:27] SOMETHING LIKE THAT? SO THAT \n[00:44:32] THEY WOULD THEN HAVE TO CHECK \n[00:44:36] AND MAKE SURE EVERYTHING THAT \n[00:44:39] THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO HAVE DONE \n[00:44:42] IS STILL BEING DONE. I DON’T — \n[00:44:44] I MEAN\, IT’S A — MATTHEW\, IT’S \n[00:44:47] JUST SOMETHING TO SORT OF STICK \n[00:44:49] IN YOUR THINKING BOX\, BECAUSE IT \n[00:44:51] SOUNDS LIKE YOU’RE ALREADY DOING \n[00:44:53] A LOT OF THINKING TO IMPROVE OUR \n[00:44:55] PROCESSES. I DON’T KNOW IF \n[00:44:57] THAT’S SOMETHING TO BE USEFUL. I \n[00:44:58] WANTED TO GET IT OUT THERE WHILE \n[00:45:00] IT WAS STILL ON THE TOP OF MY \n[00:45:04] MIND. \n[00:45:06] >>MATTHEW TRUJILLO: I THINK \n[00:45:08] THAT’S A GREAT IDEA. I WOULD \n[00:45:10] JUST — I GUESS ASSURE YOU IN \n[00:45:12] OUR PERMITS ALREADY THERE IS \n[00:45:13] LANGUAGE TO THE EFFECT THAT \n[00:45:15] CLARIFIES THAT IT IS THE \n[00:45:20] PERMITEE’S RESPONSIBILITY TO \n[00:45:23] MAINTAIN COMPLIANCE THROUGHOUT. \n[00:45:25] YEAH\, I GUESS I SHARE YOUR \n[00:45:29] CONCERN\, IF I’M INTERPRETING IT \n[00:45:32] CORRECTLY\, THAT MAYBE IT’S NOT \n[00:45:34] AS ROBUST AS IT COULD BE AND WE \n[00:45:37] NEED TO THINK ABOUT HOW TO MAKE \n[00:45:39] THAT A BIT MORE ROBUST. \n[00:45:41] >>REBECCA EISEN: THANK YOU. \n[00:45:44] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: I SEE \n[00:45:46] SHARI POSNER. I DIDN’T KNOW IF \n[00:45:47] YOU WANTED TO SAY SOMETHING. \n[00:45:49] >>SHARI POSNER: THIS SOUNDS \n[00:45:51] LIKE\, PERHAPS — THIS IS UP TO \n[00:45:52] THE COMMITTEE\, IT SOUNDS LIKE \n[00:45:53] MAYBE SOME SORT OF PRESENTATION \n[00:45:54] FROM THE PERMIT COMPLIANCE GROUP \n[00:45:56] OR WORKING GROUP OR DISCUSSION \n[00:45:57] MIGHT BE IN ORDER. BECAUSE THERE \n[00:45:58] ARE A LOT OF IDEAS HERE\, AND \n[00:46:00] SOMETHING TO SOMETHING AS A \n[00:46:08] FUTURE AGENDA ITEM MAYBE. \n[00:46:09] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: I LIKE \n[00:46:10] THAT SUGGESTION. IT KIND OF \n[00:46:11] SOUNDS LIKE WE’RE ALL ASKING THE \n[00:46:12] SAME SORTS OF QUESTIONS. SO\, I’M \n[00:46:14] GOING TO ASK MATTHEW\, IF YOU \n[00:46:16] WOULD AGENDIZE THAT FOR A FUTURE \n[00:46:19] MEETING. \n[00:46:21] >>MATTHEW TRUJILLO: YES\, I WILL. \n[00:46:24] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: OKAY. \n[00:46:25] THANK YOU. I’M SORRY\, DID I ASK \n[00:46:27] FOR PUBLIC COMMENT? I DON’T \n[00:46:29] THINK I DID. ANY MEMBERS OF THE \n[00:46:32] PUBLIC WHO WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT \n[00:46:36] ON THIS ITEM? \n[00:46:38] >>MODERATOR: I SEE NO HANDS \n[00:46:40] RAISED\, CHAIR GILMORE. \n[00:46:42] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: THANK \n[00:46:44] YOU. ALL RIGHT. IF THERE ARE NO \n[00:46:52] FINAL QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM \n[00:46:55] THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS\, I WILL \n[00:46:58] ENTERTAIN A MOTION FOR APPROVAL \n[00:47:01] TO APPROVE THE EXECUTIVE \n[00:47:03] DIRECTOR’S RECOMMENDED \n[00:47:06] ENFORCEMENT DECISION REGARDING \n[00:47:08] THE PROPOSED STIPULATED CEASE \n[00:47:10] AND DESIST ORDERS TODAY. \n[00:47:13] >>REBECCA EISEN: SO MOVED. \n[00:47:16] >>JOHN VASQUEZ: SECOND. \n[00:47:18] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: WE HAVE \n[00:47:20] A MOTION FROM COMMISSIONER EISEN \n[00:47:22] AND A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER \n[00:47:25] VASQUEZ. MATTHEW\, COULD YOU \n[00:47:26] PLEASE CALL THE ROLL? \n[00:47:28] >>MATTHEW TRUJILLO: I’M SORRY\, \n[00:47:29] MAY I CLARIFY\, DID YOU SAY CEASE \n[00:47:30] AND DESIST ORDER? IT’S THE \n[00:47:31] SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT. \n[00:47:33] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: I’M \n[00:47:34] SORRY. \n[00:47:36] >>MATTHEW TRUJILLO: DOES THAT \n[00:47:37] MEAN WE HAVE TO REDO IT? I’M NOT \n[00:47:38] SURE. \n[00:47:40] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: LET’S \n[00:47:41] REDO IT SO WE HAVE A CLEAR \n[00:47:43] RECORD. OKAY. CAN I HAVE A \n[00:47:44] MOTION TO APPROVE THE \n[00:47:46] RECOMMENDED SETTLEMENT \n[00:47:47] AGREEMENT? \n[00:47:49] >>REBECCA EISEN: SO MOVED. \n[00:47:50] >>JOHN VASQUEZ: SECOND. \n[00:47:54] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: OKAY. WE \n[00:47:58] HAVE A MOTION FROM COMMISSIONER \n[00:48:00] EISEN AND A SECOND FROM \n[00:48:03] COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ. NOW\, \n[00:48:05] MATTHEW\, WILL YOU PLEASE CALL \n[00:48:07] ROLL? \n[00:48:09] >>MATTHEW TRUJILLO: OKAY. \n[00:48:11] COMMISSIONER EISEN? \n[00:48:13] >>REBECCA EISEN: YEA. \n[00:48:16] >>MATTHEW TRUJILLO: COMMISSIONER \n[00:48:19] VASQUEZ? \n[00:48:20] >>JOHN VASQUEZ: YES. \n[00:48:22] >>MATTHEW TRUJILLO: CHAIR \n[00:48:23] GILMORE? \n[00:48:24] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: YES. THE \n[00:48:24] MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. THANK \n[00:48:25] YOU VERY MUCH\, COMMITTEE \n[00:48:26] MEMBERS. AND I WILL NOW — THANK \n[00:48:27] YOU TO THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL. \n[00:48:29] WE THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENDANCE \n[00:48:30] AND YOUR PARTICIPATION TODAY. \n[00:48:32] SO\, COMMITTEE MEMBERS\, I WILL \n[00:48:35] NOW ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO \n[00:48:38] ADJOURN. \n[00:48:40] >>REBECCA EISEN: SO MOVED. \n[00:48:43] >>JOHN VASQUEZ: SECOND. \n[00:48:46] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: OKAY. WE \n[00:48:48] HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. \n[00:48:50] MOTION BY COMMISSIONER EISEN\, A \n[00:48:51] SECOND BY COMMISSIONER VAZQUEZ. \n[00:48:53] IS THERE ANYBODY WHO OBJECTS TO \n[00:48:55] THIS MOTION? SEEING NO \n[00:48:57] OBJECTIONS\, WE ARE ADJOURNED. \n[00:49:00] THANK YOU\, EVERYONE. HAVE A NICE \n[00:49:02] DAY. \n[00:49:04] >>JOHN VASQUEZ: THANK YOU \n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Learn How to Participate\n				Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act\nAs 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 access Commission Meetings under the “Public Meetings” tab on the website and select the date of the meeting. \nHow to Provide Comments and Comment Time Limits\nPursuant to state law\, the Commission is currently conducting its public meetings in a “hybrid” fashion. Each meeting notice will specify (1) where the meeting is being primarily held physically\, (2) all teleconference locations\, which will be publicly-accessible\, and (3) 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 or a teleconference meeting location; (2) emailing comments in advance to public comment until 10 a.m. on the day of the meeting; and (3) participating via ZOOM during the meeting. \nIf 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. \nQuestions and Staff Reports\nIf 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. \nCampaign Contributions\nState 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. Other 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. \nAccess to Meetings\nMeetings 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.
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/march-27-2024-enforcement-committee-meeting/
CATEGORIES:Enforcement Committee
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20240314T093000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20240314T120000
DTSTAMP:20260429T234345
CREATED:20240130T044513Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240610T214351Z
UID:10000129-1710408600-1710417600@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:March 14\, 2024 Enforcement Committee Meeting
DESCRIPTION:This Enforcement meeting will be conducted in a hybrid format in accordance with SB 544 (2023). To maximize public safety while maintaining transparency and public access\, members of the public can choose to participate either virtually via Zoom\, by phone\, or in person at the location listed below. Physical attendance at Metro Center requires that all individuals adhere to the site’s health guidelines including\, if required\, wearing masks\, health screening\, and social distancing. \nPhysical Location \nMetro CenterYerba Buena Room375 Beale StreetSan Francisco\, CA 94105415-352-3600 \nIf you have issues joining the meeting using the link\, please enter the Meeting ID and Password listed below into the ZOOM app to join the meeting. \nJoin the meeting via ZOOM \nhttps://bcdc-ca-gov.zoom.us/j/84435087888?pwd=a0tEnzt0Vju1kmTZxvqOw1xuBSDRef.1 \nLive Webcast \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers(816) 423-4282Conference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID844 3508 7888 \nPasscode710988 \nIf you call in by telephone: \nPress *6 to unmute or mute yourselfPress *9 to raise your hand or lower your hand to speak  \n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Tentative Agenda\n				\nCall to Order\nRoll Call\nPublic CommentThe Committee will hear public comments on matters that are not on the agenda.\nApproval of Draft Minutes from the January 24\, 2024 Enforcement Committee meeting.\nHearing and Vote on Executive Director’s Recommended Enforcement Decision\, including Proposed Cease and Desist and Civil Penalty Order CCD2024.001.00 (BCDC Enforcement Case ER2021.080.00).The Committee will hold a public hearing and vote on whether to recommend to the full Commission the adoption of a proposed Cease and Desist and Civil Penalty Order to resolve two violations at 660 Bridgeway\, Sausalito\, Marin County.(Rachel Cohen) [415/352-3661; rachel.cohen@bcdc.ca.gov]Staff presentation\nBriefing to the Enforcement Committee on the Status of the City of Oakland’s Compliance with the Union Point Park Order.Compliance staff will report out to the committee on the current state of Union Point Park\, which is subject to remedial efforts by the City of Oakland under the terms of Commission Cease and Desist Order CCD2020.001.00.(John Creech) [415/352-3619; john.creech@bcdc.ca.gov]\nAdjournment\n\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Meeting Minutes\n				March 14\, 2024 Minutes \nTranscript for item 5 \n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Audio Recording & Transcript\n				Audio recording \nhttps://www.bcdc.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/354/2024/01/2024-03-14-EC-audio-recording.mp3 \nAudio transcript \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: And please mute. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: please mute yourselves when you are not speaking. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Our first order of business today is to call the role Adrian. Would you please call the role commissioners. Please unmute yourselves while she does this to respond\, and then mute yourselves. After responding. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: you’re muted\, Adrian. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. Chair Gilmore. Good morning. Chair\, Gilmore. I’ll start with you here. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Eisen. Here. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: Commissioner Vasquez\, here. \nBoardroom SX80: and I believe that’s it. We have a quorum of 3. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you. We have a quorum present\, and are duly constituted to conduct business. Before we move on to item 3 on the agenda. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Please note that item 6 \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: has been postponed. We will not hear item 6 today. And so if you were here for an update on Union Point Park\, that item is postponed. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: we will reschedule that briefing for a future date. So that brings us to item 3 on our agenda public comment. \nMarie 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. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and I believe we have not received any general comments in advance of this meeting\, Margie? \nBoardroom SX80: We did receive one general comment\, not on the agenda. and it will be posted today. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, thank you. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: And I believe that Commissioner Blynn has just joined us. So welcome. And thank you. \nLetty Belin\, Commissioner: Good morning. Morning. Sorry. I’m a little bit late. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: No worries. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay. So for members of the public who are attending online. If you would like to speak\, either during the general public comment period or during the public comment period\, or an item on the agenda. \nMarie 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. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Find the small palm icon on the left. If you click on that palm\, icon\, it will raise your hand. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: or if you are joining this meeting by phone\, you must dial Star 9 to raise your hand. Then Dial star 6 on your keypad to unmute your phone. When the host asks you in order to make a comment. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: the meeting host will call on individuals who have raised their hands in the order that they were raised. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: After you are called upon\, you will be unmuted\, so that you can share your comments. Please announce yourself. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: By first and last name for the record before making your comment for members of the public who are attending in person. Please queue up at the speaker’s podium and wait to be called upon to speak. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Commenters are limited to 3 min to speak. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: 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. \nMarie 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. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Margie\, do we have any commenters today? \nBoardroom SX80: Yes\, we do. We have Chris Mckay. Mr. Mckay\, you have 3 min. \nBoardroom SX80: Mr. Mckay. \nBoardroom SX80: Mr. Mckay. \nBoardroom SX80: Okay\, I think he has a problem with his \nBoardroom SX80: speakers. So\, Chair Gilmore\, we have no other commenters. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, thank you. Do. We have anybody at a remote location that’s willing to speak. I don’t think so. But I should ask. \nBoardroom SX80: yeah\, we do not have actually\, we have another couple speakers online. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay. \nBoardroom SX80: first up Brock\, the lab. \nBoardroom SX80: Mr. Dilap\, you have 3 min. \nBrock de Lappe: Good morning\, Commissioners. My name is Brock Dilap. \nBrock de Lappe: I’m extremely concerned about the fact that the Union Point Park matter \nBrock de Lappe: has been removed from today’s agenda. \nBrock de Lappe: I hope you both have. The Commissioners have had a chance to review the documentation that I’ve sent regarding the influx of encampments into Union Point Park \nBrock de Lappe: and the problems along the shoreline. \nBrock de Lappe: It was in 2019 \nBrock de Lappe: that the East parking lot at Union Point Park was totally packed with rbs. \nBrock de Lappe: This was a very dangerous situation. There was a bad fire that burned up several vehicles. A 7 year old boy was shot. \nBrock de Lappe: It was complete lawlessness. and in 2019 the city of Oakland \nmoved \nBrock de Lappe: those vehicles from the east parking lot. \nBrock de Lappe: The park itself was overrun with homeless encampments. and in march of 2012\, \nBrock de Lappe: under a cease and desist order. \nBrock de Lappe: the city of Oakland removed those encampments from Union Point Park. \nBrock de Lappe: At that time the park was deemed to be a closure area. \nBrock de Lappe: which meant that no reoccupation was to occur. \nBrock de Lappe: Unfortunately that has not \nBrock de Lappe: been supported \nBrock de Lappe: by the city of Oakland. The park now has numerous encampments \nBrock de Lappe: it’s not being tended to\, and I can imagine why the city of Oakland Park Service would not want to go into the park to try to cut the lawn or pick up the trash \nBrock de Lappe: because of the existing encampments. and as it is. it would not be used by the general public \nBrock de Lappe: on the shoreline. There’s an encampment in the old Crier boat yard site which has been their location for several stolen boats. \nBrock de Lappe: There are. boat anchored offshore illegally in the estuary off of the East parking lot \nBrock de Lappe: which people have seen stolen property stolen outboard motors \nBrock de Lappe: that cannot be recovered. \nBrock de Lappe: So once again the park\, for lack of enforcement. \nBrock de Lappe: Lack of involvement by the city of Oakland \nBrock de Lappe: has been allowed to go into disrepair\, and I think the public has a right to know \nBrock de Lappe: why this item was removed from the agenda. Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you very much. Next we have Chris Mckay. \nBoardroom SX80: Go ahead\, Mr. Mckay. \nChris McKay: Yes. Can you hear me. \nChris McKay: I’m not sure if you can hear me. Okay\, thank you very much. A year ago Union Point Park had encampment on the North end in the South End. But the center of the park was clear. At that time working with the Parks department. We brought in about 30 school kids for 2 days. \nChris McKay: and they picked up litter planted trees removed graffiti\, and just really got the part looking great\, and they enjoyed participating in it\, and it was a good exercise for them \nChris McKay: and it was at this time of the year when they were still in school. But it was time for planning and cleaning the park \nChris McKay: this year. A year later. They can’t come because the there’s encampments spread throughout the park\, and the school won’t allow them to come in as long as there’s encampments in the center of the park\, so nothing’s going on. The trees they planted are not being maintained \nChris McKay: litter is everywhere. People are driving through the the park in in vehicles and destroying the turf\, and the there’s a huge in structure built next to the playground. \nChris McKay: So what’s really frustrating about this is not so much. The city isn’t doing anything\, but they have 23 million dollars of unspent funds for measure queue that was specifically designed for the parks\, for litter\, for improvements\, for interventions in encampments\, and they’ve done nothing \nChris McKay: according to the agreement that was signed 3 years ago between the Park and BC. DC. BC. DC. Can now fine Oakland\, about 6.5 million dollars\, based on the $6\,000 a day fine for not keeping the part clear. I would ask Bcd. To enforce that fine. That may be the only thing that gets the city to take care of a park. \nChris McKay: and our Neighborhood association \nChris McKay: keeps all the areas clear\, and we have a nightly security patrol. But the one thing in our neighborhood that we can’t control is the park\, and the park is actually controlled by DC. DC. So we would ask you to enforce this and do it as soon as possible\, so we can get these kids back in and get them involved in using and taking care of their park. Thank you very much. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you\, Mr. Mckay. Next we have Mike Gorman. \niPhone (6)Mike Gorman EYC: Hello! This is Michael Gorman. Can you hear me? \nBoardroom SX80: Yes\, you have 3 min. \niPhone (6)Mike Gorman EYC: Good morning\, Commissioners\, and especially Chair Gilmour. Good to hear you and see you again. I am director of the Install Yacht Club\, Junior Ceiling program in Alameda. \niPhone (6)Mike Gorman EYC: We’ve been severely impacted the last couple of years over theft and vandalism in our facility boats and neighborhood of 50 to $60\,000 stolen. \niPhone (6)Mike Gorman EYC: and many other boats from the Alameda Community Sailing center and \niPhone (6)Mike Gorman EYC: other private parties along the shoreline of Alameda and Oakland. Most of these vessels and motors have been recovered at the Union Point\, East Parking lot or the boats adjacent to the shoreline there. \niPhone (6)Mike Gorman EYC: Unfortunately\, we’ve had to do it on our own\, because the police response is not adequate and not quick enough to do anything. \niPhone (6)Mike Gorman EYC: I go by there almost every day because I work in the vicinity work at a facility that’s been severely impacted. Also by having its customers\, motes\, and motors stolen. \niPhone (6)Mike Gorman EYC: We have photographs of those at the Crier Yard \niPhone (6)Mike Gorman EYC: encampment next to the Coast Guard Bridge. \niPhone (6)Mike Gorman EYC: also on the beach right now. One of them is on the beach right now \niPhone (6)Mike Gorman EYC: this morning at the east parking lot. \niPhone (6)Mike Gorman EYC: and also. At the fake the \niPhone (6)Mike Gorman EYC: board boats off the sparking lot. The Oakland Police Department Marine unit has made progress in the last 6 months to get rid of some of the illegal anchor outs\, and many of them have been part of the problem. \niPhone (6)Mike Gorman EYC: but there are still a few left that don’t seem to be a have any action taken on in any timely matter. The park itself and the parking lots are a disgrace. There’s \niPhone (6)Mike Gorman EYC: large motor homes that have been there at least 6 months. People line up and buy something from the windows and doors most mornings\, not sure what they’re buying\, but it’s probably not hot dogs. \niPhone (6)Mike Gorman EYC: There’s structures and tents erected in the park itself. \niPhone (6)Mike Gorman EYC: and it’s very discouraging to any member of the public who wants to take a stroll along the boardwalk or the shoreline walkway\, or use the park. In fact\, I think most people would just turn around. Go the other way. \niPhone (6)Mike Gorman EYC: I\, too\, am very curious as to why this \niPhone (6)Mike Gorman EYC: very critical item. Lack of enforcement has been postponed. I can’t see any reason why it should be put off \niPhone (6)Mike Gorman EYC: so just like Mr. Delop. I’d like to know the answer to that. \niPhone (6)Mike Gorman EYC: Please please do something for our neighborhood and our waterfront community. \niPhone (6)Mike Gorman EYC: Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you very much. I believe that’s all we have here\, Gilmore. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you\, Margie. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: item number 4 is approval of the draft minutes from our last meeting\, and we have all been furnished with draft minutes from that meeting. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So committee members\, I would appreciate a motion and a second to approve the minutes. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: So moved. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: Second. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: okay\, so we have motion from Commissioner Eisen\, and a second from Commissioner Vasquez. Anybody opposed to approving the minutes. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: hearing no objections\, the minutes are approved unanimously. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: so we move on to item number 5\, which is a hearing and a vote on recommended Enforcement decision to resolve \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: ER. 2021.0 8 0 point 0 0 \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Bayview\, one LLC. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: so our next. So it’s a presentation and a vote on a proposed recommended decision to adopt a cease and assist order to be issued to Bayview\, one Llc. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Owner of record of the subject property er 2021.0 8 0 point 0 0\, which is located at 6 60 Bridge way in Sausalito\, Marin County. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: If this committee votes to adopt this recommended enforcement decision\, which includes the proposed order\, it will be put up for a vote of approval or rejection by the full commission \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: at its April 4\, 2024\, meeting\, which is scheduled to be held online and in person at the Metro Center\, which is located at 3 75 Deal Street in San Francisco\, and the meeting will start at one Pm. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So after BC. DC. Staff gives its opening remarks\, the respondent will be invited to present their remarks. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Then I will allow public comment on this item\, and afterwards we\, the committee\, shall hold our discussion and vote on the staff’s recommendation. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So at this time will the representative or representatives for the respondent\, please identify themselves for the record \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: respondents. \nBoardroom SX80: They’re just being promoted to panelists. Now\, I believe \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: thank you. \nChris Henry: good morning. Can you hear me? \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Yes. \nChris Henry: good morning. My my name is Chris Henry. I’m I’m the owner of the building. and I’m I’m here a to respond and answer any questions\, and and to give you my side of the story. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Great. Thank you and welcome. Thank you for being here. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay. So we are now gonna hear presentations from the staff and the respondents. Each side will be allotted 20 min to deliver their presentations if needed. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Each side will summarize its position on the matters at hand with particular attention to those issues that are an actual controversy. where that exists between the staff and the response \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: presentations made by the parties\, as well as any public comments to follow\, shall be limited to responding to evidence already made as part of the Enforcement record. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: This committee shall not allow the introduction of any new evidence or oral testimony. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: so I will now invite enforcement. Analyst Rachel Cohen to give her opening remarks\, Rachel. Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. Chair Gilmour. just a second for me to share my screen. Please \nBoardroom SX80: see. \nBoardroom SX80: does that appear in full screen for you? \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Yes\, it does. \nBoardroom SX80: Okay. Great thanks. \nBoardroom SX80: Good morning. All to day. I’ll present Enforcement case number ER. 2021 dot 0 8 0\, for which the respondent is Mister Chris Henry and his company\, Bayview\, one Llc. This case involves a longstanding obstruction to permit required public access and unpermitted redevelopment activities in BC. D’s jurisdiction. \nBoardroom SX80: Mister Henry’s nearly 15 year history of failing to comply with the terms of his DC. DC. Permit\, and the Macketeer Petrus Act has caused Staff to commence a formal enforcement proceeding to restore public access. \nBoardroom SX80: Here’s our outline for today. We’ll go through the location of the violations\, history of noncompliance\, timeline of events\, violation\, summary defenses\, and rebuttals\, and finally\, the staff’s recommendation. \nBoardroom SX80: These 2 images are vicinity maps at 2 different scales of 6 60 Bridgeway Boulevard Sausalito\, Marin County\, originally a ferry terminal. This privately owned 2 story building is now the home to restaurants and shops in downtown Sausalito. \nBoardroom SX80: This is a clean scan of the plan which is\, exhibit A to permit. Bridgeway Boulevard is over here. If you can see my cursor to the west\, and the bay is over here on the eastern side. \nBoardroom SX80: And the building is here in the middle. \nBoardroom SX80: The there’s a faint red outline on the 1\,558 square foot public access area\, which wraps around the southern and the eastern sides of the building\, and also includes the staircase landing pad on the second floor\, which offers members of the public and elevated view of the bay. \nBoardroom SX80: The original permit in 1979 allowed for renovations to the ground floor restaurant\, Il Piccolo Cafe and repairs to the deck support structure and required landscaping public trash containers\, and no fewer than 2 benches to be made available to the public. \nBoardroom SX80: The access area provides sweeping bay views and a connection to the Yitak Chi Park to the immediate south \nBoardroom SX80: this dark blue polygon\, if you can follow my cursor approximately outlines the space which used to be used by ill piccolo Cafe. \nBoardroom SX80: and then moving on to this black rectangle. The second amendment to the 1\,979 permit allowed for 155 square feet of the public access area\, which is approximately outlined with this black rectangle to be used for outdoor dining with tables and chairs that were accessible to the public and to patrons of the cafe. The authorization to use. The public access area for outdoor dining ceased when the cafe closed around 2\,016. \nBoardroom SX80: This photo was taken in March of 2022 from south of the building facing north. The public access area is partially shown here. Under these overhangs. This plywood in the picture blocks part of the public access\, but it is meant to wrap around this eastern side of the building and go up the stairs here. \nBoardroom SX80: This photo was taken on March third 2024 from the south eastern corner of the building facing southwest. The public access area again includes this area under the overhangs and this walkway. \nBoardroom SX80: and then kind of in the same position. But just turning around. This photo faces northeast\, and these are those stairs that ascend to the second floor deck. \nBoardroom SX80: This slide shows where BC. DC’s shoreline banned and bay jurisdictions are. This is just to show you that nearly the entire building is within BCD. C’s jurisdiction. \nBoardroom SX80: So now that we’ve reviewed the permit required public access requirements\, I’ll review the history of noncompliance at this site before circling back to the current violations. \nBoardroom SX80: Mr. Henry took over ownership of 6 60 Bridgeway in 2\,007\, and\, as you can see from this long list of prior enforcement cases\, violations of the permit under Mister Henry’s ownership\, began in 2\,010\, and have regularly occurred since then. There were 6 cases between 2\,010 to 2\,016\, which dealt with restaurant staff\, refusing to allow members of the public to use the public outdoor dining tables. \nBoardroom SX80: restaurant staff were telling members of the public to either purchase food or leave the area. \nBoardroom SX80: For 2 of these cases Mister Henry was fined $100 for repeating the same violation. Within 5 years 2 cases dealt with the failure to post required public shore signage and a 2021 case addressed unauthorized outdoor dining tables. \nBoardroom SX80: I want to focus on ER. 2016 dot 0 1 3. When Mister Henry announced his intent to construct a new restaurant space by using the former ill piccolo cafe\, and demolishing and expanding into the neighboring business suites within the building. \nBoardroom SX80: Mister Henry was informed in April and September of 2016 that he must obtain A\, BCDC. Permit amendment prior to commencing this project\, however\, despite Staff’s warning\, their November 2016\, Site visit revealed that much of the public access space had been blocked off and construction of the restaurant renovation project had commenced without BCDC. Permits staff initiated standardized fines\, and Mister Henry submitted an incomplete permit application for the project. \nBoardroom SX80: After more than a year Mister Henry failed to complete his permit application\, and it was returned unfiled. \nBoardroom SX80: since construction had stopped and the public access was restored. Staff closed the case in June 2018\, and Mr. Henry was fined $21\,000 for the violations. When Staff notified Mr. Henry that the case was being closed\, they again reminded him that his property was within the Commission’s jurisdiction and governed by the 1979 permit\, and the Mccoy Petras Act \nBoardroom SX80: staff told him that he must seek and obtain A. BC. DC. Permit amendment prior to recommencing his project or a formal enforcement action would be initiated. Mr. Henry nonetheless reinitiated this project without obtaining approval. And this is one of the subject projects of today’s Enforcement case. \nBoardroom SX80: So\, moving on to our timeline for this case\, in August of 2\,021 staff received an Enforcement report which alleged that the respondent was again obstructing the public access pathway with plywood and tables. \nBoardroom SX80: In September of 2021 Enforcement Staff mailed a violation notice initiating an Enforcement action and standardized administrative fines staff of the second floor restaurant. The Barrel House Tavern replied and said that the public access path had been blockaded by plywood due to a fire\, and that staff of the fire department instructed them to close off the back patio \nBoardroom SX80: BCDC. Staff requested documentation of the fire marshal’s direction\, but never received it. Staff also informed Mister Henry that the city of Sausalito’s process is separate and distinct from BCD. C’s. Later that year in December\, Enforcement Staff asked for documentation from Mister Henry that the public access had been unblocked. \nBoardroom SX80: Mr. Henry’s response indicated that the public access remained blockaded\, and he provided no date by which he aimed to reopen the space. \nBoardroom SX80: In March and December of 2022\, and also in April of 2023 staff visited the site and documented the persistence of the violations. The shoreline public access had been completely blockaded and unauthorized. Work was occurring on the ground floor\, public access area and within the ground floor commercial space. \nBoardroom SX80: the entire public access area was being used to store furniture\, construction materials and trash bins\, making it unusable to the public. \nBoardroom SX80: In December of 2023\, a member of the public emailed staff photographs documenting that development activities had expanded again to include raised wooden flooring\, a high top bar\, and a new glass wall railing in the public access space\, appearing to Staff that Mister Henry intended to privatize the Public Access space for use by the new Restaurant \nBoardroom SX80: Enforcement staff then notified the respondent that the opportunity to resolve the case using standardized fines was no longer available. \nBoardroom SX80: On January 20\, fourth\, 2024\, Enforcement Staff issued a violation report in complaint for administrative civil penalties to Mister Henry\, and on January 30\, first he confirmed. He had received it \nBoardroom SX80: since the 1979 permit runs with the land\, and has not yet been formally assigned to Mister Henry on paper staff requested that Mister Henry complete a permit assignment form. He agreed to work on completing the permit assignment form on February sixth\, but we still have not received one. \nBoardroom SX80: On February ninth\, Mister Henry pledged to send documentation that he had made the public access area consistent with the permit. He also pledged to submit an after the fact permit application. \nBoardroom SX80: On February 20\, seventh\, 2024\, Staff spoke with Mister Henry Millard Arterbury\, the designer and architect\, for the renovation of the Restaurant Renovation project and Tim Gallucia\, Mister Henry’s friend\, who is a lawyer. \nBoardroom SX80: Staff explained the Enforcement Committee\, hearing process and the statement of defense form due date\, and Staff again advised Mr. Henry to apply for after the fact\, authorization for the fire repairs and interior restaurant renovations since both occurred in Bcd. Jurisdiction without Pcdc. Approval. Staff encouraged Mr. Henry to apply for a non material amendment to the 79 permit \nBoardroom SX80: instead of a region wide permit stating that permit. Staff may require additional public access in lieu of the years of closure and unauthorized work. \nBoardroom SX80: On February 2820\, 24\, staff received Mr. Henry’s application\, for\, after the fact\, approval of the Fire repair project\, despite Staff’s recommendation\, that Mr. Henry applied to amend the 1979 permit and include both the fire repair and restaurant renovation projects. The application was for an abbreviated region-wide permit for fire repairs only and excludes the restaurant renovation project completely \nBoardroom SX80: as noted earlier. On March third 2024 BCDC. Staff conducted a site visit and observed that wooden barricades were still being used to block much of the public access area and other portions of the public access area were being used for private storage of restaurant materials and rubbish and work on the interior of the restaurant appeared incomplete. \nBoardroom SX80: Despite Mr. Henry excluding the restaurant renovation project from the permit application\, he did submit the project plans. The image on the left shows the former ill-picolo space. \nBoardroom SX80: here an wine bar and retail space across the hallway\, and\, as you can see on the right. \nBoardroom SX80: The restaurant has expanded into the former wine bar and retail space\, and Phil has been placed internally consisting of new restrooms\, a new kitchen\, a new dining room\, a new office space\, and likely more\, there’s also red shading here to illustrate part of the public access area. \nBoardroom SX80: There’s a clear intent here to place tables and chairs for the restaurant throughout the public access space on the southern as well as the eastern sides of the building. \nBoardroom SX80: In sum violation\, one is for the unauthorized redevelopment activities on the ground floor of 660 Bridgeway Boulevard in Bcd’s Bay and Shoreline ban jurisdiction \nBoardroom SX80: and violation 2 is for closing blockading and removing the required public access amenities and intending to privatize the public access area for restaurant use. \nBoardroom SX80: Respondents submitted a statement of defense form with attachments. On February the 20 eighth\, 2\,024. In it. Mr. Henry admits to owning the property\, subject to the complaint \nBoardroom SX80: that work was performed to the back deck\, and that he installed Plywood to block access to it. \nBoardroom SX80: I’ll now move on to the 7 defenses and rebuttals defense. One is that respondent received building permits from the city of Sausalito for the restaurant remodel work\, however\, receiving a city of Sausalito building permit\, does not absolve respondent from his responsibility to consult BC. DC. Prior to performing work in BC. DC. Jurisdiction \nBoardroom SX80: to obtain BC. DC. Approval for the work\, and to comply with the Mcatir Petrus Act. Additionally\, the separation and distinction between Bcd. C. And the city of Sausalito’s processes was explained to Mr. Henry in writing in 2021\, and even if it had not been. Mr. Henry is still responsible for obtaining Bcd. C authorization prior to placing fill within or making any change in use of any area within BC. DC. Jurisdiction\, or any change to existing required public access. \nBoardroom SX80: Yep. \nBoardroom SX80: defense 2. Is that nobody mentioned anything to Mr. Henry about having to get Bcd. C. Approval for the restaurant remodel work\, despite it being solely Mister Henry’s responsibility to comply with the Mccoy Petrus Act and the regulations applicable to his property staff explicitly informed him 3 times in 2\,016 and 2\,018\, that he must obtain a Bcd. C. Permit amendment prior to commencing this project. \nBoardroom SX80: Defense 3. Is that nobody mentioned anything to Mr. Henry about having to go through BC. DC. To get approval for the Fire Restoration repair work. Mr. Henry should have known that he needed to consult Bcd. Staff repeatedly asked him for documentation\, that the fire department directed closure of the public access area\, and Staff informed him that the blockade was a violation\, and asked him to remove the sheet of plywood that was blocking public access \nBoardroom SX80: defence. 4. Is that Mister Henry was directed by the city of Sausalito Building Department and the fire marshal to install plywood and block access to the back deck. As it was unsafe from the fire. \nBoardroom SX80: The Macadar Petrus Act requires any person to receive BCDC. Authorization before making any substantial change in use of any water\, land or structure within BCD. C’s jurisdiction\, such as closing the public access. BCDC. Has procedures in place to respond to instances when emergency work is required. Yet there’s no record of Mister Henry proactively informing Mister BCDC. \nBoardroom SX80: About the fire and the need to close public access areas for emergency repairs prior to\, or just after the repairs occurred. There is a history of correspondence with Mister Henry that demonstrates that he should have known that he needed to inform BCDC. About the closure of the public access area\, and lastly\, we have never seen documentation that the fire department directed him to close the deck \nBoardroom SX80: defence. 5 is that Mister Henry went through the required channels of the city and was issued a permit. However\, Mister Henry did not go through all the required channels to receive approvals for the fire restoration and restaurant renovation work\, because BCDC. Is a required channel \nBoardroom SX80: the case. History demonstrates again that Mister Henry should have known that he needed to inform DCDC. About the closure of the public access area. \nBoardroom SX80: Yet Mister Henry did not voluntarily apply for A\, BCDC. Permit until he was subject to this Enforcement action\, and the permit application is not inclusive of all the work that was performed. \nBoardroom SX80: Defence 6. Is that Mister Henry did not add any fill\, and while Staff concedes that the footprint of the deck is the same now as as the same now as it was before the unauthorized work was performed\, Mister Henry expanded the original restaurant space by demolishing and utilizing the adjacent commercial spaces. Mister Henry changed the use of the area by reducing public access and views. \nBoardroom SX80: placing impediments within the public access space\, and intending to privatize the public access area for restaurant use\, he removed public trash containers\, removed a public bench\, added a standing bar in the benches place added\, raised wooden decking\, a new glass deck railing\, and the plans for the new restaurant illustrate his intention \nBoardroom SX80: to place restaurant\, dining tables and chairs throughout the public access area. All of these activities require Bcd consultation and authorization \nBoardroom SX80: defence 7. Is that the administrative civil penalty would possibly bankrupt the respondent or put him out of business\, and Bayview one Llc. Employs many different people\, and they and their families rely on the respondent for their living. \nBoardroom SX80: The statement of defense form allows respondents an opportunity to express whether they will be unable to pay the proposed penalty\, or whether paying the penalty would have a substantial adverse effect on their ability to continue in business. However\, since information relative to these considerations is exclusively in the possession and control of the violator\, appendix J. Of the Commission’s regulations require \nBoardroom SX80: violators to submit factual information and supporting documentation to enable staff in the Commission to evaluate their financial condition. \nBoardroom SX80: Examples of relevance supporting documentation that a violator should provide\, include audited financial statements\, balance sheets\, profit and loss statements\, statements of net worth\, tax returns\, and more. And since no factual information or documentation was submitted to support this claim. Staff cannot consider this as a viable defense\, and the responsibility’s ability to pay is not in question. \nBoardroom SX80: To review the proposed administrative civil penalty. Appendix J. Of the Commission’s regulations requires staff to assess certain \nBoardroom SX80: characteristics when settling on the appropriate fine amount\, including\, but not limited to the respondent’s degree of culpability\, history of violations\, any voluntary resolution efforts\, any economic benefit to the violator and other factors. Our analysis determined that for each violation the gravity of harm\, for this case is moderate\, and the extent of deviation \nBoardroom SX80: from the statutory requirement to provide the permit required public access and secure a permit or remove the unauthorized fill is major \nBoardroom SX80: daily penalty. Per violation was assessed for 937 days\, during which time the respondent failed to take voluntary action to correct violations. Fines for each of the 2 violations are capped at $30\,000\, so Staff proposes a penalty. Amount of $60\,000 \nBoardroom SX80: moving on to our recommended Enforcement decision. \nBoardroom SX80: we recommend that the Enforcement Committee recommends to the Commission to authorize the Executive Director to issue the proposed cease and desist\, and civil penalty. Order number Ccd\, 20202400100\, which would order the respondent to cease and desist from violating the permit\, and the Mcatir Petras Act to fully restore and maintain the public access area within 30 days of order\, issuance \nBoardroom SX80: to obtain a permit or permit amendment for all unauthorized work by the end of 2\,024 \nBoardroom SX80: to complete a permit assignment form for the 1979 permit within 45 days of order\, issuance to cease and desist from any development of the ground floor\, restaurant space\, formerly ill piccolo cafe\, and the adjacent wine bar and retail space\, and to not conduct any business or other use of the space until a commission permit \nBoardroom SX80: that authorizes such use is obtained\, and to pay $60\,000 in administrative civil liability within 30 days of order issuance. \nBoardroom SX80: And that concludes the staff’s presentation\, and I’ll stop sharing my screen now. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you\, Rachel. I think I’m gonna hold questions until we hear from the respondent. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So is he still on the screen\, Mr. Henry? Could you please \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: make your presentation\, and I am just going to remind you that you are limited to discussing evidence. That’s already part of the Enforcement record. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So thank you\, sir\, and you may begin. \nChris Henry: Okay. First of all\, can everybody hear me? Okay. \nChris Henry: okay. Great. Thank you. Well\, thank you for being here today. And and thank you for having me. I appreciate that. \nChris Henry: I wanted to go over a few things with you here \nChris Henry: and and correct and and make clear a little bit more of actually what happened \nChris Henry: as this is not \nChris Henry: What what you previously heard is not all you know\, factual and true and kind of brushed over. \nChris Henry: First off. I’ve always comply with Bcd. C. \nChris Henry: You know requirements. If if there’s something that needed to be done. \nChris Henry: you know II always did it. And and there there was a problem with with the the previous tenant that was there. Pico cafe. \nChris Henry: He’s the the gentleman that that provided the the initial plans and he’s the one that did all the violations\, you know\, prior to him vacating\, you know. \nChris Henry: as mentioned back in 2\,016\, and all those previous violations they were his responsibility. He he did that. II did. I didn’t do that. So II just wanted to make that clear. And every time Vcdc. Stepped in \nChris Henry: II made the tenant comply\, and and\, as far as I know\, everything was cleared\, and and you know\, benches were. \nChris Henry: you know\, cleared off\, garbage cans were were installed \nChris Henry: The you know. The the previous tenant was was one that told the the public they had to sit there and \nChris Henry: you know\, buy a meal from from him what wasn’t me. I had nothing to do with that. and when I found out about II corrected that I just wanted to make that clear that I’ve always complied. \nChris Henry: There was. There was a problem with getting notifications as as I moved during Covid. It’s just been the restaurant business is just was just a disaster\, and and and I moved. \nChris Henry: and I didn’t receive any notifications from BC DC. \nChris Henry: From about 2\,020 when Covid hit I moved. and so I don’t. I didn’t know about all the notifications that \nthat were alleged in in this complaint. \nChris Henry: I didn’t find out about even this hearing until \nChris Henry: I was notified by my attorney that Rachel contacted him. \nChris Henry: This was the first that I heard about this whole situation about the hearing and the noncompliance for. \nChris Henry: you know\, going back to 2\,021\, because I never received any notification from you guys. \nChris Henry: During Covid II moved away and my address changed. \nChris Henry: and there there was a fire at the back of the building that that destroyed the whole back part of the building\, the deck. the back part. \nChris Henry: the restaurant part downstairs. \nChris Henry: the storage area and the back stairs were completely burned \nChris Henry: back in. \nChris Henry: I believe it was 1027 of 21 I went through the the process with the city for fire restoration \nChris Henry: complied\, you know. Hired an architect and engineer. We. We supplied all the plans. \nChris Henry: went through the process with the city. We had\, we had several hearings \nChris Henry: with through the historic Landmarks board \nChris Henry: we. We received approval after 2. I believe it was 2 hearings there. \nChris Henry: and we went through the the process. Nobody ever told me that I had to go through A\, A BC. DC. I was not aware of that\, otherwise I certainly would have. I hired. An architect submitted to plans \nChris Henry: the the application was approved\, and and we didn’t. We didn’t add any fill to the to the project. \nChris Henry: There was. It was all the all the area that burned. We were placed in kind. \nWe didn’t grab any extra space anywhere. \nChris Henry: The only thing that was different was. there was a a seating bench\, and on the back part we we put a standing rail there \nChris Henry: so actually\, you could get more people in there to stand and and and and view the bay. \nChris Henry: It was mentioned that we that we closed off the back portion of of the building \nChris Henry: during since 2021. And that that’s true. That’s because we were directed by the fire\, Marshal. It was unsafe. \nChris Henry: The back deck where there was holes in there. People\, you know\, if it was open to the public\, people would walk in there and fall in the bay\, and \nChris Henry: it would\, it would be just a disaster. I would get sued. And \nChris Henry: it just wasn’t safe. And I didn’t know that my manager didn’t supply the the proof from the fire marshal\, but I could certainly do that\, that they required that the billing\, the access there be closed off. \nChris Henry: So we we went through the the whole\, you know\, process with city \nChris Henry: and the and the Historical Landmarks board \nChris Henry: permit. A permit was issued. \nChris Henry: and and we’ve begun work\, and it’s just been super difficult. You know the restaurant business with Covid. And and you know all the regulations we but II wanna comply. \nChris Henry: And and I’d you know\, I wanna make sure everybody’s happy but the the the same. The same time II need to \nChris Henry: be given a fair shake\, and and I wasn’t notified\, you know\, due to my address. Change. And so this this hearing and all this is kind of brought on to me sort of a little bit by surprise. I was given\, you know\, short notice. Get to get ready for this \nChris Henry: and \nChris Henry: III welcome your input. I want to work with you. Like I like. I mentioned\, II \nChris Henry: applied for the permit. Now that I know that I had to do it. I applied to the permit\, for with you guys\, I submitted the the paperwork and the application fee I hand carried a $400 application fee down there\, and you and you guys were closed \nChris Henry: the Security Guards that nobody was around. So I put the check underneath the door\, and I’m hoping that you got it. But I’m still not 100% sure that you did get it. \nAnd I haven’t heard back \nChris Henry: anything from BC. DC. Regarding the the application. permit application that they put in. So III think that the the find is is is is \nChris Henry: is is heavy. \nChris Henry: II think. I don’t. I don’t think it’s fair. You know it was required to close the the building off. And II want to comply\, you know\, like I said\, I’ve hired an architect and engineer\, and and \nChris Henry: submitted the plans and and the fee. \nChris Henry: and I’m open to your your\, your your comments. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So are. Are you finished\, Mr. Henry. \nChris Henry: Did do I get a chance to speak again\, or is it? Is this it? \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: This\, is it unless members of the committee have any questions for you? \nChris Henry: Okay. \nChris Henry: III don’t understand what the what cease and desist really means \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: immediately. \nChris Henry: Ye yeah\, all\, all the all the well\, III understand that. But all the \nChris Henry: all the repairs to the fire were have been made \nChris Henry: so. \nChris Henry: and and we we put it back in as it was \nChris Henry: that that’s all I have to say. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, thank you. Mr. Henry. We appreciate your comments. And so now I’m going to ask committee members for their questions\, or\, well\, actually\, their questions will\, we’ll get to the discussion after we ask for public comment. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So clarifying questions on behalf of committee members. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Anybody \nLetty Belin\, Commissioner: question \nLetty Belin\, Commissioner: Buddy my question you said you you had no notification from BC. DC\, when when do you say that you first have notification for Bcd. \nChris Henry: when I received a an email from my attorney Bill Hatcher. \nHe. He sent me an email. \nChris Henry: And and that was. well\, it’s about 30 days before \nChris Henry: before before this hearing. It was a notification that this hearing was gonna happen. \nChris Henry: I got an email from Mr. Hatch\, my attorney just just saying. You know\, get in touch with Bcd. C. You know. Regarding this hearing. \nChris Henry: III moved away during Covid\, and and I didn’t get the the\, you know\, moved away. In 2\,020. And you guys had my pre my old address. \nLetty Belin\, Commissioner: So you you say that you had no notification from being Cdc until just \nLetty Belin\, Commissioner: just like very\, very recently\, II mean\, that’s \nLetty Belin\, Commissioner: I’m having trouble \nLetty Belin\, Commissioner: see how that would work\, because it well\, anyway\, anything else to say and you’re you’re saying that you just heard from DC. DC\, just\, very\, very within the last few weeks. \nChris Henry: I would say within the the past. \nChris Henry: Well\, there there were. There was an extension Rachel gave us\, like\, I think\, a 30 day extension. He he! He sent me an email \nsaying\, you’re \nChris Henry: you know. Get in touch with Bcd. See? They’re gonna have this hearing. And then. \nChris Henry: I think Rachel went back\, or the BBC DC. Staff went back and Re. Noticed it again and gave another 30 days so it’s it’s yes\, it’s short notice. \nChris Henry: But all all through through Covid. I you know I didn’t receive any anything\, you know\, during that \nChris Henry: we\, you know\, when when the fire happened and burned the back of the building off I didn’t. I didn’t receive any written corresponds from BC. DC. At all. \nLetty Belin\, Commissioner: So it sounds like you. You basically know anything about who Pcdc is\, and what they do and \nChris Henry: no\, no\, no\, I wouldn’t say that. II I’ve II work with Bcd. Before during the the Pre. You know\, you know the issues with the previous tenant Pico Cafe when when he \nChris Henry: as that somebody from the public buy\, buy\, buy a sandwich\, or or leave. \nChris Henry: and and II have been in touch with Bcd. See over over the years. But during that period during Covid \nChris Henry: when I moved away that I didn’t have any. I didn’t receive any correspondence\, but prior prior to that\, when the previous tenant was there Mark tomorrow. \nChris Henry: who left on me a lot of rent\, by the way\, and and I had to evict \nChris Henry: But yeah\, during Covid\, I didn’t. I didn’t receive anything. \nLetty Belin\, Commissioner: Okay\, go on. I see John\, who has his hand up. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: Okay\, thank you. Just a question\, Mr. Henry. What did you? When did you employ your attorney on this issue. \nChris Henry: I think when we had the I haven’t actually employed him. \nbut when we had a call with Rachel I had him. I had him on the line\, but he’s I don’t. I don’t have an attorney per se he\, he’s \nChris Henry: \nChris Henry: He he was on the on the call with Rachel. We we did a sort of a compliance call. \nChris Henry: you know. I wanted to make sure that \nChris Henry: the the team was together to make sure the plans were together in in in order \nChris Henry: th that they were supposed to be\, and that so I had him on the call. I don’t. I don’t even know if he’s on the call today\, but I don’t. \nChris Henry: you can tell me \nChris Henry: I don’t. I haven’t talked to him. \nTim Galusha: This is Tim. II am I? Yeah\, hi! Cause I am on the call\, but I think Mr. Vasco is may have been asking about the the prior attorney. \nChris Henry: Oh\, he! He! He was! He! He’s just the the the process. And Ni notice person for the I’ll see\, that’s all. He. \nthat’s all his function\, is he? He was when I \nChris Henry: when I initiate the Llc. I don’t know. 13 years ago he he was the notice person. That’s it\, that’s all. The only involvement he has or has ever had. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: Okay. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Alright. Rebecca. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: yeah. So maybe Rachel can help clarify this. But it sounds as if \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: there was no assignment to an attorney to be the appointed person to receive notifications. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: I don’t know what happened with. If you move\, obviously you usually submit something to the post office\, so that whatever is sent to you is forwarded. But the the notion that \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: responded\, and get any notifications\, Rachel. I wonder if you could just sort of respond to what you’ve just heard that? \nBoardroom SX80: Yeah\, thank you for the opportunity. \nBoardroom SX80: there were email communications between Bcd. C. Staff and Mr. Henry\, dating back to\, I believe\, 2\,021 which were made a part of the record their exhibits to the violation report and complaint and the recommended Enforcement decision that show that he was clearly notified about \nBoardroom SX80: the fire repair project and blocking public access. Being an issue with BC. DC\, we were requesting that documentation from him over email. And he was responding over email. \nBoardroom SX80: and then \nBoardroom SX80: there \nBoardroom SX80: was a a brief mailing issue with the violation reporting complaint that we mailed it was\, returned to us as undeliverable. So we did reissue it\, and we \nBoardroom SX80: by doing that? We did reschedule the hearing date to today. It was\, I believe\, previously scheduled for \nBoardroom SX80: Likely early February mister Henry got in contact with us when he did receive \nBoardroom SX80: the via the reissued violation\, reporting complaint. We’ve been in regular communications since January 30. First and \nBoardroom SX80: I believe also to respond to the question about when \nBoardroom SX80: he employed his attorney\, Bill Hatcher. Is just the agent of service\, so he acknowledged that he received it as well. \nBoardroom SX80: And Tim Galuca\, who’s on the phone. We had that compliance call on February 20\, seventh. and if I may. \nBoardroom SX80: the information about the tenant being responsible for all of those violations. That is new information to us and is not part of the record. So it would caution you to \nBoardroom SX80: consider it today. \nBoardroom SX80: and \nBoardroom SX80: yeah\, I think that’s all I have for now. \nBoardroom SX80: hopefully\, that answers your question. It does\, Rachel\, and thank you for bringing up the issue about the tenant\, because \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: and I see that Greg is on the call. But\, generally speaking\, if somebody owns a property that is subject to BC. DC. Jurisdiction. I don’t think that can be assigned. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: Those obligations cannot be assigned to a tenant without Bcd’s permission. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: So I think I’m hearing you say that we don’t have anything in our files that says the tenant is hereby responsible for the permit requirements and not the owner. Is that right? Okay\, thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: Yeah\, Mister Henry\, was the respondent\, for all of those previous enforcement cases. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So my comment about that would be is\, yes\, the the permit does run with the land. He is the owner of record\, and so therefore he is responsible for \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: compliance with all aspects of permit. and I find it a little bit incredulous. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: for him to say that he \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: didn’t know that he had to comply with BC. DC. Permits\, since the record clearly shows a past history. Of dealing with BC. DC. I think as far back as 2016 \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and so for him to say that I didn’t know I had to get \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: permits from BC. DC. Or I didn’t at least have to check with them. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Ii have a hard time. Really accepting that. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: I have a question\, and this is \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: very sort of esoteric\, but I want it for for my own edification. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So the record said that Staff urged \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: the respondent\, to get a permit amendment as opposed to a regional permit. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Could you explain that thinking\, and I think\, did he apply for regional permit or a permanent amendment? I’m I’m not sure \nBoardroom SX80: Mr. Henry applied for region wi region wide permit instead of a permit amendment. And the application \nBoardroom SX80: was only for the fire repairs and not for the restaurant renovation. Region. Wide permits are for \nBoardroom SX80: essentially de minimis projects\, and they don’t require public access in order for us to issue them. \nBoardroom SX80: whereas an amendment to the region wide permit would allow us to consider new public access considerations in lieu of the years of closure and the unauthorized work. \nBoardroom SX80: and it would also be an opportunity to formally formally assign the permit to Mister Henry. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So in asking for region region wide\, permit \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: he was only seeking to bring into compliance the the fire portion\, but not the restaurant addition and not the public access. So \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: basically\, he was non-responsive to BC. DC’s requests. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, thank you. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Any other questions. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: I see \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Mr. Henry’s hand up\, I will allow you one quick comment. \nChris Henry: Oh\, oh\, okay\, tha thank you. \nChris Henry: It it! \nChris Henry: Th th! This is the first time that I’ve been through this process and and the architect I’m not sure if he’s been through this process before\, or if he’s he’s on on the call \nChris Henry: but I that the permit application should have been for the the restaurant as well. Not not just the fire repair. So we we wanna we wanna make sure that we do that right. You know\, that was an oversight on either his part. And my part\, we wanna make sure that we’re clear \nChris Henry: that we we wanna it’s for the restaurant and the fire repair \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: while I appreciate that comment\, Mr. Henry. We are \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: charged with what is on the record. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and what is on the record is a permit for the fire repairs\, not the restaurant \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and so\, if you would want to bring the restaurant into compliance. That is clearly another permit\, and I urge you to have a discussion with Staff outside of this procedure. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, do I have any other clarifying comments from \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: committee members before I open it up for public comment. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Rebecca. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: II just wanna be sure I have some questions about the find\, and payments and things like that. But you’re saying that after public comment we’ll have a chance to discuss all of that \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: correct? Great thanks. \nOkay. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Ms. Klein. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. Chair. Gilmour apologies. If this is clear. But I just wanna make sure that we all understand. There is no permit for the fire repairs\, yet he has submitted an incomplete application. \nBoardroom SX80: so the fire repairs remain unauthorized along with all of the other work that has taken place at the site. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Oh\, thank you very much. That is a very good clarifying comment. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, so going on to do\, we have any public comment on this matter. \nBoardroom SX80: We do not jog more. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, so we’re gonna close the non-existent public comment. And okay\, committee members. It’s time for discussion. And\, Rebecca\, you said you had some questions. So I’m gonna start off with you. Yes\, I do so like. So just as a preface. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: you know when you own property on the edge of the bay \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: which is a public benefit the bay\, you know it carries with it these obligations\, and I understand that Covid and running a restaurant\, and all of that is difficult \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: but the \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: the \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: obligations to the public have to be considered always. When you are \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: Lucky enough to own property on the edge of our beautiful bay. The 6 items that Rachel listed that we want to have happen to cease and desist\, etc.\, etc. What I am hoping is that with respect to each one\, so that there is no \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: no coming back and say\, I didn’t understand. I didn’t get it. I wasn’t aware that the consequences of not doing any one of those things is spelled out for the respondents. So if you don’t \nChris Henry: within 45 days pay the fine\, etc. The consequence is that the fines will continue\, or whatever the consequence is\, or consequences might be\, so that I’m afraid that some of the situations that we have people say\, Well\, you know what? What’s the worst that could happen if I don’t do that? \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: I want them to understand. You know\, that penalties will continue. You know\, further action will be taken\, etc.\, so that we really have some solid compliance with the \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: with the decision we made today. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: Is that is that something\, Greg or Rachel\, that we can make sure to spell out in the \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: in the decision \nBoardroom SX80: the terms of the proposed Commission cease and desist order\, do state that the respondent must strictly conform to the express terms of the order\, and that if Mr. Henry intentionally or negligently violates any part of the order that he may be liable for $6\,000 for each day\, that the violations persist. \nBoardroom SX80: and any failure to comply with the cease and desist. Order. \nBoardroom SX80: The the Attorney General may \nBoardroom SX80: petition the Superior Court for the issuance of a preliminary or permanent injunction\, or both restraining Mister Henry from continuing any activity. \nBoardroom SX80: In violation of the cease and desist order. So that’s probably about as as firmly as it’s written. So far\, I think that’s good. And is there a cap on the 6\,000 a day\, or does it just continue? Add infant? Item \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: it. It continues infinite. It’s fact for other people. It’s gone up over a couple of 1 million bucks at times. Okay? And one quick question\, there was a 21\,000 penalty that you described for us was that paid\, and was that paid timely? \nBoardroom SX80: It was paid. I believe that there was a settlement agreement at that time to allow for it to be paid in installments\, and I’m not sure over how long\, but I have no information about whether those installments were paid on time or not. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Anybody else. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: hey? If there are no other comments. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: can I have a motion\, and a second to approve. The Executive Director directors recommended Enforcement decision regarding the 2 proposed\, stipulated. Well\, actually\, hold on. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: I’m ahead of myself. Staff recommendation \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: got that? \nBoardroom SX80: Would you like me to make the recommendation again\, please. Okay\, so we’re clear for the record. Sure. Should I share my screen or just read it? \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: why don’t you just read it? \nBoardroom SX80: Okay. \nBoardroom SX80: Staff recommends that the Enforcement Committee votes to recommend that the Commission authorizes the executive director to issue the proposed cease and assistance. Civil penalty\, order number\, Ccd\, 202-02-4000ne dot 0 0. \nBoardroom SX80: Is it? Okay? If I paraphrase the or the order terms it would thank you. It would order the respondent\, Mr. Henry\, to cease and desist from violating BC. DC. Permit\, and 1979 dot 0 8 8 dot 0 2\, and the Mccoy Petrus act \nBoardroom SX80: to fully restore and maintain the public access area within 30 days of order issuance to obtain a permit or permit amendment for all unauthorized work. By December the 30 first by 2\,024 \nBoardroom SX80: to complete a permit assignment\, form for the 1 79 permit\, within 45 days of order\, issuance to cease and desist from any development of the ground floor space\, and to not conduct any business or other use of the space until a commission permit that authorizes such use is obtained\, and to pay $60\,000 in administrative civil liability within 30 days of order issuance. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you. Now\, may I have a motion and a second on the recommended Enforcement decision. \nTim Galusha: Excuse me\, is it? I don’t know if it’s too late. But II was just was wondering if somebody could explain the 60\,000 where that number comes from? Like? Why\, why is it that the number? \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: Who is that \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: that was on the \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: that was the respondent. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Rachel\, could you summarize just very quickly\, just before we Tim Gulu? Not the respondent\, but happy to summarize. So the Commission’s regulations require us to consider certain characteristics of the violation. \nBoardroom SX80: it’s helpful to take a look at Appendix J. Of the Commission’s regulations to help answer this question. There’s sort of a whole rubric that we go through\, and a whole process that we go through and analyzing the violations. So that helps us settle on the extent of deviation from the statutory requirements as well as the gravity of harm of the violations. And those \nBoardroom SX80: basically land us at a certain daily penalty\, and that daily penalty amount is then multiplied by the amount of days that \nBoardroom SX80: that the violation persisted. \nBoardroom SX80: so \nBoardroom SX80: that landed us at a daily penalty. Amount of $1\,600 per day. But since the violations persisted for 937 days they are capped at $30\,000 for each violation. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, thank you. Rachel. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: okay. Now\, I’m\, looking for a motion and A\, second to accept the staff recommendation. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: I move to accept the staff recommendation. \nLetty Belin\, Commissioner: Second. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: okay. It was moved by Commissioner Eisen\, and was it\, second\, by Commissioner Vasquez\, no delinquent. Thank you. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: move on\, can Greg\, explain the process after this is a recommendation. Full commission\, is it not? \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Yes. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: and that the Mister Henry will have an opportunity again to speak before full commission. \nBoardroom SX80: That’s correct\, you will. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: Yes\, thank you. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you\, Adrienne. Would you please call the roll? \nBoardroom SX80: Yes\, Commissioner Bailey. our committee member Bailey? Yes. \nLetty Belin\, Commissioner: alright. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: Commissioner Vasquez. Yes. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Eisen. Yes. Commissioner Gilmore. Yes. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Motion passes by a vote of 4\, 2 0. I wanna thank all the Commissioners and staff and the respondent. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So our next item on the agenda is adjournment. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Does anybody object to adjourn adjurning this meeting? \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Hearing no objections\, we are adjourned. Thank you\, everyone. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. \n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Learn How to Participate\n				Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act\nAs 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 access Commission Meetings under the “Public Meetings” tab on the website and select the date of the meeting. \nHow to Provide Comments and Comment Time Limits\nPursuant to state law\, the Commission is currently conducting its public meetings in a “hybrid” fashion. Each meeting notice will specify (1) where the meeting is being primarily held physically\, (2) all teleconference locations\, which will be publicly-accessible\, and (3) 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 or a teleconference meeting location; (2) emailing comments in advance to public comment until 10 a.m. on the day of the meeting; and (3) participating via ZOOM during the meeting. \nIf 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. \nQuestions and Staff Reports\nIf 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. \nCampaign Contributions\nState 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. Other 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. \nAccess to Meetings\nMeetings 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.
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/march-14-2024-enforcement-committee-meeting/
CATEGORIES:Enforcement Committee
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20240228T093000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20240228T120000
DTSTAMP:20260429T234345
CREATED:20240130T044442Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240220T174418Z
UID:10000128-1709112600-1709121600@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:February 28\, 2024 Enforcement Committee Meeting (Cancelled)
DESCRIPTION:
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/february-28-2024-enforcement-committee-meeting/
CATEGORIES:Enforcement Committee
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20240208T093000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20240208T120000
DTSTAMP:20260429T234345
CREATED:20240130T041232Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240130T041232Z
UID:10000127-1707384600-1707393600@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:February 8\, 2024 Enforcement Committee Meeting (Cancelled)
DESCRIPTION:
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/february-8-2024-enforcement-committee-meeting-cancelled/
CATEGORIES:Enforcement Committee
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20240124T093000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20240124T120000
DTSTAMP:20260429T234345
CREATED:20240130T041106Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240304T202738Z
UID:10000126-1706088600-1706097600@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:January 24\, 2024 Enforcement Committee Meeting
DESCRIPTION:This Enforcement meeting will be conducted in a hybrid format in accordance with SB 544 (2023). To maximize public safety while maintaining transparency and public access\, members of the public can choose to participate either virtually via Zoom\, by phone\, or in person at the location listed below. Physical attendance at Metro Center requires that all individuals adhere to the site’s health guidelines including\, if required\, wearing masks\, health screening\, and social distancing. \nPhysical Location \nMetro CenterYerba Buena Room375 Beale StreetSan Francisco\, CA 94105415-352-3600 \nLive Webcast \nIf you have issues joining the meeting using the link\, please enter the Meeting ID and Password listed below into the ZOOM app to join the meeting. \nJoin the meeting via ZOOM \nhttps://bcdc-ca-gov.zoom.us/j/81796419902?pwd=4pnoHbQhsdp8c53twTXZVf9Nten0fI.1 \nSee information on public participation \n\n\nTeleconference numbers(816) 423-4282Conference code374334 \n\nMeeting ID817 9641 9902Passcode042232\n\nIf you call in by telephone: \nPress *6 to unmute or mute yourselfPress *9 to raise your hand or lower your hand to speak  \n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Tentative Agenda\n				\nCall to Order\nRoll Call\nPublic-CommentThe Committee will hear public comments on matters that are not on the agenda. \nApproval of Draft Minutes from the January 11\, 2024 Enforcement Committee meeting.\nEnforcement ReportStaff will update the committee on the current status of the enforcement program’s activities(Matthew Trujillo) [415/352-3633; matthew.trujillo@bcdc.ca.gov]\nBriefing from Cities of Oakland and Alameda on Continuing Alameda-Oakland Estuary Clean-up Efforts.The Enforcement Committee will hear a briefing from the Cities of Oakland and Alameda regarding the progress they have made to clean up the Oakland/ Alameda Estuary. Their presentation will include their progress to date and their plans to maintain the Estuary.(John Creech) [415/352-3619; john.creech@bcdc.ca.gov](Adrienne Klein) [415/352-3609; adrienne.klein@bcdc.ca.gov)Public Comment // Staff Presentation // City Presentation\nAdjournment\n\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Meeting Minutes\n				Meeting Minutes \n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Audio Recording & Transcript\n				Audio Meeting Recording \nhttps://www.bcdc.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/354/2024/01/01-11-EC-audio-recording.mp3 \nTranscript \n2024.01.11 ZOOM Recording Transcript – Enforcement Committee \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and this meeting of the Bcdc. Enforcement Committee is here by call to order. My name is Marie Gilmore\, and I am chair of this committee \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: for Commissioners\, including those attending at Beale Street. Please ensure that your video camera cameras are always on\, and please mute yourselves when you are not speaking. Our first order of business to day is to call the roll. Matthew\, please call the Roll Commissioners. Please unmute yourselves while he does this\, to respond\, and then mute yourselves \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: after responding. \nBoardroom SX80: Good morning\, Commissioner Bielyn. \nLetty Belin\, Commissioner: Here. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Eisen\, here Commissioner Vasquez. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: here \nBoardroom SX80: Chair Gilmour. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: here. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So we have a quorum present\, and are duly constituted to conduct business\, and that brings us to item 3 on our agenda public comment period. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: 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 the agenda. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and I believe\, Margie\, we have not received any general comments prior to the meeting. \nBoardroom SX80: We did share. We received one\, and it will be posted on our website. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you very much \nMarie 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. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Please raise your hand in the zoom application by clicking on the participants. Icon at the bottom of your screen. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and look in the box where your name is listed under attendees. Find a small palm icon on the left. If you click on that palm\, icon\, it will raise your hand. or if you are joining this meeting by phone\, you must Dial Star 9 to raise your hand\, then Dial star 6 on your keypad to unmute your phone. When the host asks you in order to make a comment. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: The meeting hosts 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 \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: for members of the public attending in person. Please queue up at the Speaker’s podium and wait to be called upon to speak. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Commenters are limited to 3Â min 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. \nMarie 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. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Margie\, do we have any commenters? \nBoardroom SX80: Chair Gilmour\, for online? We do not have\, as well as in person. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Commissioner Vasquez. Is there anybody? Are there any members of the public that which to make general comments at your location? \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: No\, there are not. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay. The next item on our agenda. Approval of the draft minutes for I believe\, is at the last 2 meetings. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Staff. \nBoardroom SX80: Yes. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: thank you. So committee members\, I would appreciate a motion and second\, to approve these meet meeting minutes. \nLetty Belin\, Commissioner: Second\, second. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: we have a motion from Commissioner Vasquez\, and a second from Commissioner Bill in Matthew. Would you please call the role \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Bielin? \nLetty Belin\, Commissioner: Aye. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Eisen. \nBoardroom SX80: Hi\, Commissioner Vasquez. \nBoardroom SX80: chair Gilmour. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Yes. thank you. The minutes are approved. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: The next item on our agenda is the Enforcement report and the Enforcement policy manager\, Matthew Trujillo will now provide the enforcement. Matthew. \nBoardroom SX80: thank you good morning\, chair committee members and greetings\, while members of the public in attendance welcome\, and also welcome to \nBoardroom SX80: Michael in who is acting general counsel here to day while Greg is on vacation. \nBoardroom SX80: First is a case update. Since our last meeting on November ninth\, 2023. In the past 2 months we’ve opened 5 new cases. We resolved 7 cases\, and as of today\, there are 71 unresolved cases in the queue. \nwhich is a net change of negative 2. Since my last report. \nBoardroom SX80: Second\, I want to note for this committee that we have issued extensions of time to both the city of Sausalito and to the Rbra\, to remove 2 vessels from Richardson’s Bay. \nThese extensions of time were granted on a finding of good cause by the executive director\, and they were both reviewed and approved by General by the general counsel prior to distributing \nBoardroom SX80: the city’s extension\, was granted through March 30\, first 2024\, and Rbra’s extension was granted through February 20\, seventh\, 2024\, \nBoardroom SX80: and that concludes my report. I’ll be glad to entertain any. Follow up questions about the status of the Enforcement program from the committee. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you\, Matthew. Do any members of the committee have questions for Matthew for comments? \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, seeing none? Are there any members of the public who have comments or questions on the Enforcement report. \nBoardroom SX80: There’s none. Joe Gilmore. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, thank you very much. Well\, that moves us on to item number 6\, \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: which is briefings by the Richardson Bay Regional Agency\, or Rvra\, and the city of Sausalito. On the anchor out abatement and eel grass restoration efforts in Richardson’s Bay. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: by both the Rb. Ra. And the city of Sausalito. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So at this time will the representatives or Rvra please identify themselves for the record. \nBrad Gross: Good good morning\, chair\, Giomore. This is Brad\, Gross\, executive director for Rvra with me today I have our harbor\, Master Jim Malcolm and our eel grass representative Rebecca Schwartz Lessberg from coastal polis policy solutions. I’d I’d like to begin with a quick apology. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: You’re jumping the gun just a tag. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: I would also like to have the representatives for the city of Sausalito identify themselves for the record. \nCatie Thow Garcia\, CIty of Sausalito: Hello! I’m Katie via the city of sustainability manager. \nBoardroom SX80: Clear. \nBrandon Phipps\, Community & Econ. Dev. Director\, Sausalito: Good morning\, Brandon Phipps\, community and Economic Development director with city of Sausalito. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Joan\, you’re muted \nJoan Cox: Joan Cox\, vice Mayor of Sausalito. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you both city of Sausalito and our Bra representatives for being here. Welcome? \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: And can I caution anybody? If you’re not \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: being speaking directly\, could you please mute yourself\, cause I’m hearing some whispers or feedback. I’m not quite sure where it’s coming from\, but if you can mute mute yourself if you’re not speaking\, it would be greatly appreciated \nJoan Cox: if I might\, as we also have Robert Mooney with us\, who is our field brass consultant. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Great. Thank you very much. \nCatie Thow Garcia\, CIty of Sausalito: Sorry to interrupt. I think we also should have a \nCatie Thow Garcia\, CIty of Sausalito: Brian Mather from the police department. I’m not sure if he was promoted\, or if he is online. But \nCatie Thow Garcia\, CIty of Sausalito: I was told that he was coming \nand \nCatie Thow Garcia\, CIty of Sausalito: let me confer with him. I’m not seeing him on the attendee list. Sorry about that. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, thank you. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, so at this point I’m going to invite Adrian Kline to give her introduction to this this presentation\, Adrian. \nBoardroom SX80: Let’s see. \nBoardroom SX80: Good morning. \nBoardroom SX80: everybody. Thank you very much. \nBoardroom SX80: so I have a quick little Powerpoint\, the purpose of which is really just to highlight in blue text\, the settlement agreement terms which \nBoardroom SX80: the RBRA. And then the city will expand upon so next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: So this\, these 21 points. Mark the the categories in the Rba Settlement agreement\, and the 4 in blue\, I believe\, will be the focus of the Rba’s presentation today. Next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: So this is direct text from the agreement regarding eelgrass\, habitat restoration. And I’ll just give you a chance to read \nBoardroom SX80: those 3 points. \nBoardroom SX80: therefore. \nBoardroom SX80: and the next slide is a continuation of this \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: section. \nBoardroom SX80: Go ahead\, please. I oops! I think we skipped one. \nBoardroom SX80: Go back one\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: Oh\, I’m sorry. My my mistake. \nBoardroom SX80: yes\, forward! \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you very much. So regarding management of vessels on the anchorage after 2019\, the agreement required that they be removed by the middle of October of last year\, and the Rbi requested and received a one year long extension\, to meet this requirement\, which was \nBoardroom SX80: greatly influenced by the COVID-19 pandemic next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: For vessels on the air anchorage prior to 2019 the floating homes were also to have been removed. The rba has been working hard to achieve this goal. For one\, they requested\, and received a 60 day extension\, and you’ll be hearing the status of that today. That was through December fifteenth\, and \nBoardroom SX80: in early December they received\, they requested\, a hundred 40 day extension\, and that\, as was just noted by Matthew\, was granted through February twenty-seventh. First\, a different single houseboat. So they are very discrete requests to rectify discrete. So negotiations. \nBoardroom SX80: or allow time for discrete negotiations. Next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: and these will be the presenters who you have all met\, so I’ll cede the floor to Brad Gross. Thank you. \nBrad Gross: Thank you very much\, Adrian\, and and my apologies. Chair Gilmore\, for jumping the gun I had just signed in. I was having problems with my connection\, and I was about to say that I apologize for no camera. But I’m going to leave it off \nBrad Gross: just to protect this connection that that we have and that I’m able to present to this board. So\, Adrian\, will you be presenting? Put it posting our Powerpoint. \nBrad Gross: I was counting on you to do that\, Brad. Is that okay? Great? Thank you. \nBrad Gross: If I \nBoardroom SX80: we’re happy to do that. Just let us know that day or 2 before next time. Thank you. \nBrad Gross: Not a problem. If \nBrad Gross: let me share my screen. Sorry for that. Everybody. My apologies. \nBrad Gross: Okay\, good morning\, everybody. \nBrad Gross: Chair Gail Moore\, Commissioners and members of BC. BC. Staff. As I said earlier\, I am Brad Gross\, and I have already. Introduced Jim Malcolm\, our harbor master\, and Rebecca Short Usberg will be presenting in conjunction with me today \nBrad Gross: before I begin. \nBrad Gross: I’d like to say that this presentation is dated by one month\, as we were originally scheduled as everybody knows\, to present on the December fourteenth\, and I will update any items verbally. If there have been any changes \nBrad Gross: as we have presented in the past\, we couldn’t do what we do here without our many partners. You see their logos displayed on this slide one of the changes. I did realize when looking at this slide\, that we fail to include coastal policy solutions\, and Merkel and associates who are ha obviously have been working with us for for many\, many years and helping us with our upcoming eographs program. \nBrad Gross: I’m just going to go through some of these milestones that Adrian had identified. And you’ve all seen in the past. \nBrad Gross: first of all\, \nBrad Gross: The petition for necessary Federal action has been completed and is on and going the removal of unoccupied. Most of these and the bright blue\, have already been done the ones with later due dates you see\, and that kind of I don’t know what to describe that color\, that other blue color \nBrad Gross: but the removal of unoccupied marine debris is done\, and ongoing as vessels may become marine debris\, we had we give them our immediate attention. We finalize the Environmental Protection and Management plan in 2021. No new vessels in the Eel Grass Protection zone is ongoing. There’ll be more discussion about that as we move on. The installation of moorings is on hold \nBrad Gross: the initiation of the Eel Grass restoration studies was done in 2022. The removal of the post 2019 vessels. As Adrian pointed out\, they received an extension\, and to October fifteenth of 2024\, and there’s some good progress that we’ll be talking about later on. What’s happening with those? The removal of the floating off floating homes off of all the point by October fifteenth. \nBrad Gross: 2023\, 2 were removed by the deadline\, and one \nBrad Gross: was actually the one that was provided. These initial 60 day extension was moved on a December eleventh to illegal floating home birth that leaves us one floating home\, and that vessel has been through a citation process and a nuisance abatement process for removal. And Rbra has requested\, and was recently granted one last \nBrad Gross: one last extension to allow the owner to repair and relocate his vessel. That extension now goes through February 20 twenty-seventh\, so our next presentation will have some more information on the the results of the extension\, and where that vessel there lies\, we anticipate it being out of the anchorage by the end of February. \nBrad Gross: moving on complete admin actions update ordinances has all been done\, and as we’ll show later in the presentation\, we do have their Coast Guard response\, which I’ve mentioned in the past\, and we have a new supporting order received from Judge Oric on December first\, which I will talk about further in the presentation \nBrad Gross: beginning of the implementation of the 10 Year Adaptive Management Plan. That plan was due. This again. This slide is a month old. It was planned\, was to be submitted on December fifteenth\, and it was submitted on time and on schedule. \nBrad Gross: Next item\, no vessels in the Epz. By October of 2024 we are working on a signage program and rubber. Master Malcolm will talk about the notifications that we’ve given to the vessels and our plans moving forward\, the removal of all occupied non safe and seaworthy vessels\, and now has an extension to october of 24 \nBrad Gross: and all these vessels in this category have been provided with the 12 month advance notice\, and again more of that by harbor. Master Malcolm. \nBrad Gross: Applying for a morning permit \nBrad Gross: the rest of these items have a due date by October of 2026\, so they will be reported on in future presentations\, but removal of all occupied safety\, worthy vessels\, removal of all vessels and occupants\, and only transient seaworthy vessels in the anchor zone\, all due dates of October of 2026. \nBrad Gross: I’m gonna just go through and report on \nBrad Gross: activities during this reporting period. I’m not going to go on the \nBrad Gross: Pass reporting period. But this is the vessel buyback program. During this reporting period 5 vessels have been purchased and properly disposed of. One floating home was purchased and disposed of during this reporting period\, bringing 8 total vessels\, purchasedly and properly disposed of since the reinstatement of the program\, in April of 2023\, \nBrad Gross: right around $40\,000 has been distributed since the reinstatement of the program\, and then just over $81\,000 has been distributed\, and 21 vessels have been properly disposed of since the program exception in 2022. \nBrad Gross: This is the letter I was talking about from the coastguard where it talks about Cfr. Section 33 dash point 1 10.1 2 6 alpha\, where the Coast Guard has delegated authority for the operational management to Richards of a regional agency. \nBrad Gross: This is a an important slide that I would like to present. On an order received by George Ork on December first\, 2023\, Judge Orrick provided an order to dismiss without leave to amend a claim against Rbra with language that supports Rbra’s position and codes regarding Rvra\, I’m sorry regarding Richardson Bay. \nBrad Gross: Specifically\, when Cfr. 33.1 10.1 2 6\, Alpha was identified\, the judge appined the following. the plaintiff argues or implies that Rbra’s anchorage ordinance is preempted by Federal law. He goes on to say that I agree that no regulation or Federal authority identified by the plaintiff\, preempts the authority of Rbra to control anchorages in Richardson Bay. Instead\, the Federal regulation he identified established Richardson Bay as a special anchorage and directs mariners to comply with Rbra’s permit scheme. \nBrad Gross: and although this opinion is still subject to appeal\, it mentions more than once regarding anchoring and living aboard on Richardson Bay that the United States Constitution does not confer a blanket right to anchor in Richardson Bay. Boaters do not have a constitutional right to unregulated long term anchorage in public navigable waters. \nHe goes on to talk about this particular plaintiff\, who was planning to live on his vessel. \nBrad Gross: where he says he admits that he intended to live on his boat in Richardson Bay\, which is not allowed under Arbra code\, and means that he would be denied a permit. \nBrad Gross: He goes on to say\, living aboard a houseboat or vessel anchored in Moore or moored in Richardson Bay is prohibited. \nIf \nBrad Gross: I’m gonna leave you with that\, well\, I’ll be back after Eographs update from Rebecca Schwartz\, Lessburg\, and the anchorage update by our harbour master. So I’ll turn this over to Rebecca. Now\, thank you. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Good morning\, everyone. Thank you\, Brad. Hello! I believe I’m know you all. But for those who I haven’t met\, my name is Rebecca Schwartz\, Lesburg. I’m the president of Coastal policy solutions. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: and I’ve been working with Rvra to advance their ill re their efforts to protect and restore Eel grass in Richard Simbay. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: So I’ll be sharing 2 main components today. The first is an update about the grant our Bra received from the Us. Environmental Protection agency to restore eelgrass\, and the second is\, I’ll be sharing results from our 2023 monitoring update that describes the Eelgrass monitoring efforts over the past year \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: next slide. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: so\, as you may remember\, Rbra was awarded 2.8 million dollars from the EPA’s San Francisco Bay Water Quality Improvement Fund. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: and that award funds\, the development of the Restoration and Adaptive Management plan that Brad mentioned\, that was submitted to BC. DC. On December fifteenth. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: It also funds the restoration of 15 acres of eel grass by 2027\, and the related ongoing adaptive management\, monitoring and partner engagement outreach associated with that Restoration effort \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: to implement this grant\, RBRA. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Awarded consultant services to Co. Still policy solutions and Merkel and associates for project management\, stakeholder engagement policy support\, and for the actual on the ground\, eel grass restoration. All of this is being done in collaboration with San Francisco State University’s Estuary and Ocean Science Center. Specifically\, Dr. Kathy Boyer and her lab \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: and Audubon\, California. The sub awards for those project partners are in process \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: next slide. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: So a little bit about the Restoration and adaptive management plan\, which we call the ramp. As Brad mentioned\, it was submitted on the fifteenth\, and this is a technical document that describes a 10 Year Adaptive Management Plan for restoration of 75 acres of eelgrass and Richardson Bay. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Now those 75 acres are anticipated to be restored through a combination of active restoration. So actually planting eel grass. non planting\, restoration actions\, things like removal of marine debris that’s on the bay bottom. \nand also \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: anticipated natural recovery of the eelgrass bed. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: This plan is consistent with the San Francisco Bay Plan\, the Richardson Bay special area plan and the California Ill. Grass mitigation policy. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: It does consider the beneficial reuse of dredge sediment. If backfill of mooring scars is required\, although that is not recommended as a first line action in this area. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: and then genetic accounts for both passive and active restoration\, and it builds on the results of the ongoing restoration studies that have been going on in the anchor scars over the past couple of years. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: The ramp itself\, as a document may be periodically updated as we receive results from those restoration studies\, other monitoring results or other adaptive management actions that become prudent \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: next slide. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Now\, I’d like to switch gears and talk about the 2023 monitoring update this update was given to the Rba. Board of Directors and the public. In the during the fall. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: and it’s a comprehensive report on all of the various \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: monitoring actions that have taken place over the past year to really get a sense of what is going. The dynamics of the ill grass bed and its health. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: There’s a variety of monitoring activities that we’ve taken. The first is that I’ll describe is the side scan sonar survey. \nThe survey was completed by Merkel and associates \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: during the summer of 2022. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: And this really looks at the in the health of the bed overall. So not just in the area where boats are anchoring and not just in the sanctuary or restoration areas\, but really the the overall bed. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: And there’s a few things that we can take away from these results. The first is that we have the same general pattern of eel grass covering Richardson Bay as previous years. So we see the core of the bed. In the central bay \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: it is present\, but less dense in the shallows. and there’s some evidence of wasting disease. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: and it as expected. It is absent from the deeper parts of the bay. basically anywhere deeper than about 5 feet mean lower low water\, and that’s consistent with what we know about the light limits of eel grass in the San Francisco Bay Area. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Now\, if we look at the overall acreage. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: we’re see and and how dense it is\, we can see a couple of things. The first is that we have just over 950 acres of eel grass\, and that’s \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: a good increase from the previous \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: size cancel in our survey that was completed\, which I’ll talk about in a moment. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: but ignoring for a second the total acreage. What I wanted to talk about is the cover class. So that gives us a sense of how dense the eelgrass bed is\, and that’s a proxy for eelgrass health \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: in the image. On the left hand side of the screen you see Richardson Bay. The green area is all the area that’s covered in eel grass\, and essentially the darker the green\, the more dense the eel grass is. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: So\, even though we have 950 acres or so of eel grass. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Less than half of that eel grass \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: is in the 40 to 100% cover class. So less than half of it is in that really dense \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: cover class and over a quarter is in the less than 5% cover class. \nSo it’s important to look at\, not just the total acreage\, but also how dense and healthy the Yalegrass bed is \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: next slide. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: So again\, I mentioned that binary change. If we look at 2019 versus 2022\, we see that 13% increase in the total acreage which is within normal bed variability next slide. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: But if we take a closer look at that change again on the left hand side\, both the the green and red and tan areas\, that’s all eel grass cover. But essentially\, what we’re seeing is that there are some areas of the eel grass bed that have expanded. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: And there’s some areas that have declined \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: the areas that are in tan\, orange and getting into that red color. Those are areas where we’ve actually seen a decrease in the old grass cover \nthe portions of their green and getting into the darker greens. That’s where we see expansion. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: What we can see here is a general decline in that nor in that northern reach\, as we’re getting up into the Audubon sanctuary\, and that’s likely due to thermal stress. The water up there is more shallow\, it gets warmer\, and it pushes the eel grass beyond its thermal limits. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: That red area in the core of the bed is where? \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Oh\, no\, not yet. Is where we’re seeing evidence of eelgrass wasting disease next slide. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: So as we look at our results through time\, we have these sides canceled on our surveys 6 times since 2\,003. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: The biggest change that we saw historically\, was the 2\,009 to 2\,013\, and overall absolute cover is generally increasing\, but variable over the past 20 years. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Now 20 years may feel like a long time to have data. And it’s a great data set to be working with. But it’s actually not very long in the context of an eel grass bed that can persuade me persist over hundreds or thousands of years. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Now\, the reason I was really digging into the cover class and the areas where we have changes increase or \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: expansion or contraction of the eel grass is that it gets to what we call the 100% cover equivalency. Basically\, what that means is that looking at the total acreage of eel grass that we have. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: if all of it\, if we collapsed it down so that all of it was at a hundred per cent. Covered. What acreage would we have then? \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Now\, if we look\, and and that is a better indicator of the bed health\, because that can tell us things about eel grass\, bed assumed productivity\, biomass\, and other metrics\, things like carbon storage. \nSo that is the dashed black line in the graph on the left-hand side. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: And again we have that same variable but generally increasing patterns since 2\,003. But where is the total acreage from 2019 to 2022 increased. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: The 100% cover equivalency decreased. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Basically\, what is telling us is that we’re getting mixed messages and mixed signals from the eelgrass bed\, about how it’s how the how it’s doing from a health and productivity perspective \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: next slide. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: the the second way that we’ve monitored. The bed is through aerial photography and Gis analysis. This has been done by Audubon\, California\, and has been repeated several times over the past several years \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: as opposed to the side scanned sonar which takes\, gets a comprehensive map of all of the eelgrass in Richard Simbay. The aerial photography is really designed as a damage assessment. So we just photograph the area where eel grass and anchoring co-occur so that we can get a better understanding \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: of how much eel grass is damaged by anchor scour\, and how much recovery we see within those scars \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: as a reminder. Anchor scour is the damage that we see to the eel grass from Anchor’s Change\, another ground tackle \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: and these methods were \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: verified\, and by a peer reviewed journal that was published\, peer reviewed journal article that was published in 2019. And so we’ve been repeating the methods for several years since \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: next slide. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: This is this may be a familiar image to many of you. This is an example of the aerial photography that we receive. From these the aerial views that we receive from this photography. Now\, hopefully. Then\, if you go to the next slide. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Yes\, that’s what I wanted to happen. What we’re doing is \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: looking specifically in roughly\, the area that is circled in blue here\, because that’s the area where we have both eel grass and anchoring. And so if when we zoom in to here\, we’re then able to say \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: how much of the eelgrass has been damaged from acre scour\, and you can see examples of what we call crop circles in this image\, depending on the clarity that you have on your screen. Basically the darker areas within this blue circle \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: or blue polygon. Those darker areas are eel grass and the circles that you see of lighter area within there. Those are the anchor scars or the crop circles that we’re talking about. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Next slide \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: we can. On the left is a more close up view of what we’re able to see in that photography. And the anchor scars that we’re able to document \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: on the right hand. Oh\, not yet on the right hand side \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: we’re looking at anchor scour. So basically\, if we add up the acreage of those of all those circles\, how much damage do we have? \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: We have results from 2017\, 2021\, and 2022. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Our methods provide both a low and high estimate for total anchor scour \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: back in 2017\, which is the first time this method was done\, we saw between 50 and 85 acres\, or 8\, sorry 50 and 84 acres \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: in 2021. That high estimate was even higher. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: And then in 22\, we’re really seeing a plateau of the damage. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: which is great news over all. We’re not seeing \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: robust recovery yet overall in the bed\, but we have it\, but we have seen \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: a plateau in the damage\, which is great news. We’ve at least stemmed the tide of ongoing anchor scour. Next slide a couple of notes about these damage assessments. In 2022 there was an area of unknown damage to the bed\, and it’s suspected that was a harmful algal bloom. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: and that limited some of the interpretations we could make of the data next slide in 2023. The assessment actually wasn’t possible \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: because there was what’s called a macro algal mat\, basically\, a large \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: film of algae over the eel grass bed that was obscuring it from view. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: And now these photographs cannot be taken at any time of the year\, so we couldn’t just wait for that to go away\, because the photographs have to be taken during the summer\, when the eel grass is at its maximum extent. It is a perennial plant. It grows and dies back each year\, so we need to take it during the summer. \nand it has to be taken at an extreme low tide. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: so unfortunately\, that Macro Algolat happened during those windows of when we could have taken the photograph\, so we were not able to do the survey in 2023\, \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: next slide. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: some additional findings that I wanted to share. So what we have. In these photographs here. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: on the left hand side we have some examples of where we’ve seen recovery within anchor scars. So on top are the images from 2021\, and on the bottom are the images from 2022. The green circles on the left are the same in each photograph\, and you can see we can see robust regrowth of eel grass within specific eelgrass scars \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: on the right hand side. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: It’s the same years of images\, but these are examples of scars where we have not yet seen recovery. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: So this is again\, both good news\, but also mixed news. The good news is that \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: again\, we’re demonstrating that as vessels are removed from the eograss protection zone we can expect for the eelgrass to recover. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: But if you’ll notice\, on the left hand side\, where we do see recovery\, those circles in 2021. They don’t have boats in them. We don’t know exactly what year those vessels were removed\, so from 2021 to 2022 \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: seems on our end as one year of recovery. But those scars actually could have been recovering for several years\, whereas on the right hand side\, where we don’t see the recovery in 2021. The boats are still there in 2022. They’re not there. So what this suggests is that it takes more than one year for the anchor scars to recover. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: which is good data for us to have\, because we don’t. Actually. there’s there’s not a lot of documented cases that can tell us how long we should expect it to take for these scars to restore themselves next slide. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: The last area of monitoring that we’ve been doing is our water bird monitoring\, and really the goal for this was to see where in Richardson Bay large groups of birds are doing what are codes called rafting\, which is when large groups of birds together rest on the base surface\, and they can rest in groups of up to 10\,000 birds. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: The reason we’re looking at. This is because we wanted to know as we change the pattern of where boats are anchoring in Richardson Bay. Are we also seeing a change in the pattern of where birds are using the bay. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: What we’ve seen here. So on the left hand side\, these are all of the drone. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: These are the I’m sorry. On the left hand side. It’s the results from the 6 drone surveys that we did during the 2022\, 2023 monitoring year. \nSo each of those image 6 images represents one survey. The red dots are where we see the rafts of birds. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Now we\, similar to previous years. We continue to see rats primarily along the northern and eastern shorelines. So so far we have not seen any change in how birds are using the bay \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: next slide. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Okay\, that was a lot of data\, a lot of graphs\, a lot of information\, some major takeaways from that information. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: So the good news is that the damage to eel grass from anchor scour appears to have plateaued. and we continue to see evidence of eel grass recovery \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: the less good \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: the overall health of the bed is questionable because we’re seeing an increase in that very sparse cover class. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: These are likely due to things like thermal stress\, wasting disease\, algal competition all things that are expected to increase with climate change. So the biggest takeaway from this is that\, given these known stressors that are going to continue to \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: stressed the eel grass in Richardson Bay. protecting and restoring the bed is more crucial now than ever. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: I believe I now hand it over to Jim\, but I will also be here at the end to answer any questions. \nRBRA: Morning. Thank you very much\, Rebecca. My name is Jim Malcolm\, the Harbor master for Richardson Bay Regional Agency going to talk this morning about our vessel census and status of vessels out on the anchorage to open our vessel census. We are currently our vessel. Census continues to drop. \nRBRA: We are as of December. We are sitting at 43 vessels. There has actually been. There has been a change to this\, but it went down by one and went back up by one. So we still sit at 43 vessels for January next slide\, please. \nRBRA: I’ll now go through the milestones individually\, and kind of discuss our trending for each milestone. Our first one is the post 2019 vessels as Director Gross had mentioned. In August we had\, we were at 14 of those post\, 2\,019 vessels. We currently in December. We are at 7\, and probably by the end of the week we’ll be sitting at 6. Post 2\,000 vessels \nRBRA: for our floating homes again\, as Director Gross have mentioned. In A. We were 2 in August\, and now we are down to our one remaining floating home. \nRBRA: our vessels in the Ap. In the eel grass protection zone 53. And we’re present last July 42 in August. And now we are down to 35 \nRBRA: and this is efforts through both vessel removals and efforts to \nRBRA: move vessels out of the eel grass protection zone into the actual anchoring zone. This will \nRBRA: be this number will continue to drop as we move forward on our signage project. And yeah\, actually mark out where the anchorage is\, and we continue on our efforts towards relocating\, reap both relocating vessels into the actual anchorage out of the eel grass protection zone\, and remove vessels from the anchorage and remove vessels from the Bay completely. \nRBRA: Our our October fifteenth\, of 2\,026 deadline for all occupied safe and seaworthy vessels removed. There were 10 last June or 10 in June of 2022\, 7 in August of 2023\, and that number remains steady at 7. \nRBRA: Total vessels on the water. We were 57 last last July 48\, and August\, and as I mentioned\, 43\, \nRBRA: and then\, in addition to that\, we have our th vessels that are present legally present under a 30 day permit. We have that numbers actually change since December. We now have 6 \nRBRA: 30 day permits. However\, 3 of those have overstayed their permit\, and are in various mechanisms of enforcement to have those vessels depart \nRBRA: next slide\, please. \nRBRA: 6. As I mentioned\, the this is the part of our efforts to work with the vessels that are over staying there. 30 day permits 6 citations were issued as of last December\, that numbers actually increased to 7 \nRBRA: 7 citations issued 3 initial. \nRBRA: 2Â s and one third. Actually\, that has increased by another. Third note\, third citation for a vessel. All of the citations that have been issued so far are for the Rba code section for entering in excess of 72Â h. \nRBRA: 2 nuisance abatements\, 2 nuisance abatement processes have been commenced one is on our one remaining floating home\, which we’ve put a stay on while the \nRBRA: responsible party for that floating home as their extension to remove the vessel\, and another nuisance abate. Note. Nuisance\, abatement. Notice will be going to a hearing next week. \nRBRA: All vessels are due to vacate the anchorage. By October fifteenth\, 2024\, with the exception of the 7 safe and seaworthy vessels all vessels that were due to vacate were issued a 12 month advance notice last October. \nRBRA: The a copy of the notices on the slide here. \nRBRA: Our plan is to prepare another notice for January\, and then\, as we progress into the summer\, the the number of notices \nRBRA: will increase in frequency \nRBRA: as vessels\, and then hopefully\, all vessels will also\, the number of vessels on the anchorage will decrease as we increase our both enforcement efforts and notice \nRBRA: and education efforts towards where vessels can legally anchor\, and which vessels are to be removed. \nRBRA: Finally\, for enforcement\, our planning is underway as director. Gross message mentioned for our signage and posting for the anchorage. 5 signs are to be to place on existing piles. \nRBRA: We have already identified the owners of those piles and have been in touch with them. and installation of one new pile and 3 floating buoys will be put in place to mark the actual bounds of the legal anchorage. \nRBRA: Plans are also underway to create the permit and submit to Bcd staff \nRBRA: permits are not yet submitted. The effective date for the permits will be this October and then all vessels in the Egrass protection zone as I mentioned\, did receive a 12 month notice to vacate\, and they’ll be receiving another mo another notice \nRBRA: this month. \nRBRA: Next slide\, please. \nRBRA: and that concludes my portion. And now I’m gonna turn it back over to Director Gross\, however\, similar to Rebecca. I will be remaining for the end of the presentation for any questions. \nBrad Gross: Thank you\, Jim. And thank you again\, Commissioners. \nBrad Gross: I’m gonna talk about our housing program now\, and how this all ties in with the vessels in the anchorage and the eel grass improvements that we’re planning\, as I’ve stated in the past our housing program is comprised by 4 components funding temporary housing support \nBrad Gross: case management and marina participations. And I’ve talked about all this in the past and just gonna go through it really quick our funding. 3 million dollars was received in March of 2023\, with thanks to Senator Mcguire for his support. The program began seeking applications in May of 2023\, and to date there’s been over a hundred $80\,000 expended into the program. \nBrad Gross: moving on Rbra rent housing authority contract was approved. We discussed their prefunding of $30\,000 last time we met with another $86\,000 provided to health and human services. \nBrad Gross: The contract between Health and Human Services and Episcopal community services for case management was approved in August of 2023 and Ecs. Has established a well received landside meeting dates in Sausalito. \nBrad Gross: and recently began there on the water outreach effort. I think the last time we talked. We were still looking for that full time case worker\, and that full time case worker with Ecs did begin employment very successfully\, I might say\, in October of 2023. \nBrad Gross: Regarding the Marina’s activities during this reporting period one marina is now committed\, and one marina has withdrawn participation. We are still seeking marinas\, not just in the Sausalito area\, but surrounding areas that are interested in assisting our bra and our programs to relocate the qualified vessels to Marinas. \nBrad Gross: This\, at a previous meeting this committee approved an extension for the post 2019 vessels that I mentioned earlier and harbor Master Malcolm mentioned\, and as part of that approval of that extension we \nBrad Gross: committed to providing this slide\, and this is a spreadsheet of tracking their progress. As you can see. \nBrad Gross: all but 3 vessels are either gone or engaged in some forward fashion in the program. So I wanna thank the committee. The Commission again for the extension\, because it’s proved to be very successful. We are working to get the last 3 folks engaged\, and the a few of these. I I’m not privy to the names of the people who have received vouchers\, but a few of these people I do know on this slide have vouchers and are actively seeking housing right now. \nBrad Gross: the temporary housing voucher program. There are 4 persons that are now housed. This again. This slide is a month dated there are 10 persons that are participating. I know that number is now 11\, which includes the 4 persons that are housed. 5 persons are in the queue to participate \nBrad Gross: with 2 persons that have a voucher and one pending as of last month. But as of today\, there are actually 6 people with vouchers that are actively seeking \nBrad Gross: housing. \nBrad Gross: What that important to us is that those 6 people relate to 6 more vessels being off the anchorage by the time. These soon after these folks get their housing\, and 4 vessels have been purchased via the vessel buyback program. Once those 6 people with vouchers are housed\, we anticipate getting those vessels which would bring us up into double digits vessels turned in via the vessel. Buy back program. \nBrad Gross: Now\, this is a new slide. You haven’t seen this one before but this slide\, and I’d like to explain it quickly. The the top 2 lines represent the vessels and the floating homes in the anchorage. \nBrad Gross: The bottom 7 lines represent our different supported programs like floating homes turned in persons\, house persons and process and remaining floating homes\, vessels turned in\, total vessels of loading homes turned in\, and persons with with vouchers. \nBrad Gross: and\, as you can see\, all the lines representing the ve. The vessels along the top are trending down. \nBrad Gross: and program related. Lines of vessels and floating home surged in persons with the vouchers. And most importantly\, persons housed are all trending up \nBrad Gross: and over the next few months we will see these lines eventually intercept and ultimately completely switch sides\, top to bottom\, which would be representing more successes in our programs. This is a very exciting trend that we’re seeing. And at our next presentation\, I think\, this. This slide will be very telling. \nBrad Gross: with that I want to \nBrad Gross: close\, and I’ll acknowledge this committee and BC. DC. Staff for their flexibility to work with us and our Bra\, and to explore \nBrad Gross: creative and common sense solutions to achieve our common goals. I’m convinced that this type of innovative and collaborative work will prove successful in the end. Thank you very much for your time and letting us present our latest achievements. If there are any questions \nBrad Gross: myself. Our master\, Malcolm and Rebecca Short Lustburg would be glad to answer them. Thank you very much. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you very much for that very comprehensive \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: presentation \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and I think I’m gonna ask the committee if you will hold all your questions. Until we hear the city of Sausalito. I know that was a lot of information. But I know you guys probably took great notes. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So Adrian\, do you have an introduction for the city of Sausalita. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. Chair Gilmore. Again. It is brief and follows the identical format. \nBoardroom SX80: So maybe\, Brad\, if you unshare your screen\, please and \nBoardroom SX80: If I could kindly ask Mtc. To share Adrian. \nBoardroom SX80: Chair. Goma\, we have. Barbara Salzman would like to speak. \nbarbara salzman marin audubon society: Well\, I just had. \nBoardroom SX80: You’re muted chair. \nBoardroom SX80: chair. Gilmore\, you’re muted. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: I’m sorry. Is Miss Salzman part of the presentation? Or is this public comment. \nBoardroom SX80: public comment\, public comment. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, we’re gonna hold public comment until later. We’re gonna go through the city of Sausalito’s presentation\, and then we’ll take questions and comments from committee members\, and then we will take public comments. So that’s kind of the way I see the scope \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: alright. So Miss Klein\, would you please give your introduction to the city of Sausalito’s presentation\, please? \nBoardroom SX80: Yes\, I’d be happy to thank you very much. \nBoardroom SX80: Good morning again\, Adrian Klein. \nBoardroom SX80: So next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: Again. These are the 10 sections of the city of Sausalito settlement agreement between BCDC. \nBoardroom SX80: And I believe the focus of their presentation today will be on vessel removal and eel grass\, habitat mitigation and damage next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: Most relevant is that \nBoardroom SX80: the city requested and received an extension mentioned earlier today by Matthew \nBoardroom SX80: to remove a the largest of the anchor outs known as the Fedora \nBoardroom SX80: from December 30\, first to March thirty-first. For reasons similar to those described by the Rba this will promote voluntary resolution. Next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: This \nBoardroom SX80: image outlines the settlement agreement\, provisions relating to illgress\, habitat mitigation\, and damage avoidance. \nBoardroom SX80: I’ll give you a chance to just glance through that. \nBoardroom SX80: And if that’s enough time next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: And this is a summary of the actions by the city and BC. DC. On this eel Grass Restoration plan. Most relevant is that in the summer and the fall we received an excellent draft eelgrass Restoration plan\, provided some comments on 2 occasions and also received input from third party experts. \nBoardroom SX80: We’re continuing as we do with the Rba to meet monthly we are. \nBoardroom SX80: The city is preparing to submit its I believe\, final eel grass restoration plan. Soon. We’re in agreement on the majority of the components of that plan \nBoardroom SX80: with some discussion around the total acreage that will be \nBoardroom SX80: planted\, and whether the agreement \nBoardroom SX80: goal of one to 2 mitigation to one acre impact is a requirement. and I believe the city may address that\, but we just wanted to \nBoardroom SX80: share that \nBoardroom SX80: question. That’s on the table with you. Thank you very much. I’ll turn this over. I would expect first to councilmember Joan Cox\, who will then go ahead\, I believe\, and introduce her staff. Thank you very much. \nBoardroom SX80: and we could unshare the VCDC. Presentation to allow the city to share its presentation. Thank you very much. \nJoan Cox: Thank you so much. Adrienne\, and good morning\, Chair Gilmore and members \nJoan Cox: of the Enforcement Committee. This is our triannual update to the Enforcement Committee. My name is Joan Cox\, and I’m the vice mayor for \nJoan Cox: Sausalita. \nJoan Cox: Here’s an outline of the topics that we will cover today. We’ll start off with our waterfront management update \nJoan Cox: provided by sassy police \nJoan Cox: the department Brian Mathers. Then we will have a report on our regional cooperation in housing presented by our community and economic development. Director Brandon. \nJoan Cox: Then our resiliency and sustainability manager Katie throw Garcia will provide an update on the eel grass habitat mitigation and damage avoidance plan and I’ll include some comments there and then we will close and \nJoan Cox: be available for questions. So with that I’ll turn it over to \nJoan Cox: Brian matters. \nBrian Mather: Good morning\, everybody. Thanks for having me. \nBrian Mather: So I’ll go over a brief review of our waterfront management. So currently we have 5 total vessels in our anchorage. Right now\, what? That’s actually a reduction from the last meeting or triannual update\, I believe. We had. \nBrian Mather: We had 5 legacy and and one extra. So there were 6. So next slide\, please. \nBrian Mather: if we have a slide next slide. \nBrian Mather: anyway. So what we have is for legacy anchor routes. We actually ended up one of our legacy members ended up \nBrian Mather: getting ill. And so we’ve removed that person from the water\, and we’re working on housing for that person currently. The \nso the main issue or the main focus right now is the vendor\, as you see\, and that’s why we asked for the extension \nBrian Mather: and it was granted. So we appreciate that. So we’ve been in communication with the owner. We’ve been trying to work with the owner. There’s been some delays in the cooperation with the owner. And so we’ve been actively and currently are still actively working on the enforcement piece of that\, and are hoping to have that done within the next \nBrian Mather: month or so. But you know\, with whether finances staffing for marine assets and everything else\, it it’s a pretty complicated venture\, because it’s a very large boat. \nBrian Mather: So we’re we’re doing 2 things trying to get cooperation still from the owner and also working on the enforcement end of it\, if if that needs to take place. \nBrian Mather: So that’s the the end of our update. As far as our waterfront management. We haven’t had any. We had 2 vessels come in in the last month we were able to get them to move on within the 72Â h period\, in accordance with our State ordinance. \nBrian Mather: So that’s where we stand at this moment. If there’s any questions after\, I’ll be standing by for any questions. \nJoan Cox: thank you. And with that we’ll turn to Brandon Phipps\, our community Development Director. \nBrandon Phipps\, Community & Econ. Dev. Director\, Sausalito: Good morning\, Chair\, Gilmore\, Dcdc. Members and members of the public as Vice Mayor Cox mentioned. My name is Brandon Phipps\, Community and Economic Development Director. With so solido. Glad to be addressing you today to provide a brief update in connection with Section 3\, a per agreement related to regional cooperation and the development of resources\, and taking\, if necessary\, actions to support housing opportunities for anchor outs and Richardson Bay. \nBrandon Phipps\, Community & Econ. Dev. Director\, Sausalito: Regarding ad use. The city recently updated its adu ordinance to comply with State adu law. More specifically\, this item was approved with recommendations by the planning Commission in July was adopted by City Council in October. \nBrandon Phipps\, Community & Econ. Dev. Director\, Sausalito: The Community Development Department continues to track new housing policy at the State level and may be required to make additional updates to our ordinance this year in order to continue to be compliant\, and we certainly intend to do that as required. \nBrandon Phipps\, Community & Econ. Dev. Director\, Sausalito: Additionally\, I’ll just briefly speak to this. On January 5 of this year the city of Sausalito released a public comment draft environmental impact report for the implementation of our housing element programs. And this document has been prepared to address \nBrandon Phipps\, Community & Econ. Dev. Director\, Sausalito: potential environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the proposed project\, that being our housing element\, but particularly as related to the rezoning and selected opportunity sites at higher densities\, and this is all required under the California Environmental Quality Act. \nBrandon Phipps\, Community & Econ. Dev. Director\, Sausalito: So the draft Eir will be circulated for a 45 day review period\, during which comments on the draft Eir may be submitted to the city\, and I hope this goes without saying. But the city welcomes any comments from the Bcd. On the public comment Draft Eir\, which is posted to our website. And I am happy to \nBrandon Phipps\, Community & Econ. Dev. Director\, Sausalito: provide any personal contact information or follow up with individual BC. DC members. If there are any questions\, that will do it for my update this morning. Thank you all for your time today\, and I will now pass the mic to our illgress. Consultant Robert Moody\, who will discuss excuse me\, I will pass the mic to Katie. Back. Garcia. Go ahead\, Katie. Thank you. \nCatie Thow Garcia\, CIty of Sausalito: Thank you so much. Brandon. I’m here to present the the city’s progress on illgrass habitat mitigation and damage avoidance. In the blue text on the left you can see the the status updates which Adrian also presented which which have been presented to the Enforcement Committee prior to this meeting today in the text\, \nCatie Thow Garcia\, CIty of Sausalito: on in the red. You will see our our updates from the most recent Enforcement Committee meeting\, which took place on August 20 third\, where we provided an update \nCatie Thow Garcia\, CIty of Sausalito: on October eleventh we received A. BC DC. Response to expert review on our draft Eelgrass restoration Plan. \nCatie Thow Garcia\, CIty of Sausalito: Following this\, South\, Ludo submitted a summary of future eel Grass Restoration Plan efforts on November twenty-seventh\, which included the city’s offer of additional protection measures rec recommended by regional experts. As far as this. This is the brief update on eel grass habitat from my end\, and I will. I will pass it on to Vice. Mayor Cox. \nBrandon Phipps\, Community & Econ. Dev. Director\, Sausalito: vice Mayor\, I think you’re on mute. Excuse me. \nJoan Cox: thank you. Thank you\, Katie. \nJoan Cox: so I would like to address the issue that Adrian Klein made mention of during her introductory comments\, and that is the requirement of the settlement agreement. So the settlement agreement with the city of Sausalito States \nJoan Cox: quote goals in the plan will include compensatory mitigation at a ratio of no less than 1.2 to one mitigation area to impact area. So the settlement agreement says\, goals in the plan will include \nJoan Cox: on these and and indeed\, \nJoan Cox: that is important. Because the it’s important that it’d be a goal and not a requirement\, because it may actually be be infeasible. \nJoan Cox: So \nJoan Cox: on July 31\, 2023 regional experts\, lawyer and Merkel\, as well as coastal policy solutions opined that the 1.2 to one mitigation ratio could be infeasible to attain. Given Richardson Bay’s Natural Geomorphology and ability to support ingress. \nJoan Cox: It was therefore suggested that the settlement agreement be revisited. \nJoan Cox: And so\, on August seventeenth\, 2023\, I requested that Pcdc. Council provide a written analysis of Bcd. C’s position \nJoan Cox: without ever providing us with that analysis. BC DC. Staff on December thirteenth\, for the first time\, announced that the 1.2 to one ratio in the settlement agreement is a requirement and not just a goal. \nJoan Cox: as stated in the executed settlement agreement. It’s it baffles me that \nJoan Cox: the sentence in settlement agreement States goals in the plan will include\, and that BC. DC. Staff is now taking a position that this is a requirement in contravention of what regional experts opine is feasible. \nJoan Cox: So converting a goal into a requirement appears to be setting the city up for failure. \nJoan Cox: And this is very puzzling to me\, because we have a long history of cooperation and rapid progress toward meeting BC. DC. Goals\, and we would prefer to continue to work collaboratively\, moving forward. \nJoan Cox: It also is notable to me that this \nJoan Cox: goal is not in the settlement agreement with Rbra. \nJoan Cox: I noticed that this morning\, during Adrian Klein’s presentation that language does not appear in their settlement agreement. So why is BC. DC. Turning a goal into a requirement and insisting upon that goal only against the city of Sausalito\, and not \nJoan Cox: the Rvra. So \nJoan Cox: II hate to close on a challenging note. But this is an issue of great concern to the city. \nJoan Cox: And with that that concludes our presentation\, and we’re available to answer any questions. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you very much. The this committee thanks Ra. And the city of Sausalito’s representatives for the briefings. For being here and the time that it took to craft presentations. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So at this point\, do any of the Enforcement Committee members have \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: questions for either staff or for our guests. \nBoardroom SX80: I don’t see any. \nBoardroom SX80: No questions. Actually\, Chair Gilmore. Commissioner Eisen. \nBoardroom SX80: Okay\, Commissioner Eisen\, I can’t. I can’t see her on the screen. So it’s difficult. That’s the problem with showing up in person actually less visible. \nBoardroom SX80: Ii have a number of questions I did try to take notes as you suggested. Chair Gilmore\, but stick with me as I go back through the slides. \nBoardroom SX80: So with respect to the the \nBoardroom SX80: requests for extension that we’ve been told about today. \nBoardroom SX80: I am wondering\, and I guess I would go back to Director Gross. I’m going all the way back to the beginning of the slides. I think I heard from Adrian that the reason for those requests was to promote voluntary resolution. I think that was the phrase Adrianism. Yeah. \nSo I am wondering what? What exactly that means. What are we trying to reach some kind of a settlement agreement \nBoardroom SX80: in lieu of some kind of enforcement action. With respect to a couple of these vessels \nBrad Gross: for the question\, I appreciate it\, and no\, we are not looking for a settlement. We are actually\, we’re looking for a a conclusion. We’re looking for an amicable conclusion\, which is\, I’ll give you an example of the first floating home who was\, provided a 60 day extension. He worked diligently\, and was able to \nwith the assistance of the flexibility of this committee. \nBrad Gross: Get into a legal liverboard slip with this loading hall. \nBrad Gross: the next floating home that we’re working on. He claimed. We. We went through the citation process. We went through the abatement process. We are ready to move forward with a warrant if necessary\, but I thought it was\, \nBrad Gross: a a better solution to give him one more opportunity to get his boat relocated\, or turn it into our bra for proper disposal as opposed to \nBrad Gross: going through legal action\, II have to tell you\, and it’s no secret rvra is a very small agency with a very small budget with very high insurance costs all related to litigation. \nBrad Gross: Because of the actions that we’re taking. We will take those actions\, but it’s makes more sense to us to \nBrad Gross: give folks ample opportunity to abide by the regulations. Ultimately \nBrad Gross: this last vessel that got the extension and the other vessels got the extension \nBrad Gross: will be removed hopefully those folks will be housed. But \nBrad Gross: A perfect example is that if if we force people out of our anchorage. \nBrad Gross: they end up being a liability to somebody else. They move somewhere else. I could tell you that some of the the vessels that were really recently removed from saw Slato anchorage on the 72Â h notice simply made it over to our anchorage\, and one of them \nBrad Gross: is on a 30 day. Permit one of them’s getting a citation. So it’s become our problem. And we don’t want to. We don’t want to incur that type of oppression and any other agency. So working with these\, with the committee and these extensions\, I believe\, allows us\, and allows the voters ample time to take the correct actions. \nBoardroom SX80: Yep. \nwell\, I totally appreciate that these are in enormously complex \nBoardroom SX80: but what I’m trying to understand\, because we’ve heard now reports of regularly\, and each time there are sort of more and more \nBoardroom SX80: discussions about extensions\, but on the milestone slide one of the original slides. It’s the one with the black oyster catchers on it. \nI’m wondering if there is \nBoardroom SX80: any anticipation that there will be more requests for extension beyond the ones that have. \nBoardroom SX80: Just been provided. \nBrad Gross: That’s a great question. And and with in all honesty\, we are sitting with \nBrad Gross: over 30\, about 35 people who qualify for housing voucher program. \nBrad Gross: We have 6 factors out right now. We have\, according to our colleagues from health and human services. And we’re in housing authority. \nBrad Gross: They’re figuring we’re going to be able to get another 13 of them house within the year. As I told this committee\, and anybody who will listen\, we’re figuring they can house about 2 a month. So and all\, honestly\, yeah\, we’ll probably be back in close to 2\,024 to say\, look\, we’ve got a successful program. We’ve house 20 people. We remove 20 boats. We have a dozen left. We’re going to need some more time with them. \nBrad Gross: And I’m hoping that the this committee will see the wisdom in providing extensions if they’re required. As long as we are proving that the program is successful\, it’s really just as you know. The officers from Salsa said. It’s a time money staffing issue. Convincing \nBrad Gross: landlords to take these folks\, which isn’t really a problem. It’s just really a a timing and processing to get these people through the system. If we had. \nBrad Gross: you know\, we were\, we were allotted 3 million dollars. If we were allotted 6 million dollars we would have been able to bring in double the staff and put and house double the people. But we’re working diligently. We’re working successfully. It’s all proving to be working. So we’re hoping that if we do come that this committee will see the wisdom and providing another extension if required. \nBoardroom SX80: And II recognize that there’s a balancing act that goes on in terms of you know what what you achieve by an extension versus what you lose by an extension. But from what I understand from the eelgrass presentations both from the Rbra and Sausalito\, is that as these vessels continue to sit out there\, we continue to have \nBoardroom SX80: consequences to the eel grass which themselves require money and time to restore\, and to get back to where we should have been\, especially at this \nBoardroom SX80: critical time in our history\, where we have to do everything we can to capture carbon. So I’m hoping all of that is being balanced as we move through this problem. And along those lines. I’m wondering with respect to the Fedura. So now I’m sort of switching to Sausalito for a second. How long has it been that we have been \nBoardroom SX80: working with this particular owner? \nJoan Cox: When did we start that process. We’ve been working with this owner since since I’ve been involved in 2\,017 and perhaps longer. \nJoan Cox: Can provide an update. It it the last I understood. It looks as though we actually may have to \nJoan Cox: it it when it’s not entirely here\, we may actually have to undertake removal \nJoan Cox: through the enforcement process. But I’ll let Lieutenant another address. That group. \nBrian Mather: Yes\, Vice Mayor\, that’s accurate. You know we we’ve been engaged in some lengthy conversations\, and you know it’s turned into \nBrian Mather: the owner and the rep representatives not responding and getting legal aid. And and so there’s some stall tact\, tactics involved in that. So you know\, the city side at this point is enforcement. We’re hoping that maybe during the enforcement period that \nBrian Mather: they wake up and decide to actually take custody of their boat and and take care of it. But then\, you know\, like our bra says\, you know\, we run the risk of them moving that boat just into to their jurisdiction. We don’t want that\, and we’re not gonna allow that. So it’s a delicate situation. With resources\, and also taking people’s property and litigation. And what could happen after that? So we’re trying to do this right? \nBrian Mather: And that’s why we requested that extension is we gotta make sure we do this right for all parties involved and not rush into this. I know we\, the books\, been here for 26 years. So \nwe’re not trying to do this hastily. Here\, we’re just trying to do it right so. \nJoan Cox: And I will say\, you know\, we undertook the expense of doing a survey of the boat to see whether the boat is still salvageable. At this point the boat is actually considered to be marine debris under the definition. And so but we’ve made every effort to identify creative solutions. At this point. \nJoan Cox: Given this looming deadline we’ve into the enforcement approach. \nBoardroom SX80: Yeah\, I mean\, if you’re saying that we have been trying to resolve this for 6 going on 7 years now\, yeah\, it really does think sound like the time is \nBoardroom SX80: ripe for moving to a different strategy than trying to get voluntary cooperation. But \nBoardroom SX80: at the last the last question I have\, and I’m I’m sorry to hear. \nThat a dispute has arisen between Sausalito and our staff\, because we have commented on each and every one of these presentations \nBoardroom SX80: about the thoroughness and the cooperation\, and how pleased we are at how things are moving. So I it’s concerning that we’ve had maybe the first of our sort of bumps in the road together. I’m I don’t know enough about this issue to ask even intelligent questions\, but it seemed to me \nBoardroom SX80: that when we set forth the 1.2 to one goal in the settlement agreement in the agreement \nBoardroom SX80: that there must have been some basis for thinking that was possible. So one of the things I would want to know\, maybe as we move forward is what has changed to make that now sound like it’s impossible. \nBoardroom SX80: because at at least a couple of years ago it sounds like it was considered feasible enough to set it as a goal. So that’s just a comment. I’m not really expecting a response. But that \nBoardroom SX80: is something that I think you know needs to be explored for for our committee. That’s all I have\, Mr. Chair Gilmore. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you\, Commissioner Eisen. Any other committee members \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: have questions or comments \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: I wanna weigh in on that last point about the the settlement agreement. And I think this is going to be right for \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: either a future briefing by staff or the next time. Our scheduled briefing with the city of Sausalito. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Not only do I wanna know\, along with Commissioner Eisen is what’s changed between the time we entered into the agreement. And now that makes this infeasible. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: But I would like to hear from the the experts\, or or get more information on their expert opinion as to why it’s infeasible. And also Staff’s response to that. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: I just basically like to have a discussion. So we can understand a little bit more clearly. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: The the facts of the situation. So that’s all I’m gonna say for now. And obviously I don’t expect \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: a comment. Now this is for a a future meeting. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So\, having said that\, I’m going to ask if there’s any public comment on this item\, I know we had one hand raised earlier. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So first of all\, is there anybody in in the room \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: that would like to speak? \nBoardroom SX80: Non\, chair\, Gilmore. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, so then let’s go to the commenter \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: who attended this stage previously. \nBoardroom SX80: we have an online public comment from Barbara Salzman. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay. go ahead. I believe you have 3Â min to speak. \nbarbara salzman marin audubon society: Barbara Saulson. I represent them more in Audubon society\, and I first like to commend Rebecca for her good presentation. And also say that I assume that we could just contact you for a copy of the record report\, because\, yeah\, we I don’t have that \nbarbara salzman marin audubon society: and secondly\, about the RA presentation. There was a mention. I don’t think we need to spend a lot of time on this\, but there was a mention of going to other marine is in the vicinity for a possible relocation. \nbarbara salzman marin audubon society: and that does raise some concern for me because I it was my\, it’s been my understanding that Marina is a really only allowed to have liver boards or or people living on their boats for protection purposes. And it’s very limited. So I do have to raise. It’s a question of how how realistic that is as a as a \nbarbara salzman marin audubon society: a relocation \nbarbara salzman marin audubon society: potential moving forward because II wouldn’t. You wouldn’t be wanting to move people as to other marine is where it’s not legal\, of course. \nbarbara salzman marin audubon society: And thirdly\, with regard to to Sausalito and the the the apparent change here in in requirements. \nbarbara salzman marin audubon society: You know\, I’d like to point out the source of lead\, though it’s really been in the forefront of moving this along. They they they took the initial action\, and they are continuing our small city and they’re continuing to make in my view efforts and I would hope that this would be clarified and the the good point made by the city that it’s now changed to a requirement. \nbarbara salzman marin audubon society: II if II find it \nbarbara salzman marin audubon society: You know\, unexplainable. Why\, why\, that’s taking place\, and so maybe something’s going on that I don’t understand. But I’ve been involved in this a long time\, and I do think that it’s not fair to have 1 one jurisdiction ha! Having to make certain requirements that are pretty \nbarbara salzman marin audubon society: owner is\, and and the other jurisdiction\, I mean\, I want success for everybody but the other jurisdiction not having to \nbarbara salzman marin audubon society: have that requirement. So I hope you consider that. \nbarbara salzman marin audubon society: Thanks a lot. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you very much. \nBoardroom SX80: Do we have any other? \nBoardroom SX80: Sorry\, that’s all we have here\, Gilmore. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, thank you. One last chance for any committee members to make a final comment or question. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, seeing then\, once again\, I want to extend the committee’s thanks to both the Rba and the city of Sausledo for very comprehensive and informative presentations today. Thank you very much. And enjoy the rest of your day. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay. So now we move on to Item number 7. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: It is a staff presentation\, and a vote on a post recommend recommended decision to adopt a settlement agreement to be entered into with Roger Stan Bridge\, of Alameda\, City and County. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: If this committee votes to adopt the recommended Enforcement decision\, which includes the proposed settlement agreement\, it will be put up for a vote of approval or rejection by the full Commission at its January eighteenth. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: 2024\, meeting\, which is scheduled to be held online and in person at the Metro Center\, which is located at 3 75 Beale Street\, in San Francisco City and county\, and that meeting begins at 10’clock. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, after the staff gives her presentation\, I will ask\, respondent to affirm its agreement with the terms and conditions of the stipulated order. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Then I will hold public comment on this item\, and then afterwards we\, the committee\, will hold our discussion and vote on the staff’s recommendation. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, at this time. Will. The representative or representatives of the respondents. Please identify themselves for the record. \nBoardroom SX80: Margie\, just this is Adrian Klein. Just inform me\, Mister Standridge had been online\, but he is working. So it seems that we’ve lost him at this point. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, thank you for that. But clearly he has been notified of the meeting and he was here. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So we will. Go ahead and proceed with policy enforcement analyst Adrian Klein. Will give her her presentation. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. Chair. Gilmore. May I have the item? 7 slide? Thank you very much. Next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: So as per usual. This will be quite brief\, but we’ll run through location timeline of events. Summary of the violation and staff recommendation to the Enforcement Committee next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: So the site addresses 3 0 2 5 Marina. Drive in the city and county of Alameda the Red Arrow is pointing roughly to the address on the Alameda shoreline next slide\, please. Zooming in a second Google Earth image \nBoardroom SX80: next slide\, please\, when you’re ready. Thank you so much. There may be a little lag. So this red arrow is now pointing to \nBoardroom SX80: 3025\, Marina drive. \nBoardroom SX80: and you can see a single boat dock with a white boat. The single boat dock is the \nBoardroom SX80: subject of this proceeding. Next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: So as you will have read in the staff\, recommended Enforcement decision. There was a an existing boat\, Doc\, that was replaced in 2\,000 by a former owner\, who submitted\, but never filed as complete a permit application. The BC. DC. Staff did not pursue resolution of this violation. Between \nBoardroom SX80: the year 2\,000 \nBoardroom SX80: and the present in 2018\, Mr. Roger Standrich Pre. Purchased this property\, and in 2021 BC. DC. Or 2022 BC. DC. Staff\, initiated communications with Mister Sandridge to have him either remove the unauthorized Doc or submit \nBoardroom SX80: a complete permit application so that we could retroactively authorize the existing structure. \nBoardroom SX80: Mr. Standridge was not surprisingly surprised to be hearing from us and to to learn of this unauthorized structure. So\, despite the fact that he was initially not particularly responsive\, recently he’s been very responsive and cooperative. \nBoardroom SX80: so we did. He wasn’t responsive to our initial enforcement communication\, so we escalated to commence a formal enforcement proceeding. This hearing is the culmination of that he did respond to the violation report\, and indicated that he would like to settle rather than have a contested order\, and we were able to reach those terms which I will describe. So next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: So this is just a single violation. For the failure to obtain a permit to replace a smaller replacement. Dock. So it is less bay fill than had been previously in place for a legitimate water oriented use of the bay next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: So the terms which we have negotiated\, and both both Staff and Mister Standard Degree to our to either by the middle of February\, remove the unauthorized doc and gangway\, and submit photographic evidence or submit a filed application for the existing structures\, and to pay a $2\,000 penalty which Mr. Sandridge Hand delivered to the office yesterday. \nBoardroom SX80: and that concludes the staff presentation with that recommended recommended \nBoardroom SX80: decision for the committee. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you\, Adrienne. Normally. This is where we would ask the respondent to \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: affirm that he agrees with the terms and conditions of the proposed settlement. Agreement. However\, he’s not here\, but I wanna point out again for the record that he has signed the settlement agreement. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: However. It does not become effective until the full Commission votes on it on January eighteenth\, 2024. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So\, having said\, all of that do any members have questions for Adrian at this point. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, not seeing any. Margie\, do we have any public comment on this item? \nBoardroom SX80: We do not hear Gilmore \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and I believe we didn’t have any written public comment prior to this correct \nBoardroom SX80: correct. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, great. So at this point in time\, I’ll need a motion and a second to approve \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: the settlement agreement. \nBoardroom SX80: Move the staff recommendation. \nLetty Belin\, Commissioner: Second. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay. So \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: the it was a new spot. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So it was moved by Commissioner Eisen and seconded by Commissioner best kids. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and Matthew\, would you please call the roll? \nBoardroom SX80: Yes\, Commissioner Bieland. \nLetty Belin\, Commissioner: Aye. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Eisen. Aye. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: Commissioner Buscis. Yes. \nBoardroom SX80: Chair Gilmour. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Yes. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: okay\, so this item is concluded\, and I wanna remind everybody that the Commission is scheduled to hear and vote on this recommended Enforcement decision at its February first. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So February first\, or January eighteenth meeting. Excuse me. Chair. W. Would you mind for the record stating the \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Oh\, I’m sorry\, unanimously \nBoardroom SX80: thank you. And \nBoardroom SX80: the next \nso you’re asking\, when is the next Commission meeting this? \nBoardroom SX80: Ph. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: yes. The next Commission meeting is the eighteenth. Is this gonna be heard on the eighteenth \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: or February? First cause? I have 2 different notes here. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Oh\, goodness\, I’m sorry about that. Let me make sure I get the right date out \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: for public and for the record. \nBoardroom SX80: Let me get pull up that information for you. If you’ll \nBoardroom SX80: indulge me for a moment. \nBoardroom SX80: It’s it’s it’s on the agenda. \nBoardroom SX80: I’m sorry\, having trouble accessing the agenda. So I just wanna make sure I give you the correct information \nso \nexcellent. Tell me \nBoardroom SX80: I’m sorry I can’t. I can’t pull it up\, but I think it’s it. I just was told by Margie. She believes it’s perhaps February first\, in fact. \nBoardroom SX80: which makes sense. At this point. I am pulling up the agenda right now. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and it is \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: okay. I can confirm that it is not on \nBoardroom SX80: commission meeting. February first. Yes\, okay\, so it’s on the February First Commission meeting. I just got confirmation from rachel. Thank you\, Rachel. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, so \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So for the court reporter strike all references to this being held on January eighteenth. The correct date is February first\, 2024. The meeting will be held at 3 75 Field Street in San Francisco at 10’clock. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Alright\, thank you. Everybody. Item\, 8 is a \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: vote\, a hearing\, and a vote on the recommended Enforcement decision to resolve enforcement case er 2021 0 4 4.0 0. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So our next agenda item is a staff presentation and a vote on a proposed recommended decision to adopt the settlement agreement to be entered into with Carl \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Yohans Meyer\, of Tiburon\, Marin County. If this committee votes to adopt the recommended Enforcement decision\, which includes the proposed settlement agreement. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: It will be put up for a vote \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: of approval or or rejection \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: by the full commission at its February first\, 2024\, meeting\, which is scheduled to be held online and in person \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: at the Metro Center\, located at 375 Beale Street. in San Francisco City and county\, starting at 10’clock. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Excuse me\, Matthew wants to speak. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: No\, actually\, I put my hand out. Sorry I wanted to make sure that you gave the right date there\, too. It’s also going to be February first. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So after the staff presentation\, I’m going to ask the respondent to affirm. It’s agreement with the terms and conditions of the proposed agreement. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Then I will allow public comment on this item\, and afterwards the committee will hold our discussion and vote on Staff’s recommendation. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So at this time will the representative or representatives for the respondent please identify themselves for the record. \nJohn Sharp: Yes\, good morning. I’m John Sharp. I’m the attorney for Mr. Johan’s Meyer the owner of 5 blending lane in Belvedere. Not Tiburon. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Oh\, thank you very much for that clarification. Thank you for being here today\, and welcome. So I will. I will now invite enforcement analyst Rachel Cone to give her opening remarks. Rachel. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. Just one moment while I share my screen. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: And \nBoardroom SX80: does that look okay for everyone. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Yes. \nBoardroom SX80: okay. \nBoardroom SX80: So good morning chair\, Gilmore\, committee\, members and all in attendance today I’ll present Enforcement case number er 2021 dot 0 4 dot 0 0 \nBoardroom SX80: for which the respondent is Mr. Carl H. Johansmeyer\, represented today by Attorney John Sharp\, and thanks Mr. Sharp\, for being here. \nBoardroom SX80: I will begin by familiarizing you with the location of the violation\, followed by a timeline of events\, and then end by summarizing the violation and finally presenting the staff’s recommendation. \nBoardroom SX80: So there are 2 images on this slide. The one on the left is a zoomed out vicinity map\, and the one on the right focuses in more closely on the location of the violation. There is a red PIN on each image at 5 Blanding Lane\, Belvedere Island\, Marin County. \nBoardroom SX80: and the home is close to the southern tip of Belvedere island and faces east. \nBoardroom SX80: This is a photo of the property from the lower shoreline area taken facing west\, and there’s a yellow oval outlining the specific location of the violation. \nBoardroom SX80: On this slide the image on the left side of the screen shows the violation more closely. The respondent has represented that there was a fence surrounding this property for the past century\, and they needed to replace an 11 foot 2 inch long. Section of a 6 foot tall wire fence in approximately 2021 \nBoardroom SX80: that 11 foot 2 inch long. Section is the section that the respondent needed. Bcdc authorization prior to placing. \nBoardroom SX80: And I’ll now take you through the timeline of events in this case. So in May of 2021 BC. DC. Enforcement staff received a report from City of Belvedere Staff\, alleging that unpermitted fencing had been installed on the property of 5 Blanding lane within BC. DC’s 100 foot shoreline ban jurisdiction \nBoardroom SX80: BC DC. Opened enforcement case er 2021 dot 0 4 0 0\, and made initial contact with respondents authorized Representative Attorney John Sharp. \nBoardroom SX80: between May and June of 2021 respondent\, and Mr. Sharp informed Staff that they were meeting with consultants and a surveyor\, and had hired an architect\, indicating that they were beginning to put together initial application materials to seek and obtain after the fact permit for the fence replacement. \nBoardroom SX80: In September of 2021 city of Belvedere staff and a surveyor conducted a site visit at 5 Blanding Lane\, and reported their findings to BCDC. Staff\, who were unavailable to attend that day. \nBoardroom SX80: City staff confirmed that fencing had been placed on Mr. Johan’s Meyers property without permits. So with this information\, in October of 2021 Bcd. C. Staff issued a notice of violations to Mr. Johan’s Meyer\, initiating a standardized fine process which gave him 35 days to either remove the unpermitted fill\, or to seek and obtain a permit for the fence before standardized fines began accruing. \nBoardroom SX80: In March of 2022\, Mr. Sharp submitted an incomplete region. Wide permit application on behalf of the respondent\, seeking after-the-fact authorization for defense. \nBoardroom SX80: Then\, between October 2022 and October 2023\, Enforcement staff made several attempts to urge Mr. Johansmeyer to complete his Permit application and on October thirteenth\, 2\,023\, staff notified the respondent that the executive director was rescinding the opportunity to resolve the violation\, using the standardized fines. Process after determining that the respondent had not made a good faith effort to resolve the violation. \nBoardroom SX80: On October thirtieth\, 2023 staff mailed a violation report and complaint for administrative civil penalties to the respondent. \nBoardroom SX80: and finally\, on November thirtieth\, 2023 respondent and staff agreed to resolve this enforcement matter via the proposed settlement agreement. \nBoardroom SX80: So to summarize the one violation is for the failure to obtain a Bcd C. Permit prior to placing fencing in Bcd. C’s 100 foot shoreline ban jurisdiction\, and this is in violation of section 6\, 6\, 3\, 2. A of the Mccoyer Petras Act \nBoardroom SX80: to resolve this case. Staff recommends that the Enforcement committee vote to recommend that the Commission authorizes the executive director to execute the proposed settlement agreement\, which requires respondent to \nBoardroom SX80: one pay $2\,500 in administrative civil liability within 30 days of executing the agreement\, and 2 by February 2820\, 24. Either remove the unauthorized fence and submit photographic evidence of the same\, or submit their filed application\, seeking after the fact authorization for the fence. And that concludes the staff’s presentation\, and I will stop sharing my screen. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you very much\, Rachel. At this point\, Mr. Sharp\, I’m gonna ask you if your client agrees to the terms and the conditions of the proposed settlement agreement. Yes\, my client does\, and I am authorized to state that he’s prepared to execute the agreement. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Great! Thank you. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Do any Enforcement Committee members have any questions for either staff or for Mr. Sharp. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Eisen. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Go ahead. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. So just so that I’m understanding we sent a notice in March 2022\, that you have 35 days to fix this problem. \nBoardroom SX80: And now. a year and a half later. we’re settling it. Is that okay? What? What was happening in between then? Because. \nBoardroom SX80: what I’m worried about is the agreement says that they have to remove the fence or submit \nBoardroom SX80: the application which they said they were going to submit\, and really never did. So what happens if on February 2820 24\, \nBoardroom SX80: I mean\, we have. I don’t know how much effort has been put into this. We’re getting $2\,500 out of it. \nBoardroom SX80: What happens if yet again\, the respondent decides that they are going to neither remove the fence nor submit the proper application. \nBoardroom SX80: So that would then mean that the the settlement agreement goes away\, and we would commence formal enforcement through and and \nBoardroom SX80: require action through an order. Additional penalties we can seek\, because 2\,500 is not really going to be sufficient at that point. In time I would have to get back to you on that I’m not exactly sure. And how that would work. \nBoardroom SX80: Well\, I think the Commission may want to know that before they vote on that\, because an awful lot of effort is being put into getting somebody to do what they really should have done a year ago. \nBoardroom SX80: so \nBoardroom SX80: that’s that’s all I have. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you\, Rebecca. I think you bring up a very good point. I think\, as part of the presentation to the full commission \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: given given the history\, I mean no disrespect. But given the history of this I think the Commission should be informed as to if there’s non compliance\, what the next steps are\, and what penalties could conceivably be levy for non-compliance? \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Are there any other questions or comments by commission members\, committee members? Excuse me. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay. Seeing then\, Margie\, do we have any public comments? \nBoardroom SX80: He no public comment. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: And did we? I don’t believe we had any written comments prior to the meeting. \nBoardroom SX80: That’s correct. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, so one last time for committee members\, any final comments or questions. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, so at this point in time\, I would like a motion to approve the Executive Director directors recommended enforcement decision regarding proposed settlement agreement. \nLetty Belin\, Commissioner: Someone \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: I didn’t hear who moved. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, we have a motion by Commissioner Billen\, and a second by Commissioner Vasquez. Matthew\, would you please call them Wrong \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Bielin. \nLetty Belin\, Commissioner: Yes. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Eisen. \nBoardroom SX80: Yes\, Commissioner Busque. \nBoardroom SX80: Chair Gilmour. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Yes. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: so the motion passes unanimously. 4 0. And this item is concluded. The Commission is scheduled to hear and vote on this recommended Enforcement decision at its February first\, 2\,024 meeting. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and that will be held at feels 375 Deal Street in San Francisco at 10’clock committee members\, I will entertain a motion and a second to adjourn our meeting. \nBoardroom SX80: So moved \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: second. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: moved by Commissioner Eisen\, seconded by Commissioner Vasquez. Thank you very much. Everyone. Have a good day. We are adjourned. \n2024.01.11 ZOOM Recording Transcript – Enforcement Committee \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and this meeting of the Bcdc. Enforcement Committee is here by call to order. My name is Marie Gilmore\, and I am chair of this committee \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: for Commissioners\, including those attending at Beale Street. Please ensure that your video camera cameras are always on\, and please mute yourselves when you are not speaking. Our first order of business to day is to call the roll. Matthew\, please call the Roll Commissioners. Please unmute yourselves while he does this\, to respond\, and then mute yourselves \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: after responding. \nBoardroom SX80: Good morning\, Commissioner Bielyn. \nLetty Belin\, Commissioner: Here. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Eisen\, here Commissioner Vasquez. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: here \nBoardroom SX80: Chair Gilmour. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: here. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So we have a quorum present\, and are duly constituted to conduct business\, and that brings us to item 3 on our agenda public comment period. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: 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 the agenda. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and I believe\, Margie\, we have not received any general comments prior to the meeting. \nBoardroom SX80: We did share. We received one\, and it will be posted on our website. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you very much \nMarie 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. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Please raise your hand in the zoom application by clicking on the participants. Icon at the bottom of your screen. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and look in the box where your name is listed under attendees. Find a small palm icon on the left. If you click on that palm\, icon\, it will raise your hand. or if you are joining this meeting by phone\, you must Dial Star 9 to raise your hand\, then Dial star 6 on your keypad to unmute your phone. When the host asks you in order to make a comment. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: The meeting hosts 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 \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: for members of the public attending in person. Please queue up at the Speaker’s podium and wait to be called upon to speak. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Commenters are limited to 3Â min 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. \nMarie 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. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Margie\, do we have any commenters? \nBoardroom SX80: Chair Gilmour\, for online? We do not have\, as well as in person. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Commissioner Vasquez. Is there anybody? Are there any members of the public that which to make general comments at your location? \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: No\, there are not. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay. The next item on our agenda. Approval of the draft minutes for I believe\, is at the last 2 meetings. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Staff. \nBoardroom SX80: Yes. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: thank you. So committee members\, I would appreciate a motion and second\, to approve these meet meeting minutes. \nLetty Belin\, Commissioner: Second\, second. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: we have a motion from Commissioner Vasquez\, and a second from Commissioner Bill in Matthew. Would you please call the role \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Bielin? \nLetty Belin\, Commissioner: Aye. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Eisen. \nBoardroom SX80: Hi\, Commissioner Vasquez. \nBoardroom SX80: chair Gilmour. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Yes. thank you. The minutes are approved. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: The next item on our agenda is the Enforcement report and the Enforcement policy manager\, Matthew Trujillo will now provide the enforcement. Matthew. \nBoardroom SX80: thank you good morning\, chair committee members and greetings\, while members of the public in attendance welcome\, and also welcome to \nBoardroom SX80: Michael in who is acting general counsel here to day while Greg is on vacation. \nBoardroom SX80: First is a case update. Since our last meeting on November ninth\, 2023. In the past 2 months we’ve opened 5 new cases. We resolved 7 cases\, and as of today\, there are 71 unresolved cases in the queue. \nwhich is a net change of negative 2. Since my last report. \nBoardroom SX80: Second\, I want to note for this committee that we have issued extensions of time to both the city of Sausalito and to the Rbra\, to remove 2 vessels from Richardson’s Bay. \nThese extensions of time were granted on a finding of good cause by the executive director\, and they were both reviewed and approved by General by the general counsel prior to distributing \nBoardroom SX80: the city’s extension\, was granted through March 30\, first 2024\, and Rbra’s extension was granted through February 20\, seventh\, 2024\, \nBoardroom SX80: and that concludes my report. I’ll be glad to entertain any. Follow up questions about the status of the Enforcement program from the committee. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you\, Matthew. Do any members of the committee have questions for Matthew for comments? \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, seeing none? Are there any members of the public who have comments or questions on the Enforcement report. \nBoardroom SX80: There’s none. Joe Gilmore. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, thank you very much. Well\, that moves us on to item number 6\, \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: which is briefings by the Richardson Bay Regional Agency\, or Rvra\, and the city of Sausalito. On the anchor out abatement and eel grass restoration efforts in Richardson’s Bay. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: by both the Rb. Ra. And the city of Sausalito. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So at this time will the representatives or Rvra please identify themselves for the record. \nBrad Gross: Good good morning\, chair\, Giomore. This is Brad\, Gross\, executive director for Rvra with me today I have our harbor\, Master Jim Malcolm and our eel grass representative Rebecca Schwartz Lessberg from coastal polis policy solutions. I’d I’d like to begin with a quick apology. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: You’re jumping the gun just a tag. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: I would also like to have the representatives for the city of Sausalito identify themselves for the record. \nCatie Thow Garcia\, CIty of Sausalito: Hello! I’m Katie via the city of sustainability manager. \nBoardroom SX80: Clear. \nBrandon Phipps\, Community & Econ. Dev. Director\, Sausalito: Good morning\, Brandon Phipps\, community and Economic Development director with city of Sausalito. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Joan\, you’re muted \nJoan Cox: Joan Cox\, vice Mayor of Sausalito. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you both city of Sausalito and our Bra representatives for being here. Welcome? \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: And can I caution anybody? If you’re not \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: being speaking directly\, could you please mute yourself\, cause I’m hearing some whispers or feedback. I’m not quite sure where it’s coming from\, but if you can mute mute yourself if you’re not speaking\, it would be greatly appreciated \nJoan Cox: if I might\, as we also have Robert Mooney with us\, who is our field brass consultant. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Great. Thank you very much. \nCatie Thow Garcia\, CIty of Sausalito: Sorry to interrupt. I think we also should have a \nCatie Thow Garcia\, CIty of Sausalito: Brian Mather from the police department. I’m not sure if he was promoted\, or if he is online. But \nCatie Thow Garcia\, CIty of Sausalito: I was told that he was coming \nand \nCatie Thow Garcia\, CIty of Sausalito: let me confer with him. I’m not seeing him on the attendee list. Sorry about that. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, thank you. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, so at this point I’m going to invite Adrian Kline to give her introduction to this this presentation\, Adrian. \nBoardroom SX80: Let’s see. \nBoardroom SX80: Good morning. \nBoardroom SX80: everybody. Thank you very much. \nBoardroom SX80: so I have a quick little Powerpoint\, the purpose of which is really just to highlight in blue text\, the settlement agreement terms which \nBoardroom SX80: the RBRA. And then the city will expand upon so next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: So this\, these 21 points. Mark the the categories in the Rba Settlement agreement\, and the 4 in blue\, I believe\, will be the focus of the Rba’s presentation today. Next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: So this is direct text from the agreement regarding eelgrass\, habitat restoration. And I’ll just give you a chance to read \nBoardroom SX80: those 3 points. \nBoardroom SX80: therefore. \nBoardroom SX80: and the next slide is a continuation of this \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: section. \nBoardroom SX80: Go ahead\, please. I oops! I think we skipped one. \nBoardroom SX80: Go back one\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: Oh\, I’m sorry. My my mistake. \nBoardroom SX80: yes\, forward! \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you very much. So regarding management of vessels on the anchorage after 2019\, the agreement required that they be removed by the middle of October of last year\, and the Rbi requested and received a one year long extension\, to meet this requirement\, which was \nBoardroom SX80: greatly influenced by the COVID-19 pandemic next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: For vessels on the air anchorage prior to 2019 the floating homes were also to have been removed. The rba has been working hard to achieve this goal. For one\, they requested\, and received a 60 day extension\, and you’ll be hearing the status of that today. That was through December fifteenth\, and \nBoardroom SX80: in early December they received\, they requested\, a hundred 40 day extension\, and that\, as was just noted by Matthew\, was granted through February twenty-seventh. First\, a different single houseboat. So they are very discrete requests to rectify discrete. So negotiations. \nBoardroom SX80: or allow time for discrete negotiations. Next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: and these will be the presenters who you have all met\, so I’ll cede the floor to Brad Gross. Thank you. \nBrad Gross: Thank you very much\, Adrian\, and and my apologies. Chair Gilmore\, for jumping the gun I had just signed in. I was having problems with my connection\, and I was about to say that I apologize for no camera. But I’m going to leave it off \nBrad Gross: just to protect this connection that that we have and that I’m able to present to this board. So\, Adrian\, will you be presenting? Put it posting our Powerpoint. \nBrad Gross: I was counting on you to do that\, Brad. Is that okay? Great? Thank you. \nBrad Gross: If I \nBoardroom SX80: we’re happy to do that. Just let us know that day or 2 before next time. Thank you. \nBrad Gross: Not a problem. If \nBrad Gross: let me share my screen. Sorry for that. Everybody. My apologies. \nBrad Gross: Okay\, good morning\, everybody. \nBrad Gross: Chair Gail Moore\, Commissioners and members of BC. BC. Staff. As I said earlier\, I am Brad Gross\, and I have already. Introduced Jim Malcolm\, our harbor master\, and Rebecca Short Usberg will be presenting in conjunction with me today \nBrad Gross: before I begin. \nBrad Gross: I’d like to say that this presentation is dated by one month\, as we were originally scheduled as everybody knows\, to present on the December fourteenth\, and I will update any items verbally. If there have been any changes \nBrad Gross: as we have presented in the past\, we couldn’t do what we do here without our many partners. You see their logos displayed on this slide one of the changes. I did realize when looking at this slide\, that we fail to include coastal policy solutions\, and Merkel and associates who are ha obviously have been working with us for for many\, many years and helping us with our upcoming eographs program. \nBrad Gross: I’m just going to go through some of these milestones that Adrian had identified. And you’ve all seen in the past. \nBrad Gross: first of all\, \nBrad Gross: The petition for necessary Federal action has been completed and is on and going the removal of unoccupied. Most of these and the bright blue\, have already been done the ones with later due dates you see\, and that kind of I don’t know what to describe that color\, that other blue color \nBrad Gross: but the removal of unoccupied marine debris is done\, and ongoing as vessels may become marine debris\, we had we give them our immediate attention. We finalize the Environmental Protection and Management plan in 2021. No new vessels in the Eel Grass Protection zone is ongoing. There’ll be more discussion about that as we move on. The installation of moorings is on hold \nBrad Gross: the initiation of the Eel Grass restoration studies was done in 2022. The removal of the post 2019 vessels. As Adrian pointed out\, they received an extension\, and to October fifteenth of 2024\, and there’s some good progress that we’ll be talking about later on. What’s happening with those? The removal of the floating off floating homes off of all the point by October fifteenth. \nBrad Gross: 2023\, 2 were removed by the deadline\, and one \nBrad Gross: was actually the one that was provided. These initial 60 day extension was moved on a December eleventh to illegal floating home birth that leaves us one floating home\, and that vessel has been through a citation process and a nuisance abatement process for removal. And Rbra has requested\, and was recently granted one last \nBrad Gross: one last extension to allow the owner to repair and relocate his vessel. That extension now goes through February 20 twenty-seventh\, so our next presentation will have some more information on the the results of the extension\, and where that vessel there lies\, we anticipate it being out of the anchorage by the end of February. \nBrad Gross: moving on complete admin actions update ordinances has all been done\, and as we’ll show later in the presentation\, we do have their Coast Guard response\, which I’ve mentioned in the past\, and we have a new supporting order received from Judge Oric on December first\, which I will talk about further in the presentation \nBrad Gross: beginning of the implementation of the 10 Year Adaptive Management Plan. That plan was due. This again. This slide is a month old. It was planned\, was to be submitted on December fifteenth\, and it was submitted on time and on schedule. \nBrad Gross: Next item\, no vessels in the Epz. By October of 2024 we are working on a signage program and rubber. Master Malcolm will talk about the notifications that we’ve given to the vessels and our plans moving forward\, the removal of all occupied non safe and seaworthy vessels\, and now has an extension to october of 24 \nBrad Gross: and all these vessels in this category have been provided with the 12 month advance notice\, and again more of that by harbor. Master Malcolm. \nBrad Gross: Applying for a morning permit \nBrad Gross: the rest of these items have a due date by October of 2026\, so they will be reported on in future presentations\, but removal of all occupied safety\, worthy vessels\, removal of all vessels and occupants\, and only transient seaworthy vessels in the anchor zone\, all due dates of October of 2026. \nBrad Gross: I’m gonna just go through and report on \nBrad Gross: activities during this reporting period. I’m not going to go on the \nBrad Gross: Pass reporting period. But this is the vessel buyback program. During this reporting period 5 vessels have been purchased and properly disposed of. One floating home was purchased and disposed of during this reporting period\, bringing 8 total vessels\, purchasedly and properly disposed of since the reinstatement of the program\, in April of 2023\, \nBrad Gross: right around $40\,000 has been distributed since the reinstatement of the program\, and then just over $81\,000 has been distributed\, and 21 vessels have been properly disposed of since the program exception in 2022. \nBrad Gross: This is the letter I was talking about from the coastguard where it talks about Cfr. Section 33 dash point 1 10.1 2 6 alpha\, where the Coast Guard has delegated authority for the operational management to Richards of a regional agency. \nBrad Gross: This is a an important slide that I would like to present. On an order received by George Ork on December first\, 2023\, Judge Orrick provided an order to dismiss without leave to amend a claim against Rbra with language that supports Rbra’s position and codes regarding Rvra\, I’m sorry regarding Richardson Bay. \nBrad Gross: Specifically\, when Cfr. 33.1 10.1 2 6\, Alpha was identified\, the judge appined the following. the plaintiff argues or implies that Rbra’s anchorage ordinance is preempted by Federal law. He goes on to say that I agree that no regulation or Federal authority identified by the plaintiff\, preempts the authority of Rbra to control anchorages in Richardson Bay. Instead\, the Federal regulation he identified established Richardson Bay as a special anchorage and directs mariners to comply with Rbra’s permit scheme. \nBrad Gross: and although this opinion is still subject to appeal\, it mentions more than once regarding anchoring and living aboard on Richardson Bay that the United States Constitution does not confer a blanket right to anchor in Richardson Bay. Boaters do not have a constitutional right to unregulated long term anchorage in public navigable waters. \nHe goes on to talk about this particular plaintiff\, who was planning to live on his vessel. \nBrad Gross: where he says he admits that he intended to live on his boat in Richardson Bay\, which is not allowed under Arbra code\, and means that he would be denied a permit. \nBrad Gross: He goes on to say\, living aboard a houseboat or vessel anchored in Moore or moored in Richardson Bay is prohibited. \nIf \nBrad Gross: I’m gonna leave you with that\, well\, I’ll be back after Eographs update from Rebecca Schwartz\, Lessburg\, and the anchorage update by our harbour master. So I’ll turn this over to Rebecca. Now\, thank you. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Good morning\, everyone. Thank you\, Brad. Hello! I believe I’m know you all. But for those who I haven’t met\, my name is Rebecca Schwartz\, Lesburg. I’m the president of Coastal policy solutions. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: and I’ve been working with Rvra to advance their ill re their efforts to protect and restore Eel grass in Richard Simbay. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: So I’ll be sharing 2 main components today. The first is an update about the grant our Bra received from the Us. Environmental Protection agency to restore eelgrass\, and the second is\, I’ll be sharing results from our 2023 monitoring update that describes the Eelgrass monitoring efforts over the past year \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: next slide. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: so\, as you may remember\, Rbra was awarded 2.8 million dollars from the EPA’s San Francisco Bay Water Quality Improvement Fund. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: and that award funds\, the development of the Restoration and Adaptive Management plan that Brad mentioned\, that was submitted to BC. DC. On December fifteenth. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: It also funds the restoration of 15 acres of eel grass by 2027\, and the related ongoing adaptive management\, monitoring and partner engagement outreach associated with that Restoration effort \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: to implement this grant\, RBRA. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Awarded consultant services to Co. Still policy solutions and Merkel and associates for project management\, stakeholder engagement policy support\, and for the actual on the ground\, eel grass restoration. All of this is being done in collaboration with San Francisco State University’s Estuary and Ocean Science Center. Specifically\, Dr. Kathy Boyer and her lab \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: and Audubon\, California. The sub awards for those project partners are in process \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: next slide. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: So a little bit about the Restoration and adaptive management plan\, which we call the ramp. As Brad mentioned\, it was submitted on the fifteenth\, and this is a technical document that describes a 10 Year Adaptive Management Plan for restoration of 75 acres of eelgrass and Richardson Bay. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Now those 75 acres are anticipated to be restored through a combination of active restoration. So actually planting eel grass. non planting\, restoration actions\, things like removal of marine debris that’s on the bay bottom. \nand also \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: anticipated natural recovery of the eelgrass bed. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: This plan is consistent with the San Francisco Bay Plan\, the Richardson Bay special area plan and the California Ill. Grass mitigation policy. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: It does consider the beneficial reuse of dredge sediment. If backfill of mooring scars is required\, although that is not recommended as a first line action in this area. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: and then genetic accounts for both passive and active restoration\, and it builds on the results of the ongoing restoration studies that have been going on in the anchor scars over the past couple of years. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: The ramp itself\, as a document may be periodically updated as we receive results from those restoration studies\, other monitoring results or other adaptive management actions that become prudent \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: next slide. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Now\, I’d like to switch gears and talk about the 2023 monitoring update this update was given to the Rba. Board of Directors and the public. In the during the fall. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: and it’s a comprehensive report on all of the various \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: monitoring actions that have taken place over the past year to really get a sense of what is going. The dynamics of the ill grass bed and its health. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: There’s a variety of monitoring activities that we’ve taken. The first is that I’ll describe is the side scan sonar survey. \nThe survey was completed by Merkel and associates \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: during the summer of 2022. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: And this really looks at the in the health of the bed overall. So not just in the area where boats are anchoring and not just in the sanctuary or restoration areas\, but really the the overall bed. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: And there’s a few things that we can take away from these results. The first is that we have the same general pattern of eel grass covering Richardson Bay as previous years. So we see the core of the bed. In the central bay \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: it is present\, but less dense in the shallows. and there’s some evidence of wasting disease. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: and it as expected. It is absent from the deeper parts of the bay. basically anywhere deeper than about 5 feet mean lower low water\, and that’s consistent with what we know about the light limits of eel grass in the San Francisco Bay Area. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Now\, if we look at the overall acreage. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: we’re see and and how dense it is\, we can see a couple of things. The first is that we have just over 950 acres of eel grass\, and that’s \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: a good increase from the previous \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: size cancel in our survey that was completed\, which I’ll talk about in a moment. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: but ignoring for a second the total acreage. What I wanted to talk about is the cover class. So that gives us a sense of how dense the eelgrass bed is\, and that’s a proxy for eelgrass health \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: in the image. On the left hand side of the screen you see Richardson Bay. The green area is all the area that’s covered in eel grass\, and essentially the darker the green\, the more dense the eel grass is. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: So\, even though we have 950 acres or so of eel grass. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Less than half of that eel grass \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: is in the 40 to 100% cover class. So less than half of it is in that really dense \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: cover class and over a quarter is in the less than 5% cover class. \nSo it’s important to look at\, not just the total acreage\, but also how dense and healthy the Yalegrass bed is \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: next slide. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: So again\, I mentioned that binary change. If we look at 2019 versus 2022\, we see that 13% increase in the total acreage which is within normal bed variability next slide. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: But if we take a closer look at that change again on the left hand side\, both the the green and red and tan areas\, that’s all eel grass cover. But essentially\, what we’re seeing is that there are some areas of the eel grass bed that have expanded. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: And there’s some areas that have declined \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: the areas that are in tan\, orange and getting into that red color. Those are areas where we’ve actually seen a decrease in the old grass cover \nthe portions of their green and getting into the darker greens. That’s where we see expansion. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: What we can see here is a general decline in that nor in that northern reach\, as we’re getting up into the Audubon sanctuary\, and that’s likely due to thermal stress. The water up there is more shallow\, it gets warmer\, and it pushes the eel grass beyond its thermal limits. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: That red area in the core of the bed is where? \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Oh\, no\, not yet. Is where we’re seeing evidence of eelgrass wasting disease next slide. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: So as we look at our results through time\, we have these sides canceled on our surveys 6 times since 2\,003. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: The biggest change that we saw historically\, was the 2\,009 to 2\,013\, and overall absolute cover is generally increasing\, but variable over the past 20 years. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Now 20 years may feel like a long time to have data. And it’s a great data set to be working with. But it’s actually not very long in the context of an eel grass bed that can persuade me persist over hundreds or thousands of years. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Now\, the reason I was really digging into the cover class and the areas where we have changes increase or \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: expansion or contraction of the eel grass is that it gets to what we call the 100% cover equivalency. Basically\, what that means is that looking at the total acreage of eel grass that we have. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: if all of it\, if we collapsed it down so that all of it was at a hundred per cent. Covered. What acreage would we have then? \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Now\, if we look\, and and that is a better indicator of the bed health\, because that can tell us things about eel grass\, bed assumed productivity\, biomass\, and other metrics\, things like carbon storage. \nSo that is the dashed black line in the graph on the left-hand side. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: And again we have that same variable but generally increasing patterns since 2\,003. But where is the total acreage from 2019 to 2022 increased. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: The 100% cover equivalency decreased. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Basically\, what is telling us is that we’re getting mixed messages and mixed signals from the eelgrass bed\, about how it’s how the how it’s doing from a health and productivity perspective \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: next slide. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: the the second way that we’ve monitored. The bed is through aerial photography and Gis analysis. This has been done by Audubon\, California\, and has been repeated several times over the past several years \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: as opposed to the side scanned sonar which takes\, gets a comprehensive map of all of the eelgrass in Richard Simbay. The aerial photography is really designed as a damage assessment. So we just photograph the area where eel grass and anchoring co-occur so that we can get a better understanding \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: of how much eel grass is damaged by anchor scour\, and how much recovery we see within those scars \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: as a reminder. Anchor scour is the damage that we see to the eel grass from Anchor’s Change\, another ground tackle \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: and these methods were \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: verified\, and by a peer reviewed journal that was published\, peer reviewed journal article that was published in 2019. And so we’ve been repeating the methods for several years since \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: next slide. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: This is this may be a familiar image to many of you. This is an example of the aerial photography that we receive. From these the aerial views that we receive from this photography. Now\, hopefully. Then\, if you go to the next slide. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Yes\, that’s what I wanted to happen. What we’re doing is \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: looking specifically in roughly\, the area that is circled in blue here\, because that’s the area where we have both eel grass and anchoring. And so if when we zoom in to here\, we’re then able to say \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: how much of the eelgrass has been damaged from acre scour\, and you can see examples of what we call crop circles in this image\, depending on the clarity that you have on your screen. Basically the darker areas within this blue circle \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: or blue polygon. Those darker areas are eel grass and the circles that you see of lighter area within there. Those are the anchor scars or the crop circles that we’re talking about. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Next slide \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: we can. On the left is a more close up view of what we’re able to see in that photography. And the anchor scars that we’re able to document \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: on the right hand. Oh\, not yet on the right hand side \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: we’re looking at anchor scour. So basically\, if we add up the acreage of those of all those circles\, how much damage do we have? \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: We have results from 2017\, 2021\, and 2022. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Our methods provide both a low and high estimate for total anchor scour \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: back in 2017\, which is the first time this method was done\, we saw between 50 and 85 acres\, or 8\, sorry 50 and 84 acres \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: in 2021. That high estimate was even higher. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: And then in 22\, we’re really seeing a plateau of the damage. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: which is great news over all. We’re not seeing \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: robust recovery yet overall in the bed\, but we have it\, but we have seen \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: a plateau in the damage\, which is great news. We’ve at least stemmed the tide of ongoing anchor scour. Next slide a couple of notes about these damage assessments. In 2022 there was an area of unknown damage to the bed\, and it’s suspected that was a harmful algal bloom. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: and that limited some of the interpretations we could make of the data next slide in 2023. The assessment actually wasn’t possible \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: because there was what’s called a macro algal mat\, basically\, a large \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: film of algae over the eel grass bed that was obscuring it from view. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: And now these photographs cannot be taken at any time of the year\, so we couldn’t just wait for that to go away\, because the photographs have to be taken during the summer\, when the eel grass is at its maximum extent. It is a perennial plant. It grows and dies back each year\, so we need to take it during the summer. \nand it has to be taken at an extreme low tide. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: so unfortunately\, that Macro Algolat happened during those windows of when we could have taken the photograph\, so we were not able to do the survey in 2023\, \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: next slide. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: some additional findings that I wanted to share. So what we have. In these photographs here. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: on the left hand side we have some examples of where we’ve seen recovery within anchor scars. So on top are the images from 2021\, and on the bottom are the images from 2022. The green circles on the left are the same in each photograph\, and you can see we can see robust regrowth of eel grass within specific eelgrass scars \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: on the right hand side. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: It’s the same years of images\, but these are examples of scars where we have not yet seen recovery. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: So this is again\, both good news\, but also mixed news. The good news is that \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: again\, we’re demonstrating that as vessels are removed from the eograss protection zone we can expect for the eelgrass to recover. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: But if you’ll notice\, on the left hand side\, where we do see recovery\, those circles in 2021. They don’t have boats in them. We don’t know exactly what year those vessels were removed\, so from 2021 to 2022 \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: seems on our end as one year of recovery. But those scars actually could have been recovering for several years\, whereas on the right hand side\, where we don’t see the recovery in 2021. The boats are still there in 2022. They’re not there. So what this suggests is that it takes more than one year for the anchor scars to recover. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: which is good data for us to have\, because we don’t. Actually. there’s there’s not a lot of documented cases that can tell us how long we should expect it to take for these scars to restore themselves next slide. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: The last area of monitoring that we’ve been doing is our water bird monitoring\, and really the goal for this was to see where in Richardson Bay large groups of birds are doing what are codes called rafting\, which is when large groups of birds together rest on the base surface\, and they can rest in groups of up to 10\,000 birds. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: The reason we’re looking at. This is because we wanted to know as we change the pattern of where boats are anchoring in Richardson Bay. Are we also seeing a change in the pattern of where birds are using the bay. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: What we’ve seen here. So on the left hand side\, these are all of the drone. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: These are the I’m sorry. On the left hand side. It’s the results from the 6 drone surveys that we did during the 2022\, 2023 monitoring year. \nSo each of those image 6 images represents one survey. The red dots are where we see the rafts of birds. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Now we\, similar to previous years. We continue to see rats primarily along the northern and eastern shorelines. So so far we have not seen any change in how birds are using the bay \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: next slide. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Okay\, that was a lot of data\, a lot of graphs\, a lot of information\, some major takeaways from that information. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: So the good news is that the damage to eel grass from anchor scour appears to have plateaued. and we continue to see evidence of eel grass recovery \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: the less good \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: the overall health of the bed is questionable because we’re seeing an increase in that very sparse cover class. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: These are likely due to things like thermal stress\, wasting disease\, algal competition all things that are expected to increase with climate change. So the biggest takeaway from this is that\, given these known stressors that are going to continue to \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: stressed the eel grass in Richardson Bay. protecting and restoring the bed is more crucial now than ever. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: I believe I now hand it over to Jim\, but I will also be here at the end to answer any questions. \nRBRA: Morning. Thank you very much\, Rebecca. My name is Jim Malcolm\, the Harbor master for Richardson Bay Regional Agency going to talk this morning about our vessel census and status of vessels out on the anchorage to open our vessel census. We are currently our vessel. Census continues to drop. \nRBRA: We are as of December. We are sitting at 43 vessels. There has actually been. There has been a change to this\, but it went down by one and went back up by one. So we still sit at 43 vessels for January next slide\, please. \nRBRA: I’ll now go through the milestones individually\, and kind of discuss our trending for each milestone. Our first one is the post 2019 vessels as Director Gross had mentioned. In August we had\, we were at 14 of those post\, 2\,019 vessels. We currently in December. We are at 7\, and probably by the end of the week we’ll be sitting at 6. Post 2\,000 vessels \nRBRA: for our floating homes again\, as Director Gross have mentioned. In A. We were 2 in August\, and now we are down to our one remaining floating home. \nRBRA: our vessels in the Ap. In the eel grass protection zone 53. And we’re present last July 42 in August. And now we are down to 35 \nRBRA: and this is efforts through both vessel removals and efforts to \nRBRA: move vessels out of the eel grass protection zone into the actual anchoring zone. This will \nRBRA: be this number will continue to drop as we move forward on our signage project. And yeah\, actually mark out where the anchorage is\, and we continue on our efforts towards relocating\, reap both relocating vessels into the actual anchorage out of the eel grass protection zone\, and remove vessels from the anchorage and remove vessels from the Bay completely. \nRBRA: Our our October fifteenth\, of 2\,026 deadline for all occupied safe and seaworthy vessels removed. There were 10 last June or 10 in June of 2022\, 7 in August of 2023\, and that number remains steady at 7. \nRBRA: Total vessels on the water. We were 57 last last July 48\, and August\, and as I mentioned\, 43\, \nRBRA: and then\, in addition to that\, we have our th vessels that are present legally present under a 30 day permit. We have that numbers actually change since December. We now have 6 \nRBRA: 30 day permits. However\, 3 of those have overstayed their permit\, and are in various mechanisms of enforcement to have those vessels depart \nRBRA: next slide\, please. \nRBRA: 6. As I mentioned\, the this is the part of our efforts to work with the vessels that are over staying there. 30 day permits 6 citations were issued as of last December\, that numbers actually increased to 7 \nRBRA: 7 citations issued 3 initial. \nRBRA: 2Â s and one third. Actually\, that has increased by another. Third note\, third citation for a vessel. All of the citations that have been issued so far are for the Rba code section for entering in excess of 72Â h. \nRBRA: 2 nuisance abatements\, 2 nuisance abatement processes have been commenced one is on our one remaining floating home\, which we’ve put a stay on while the \nRBRA: responsible party for that floating home as their extension to remove the vessel\, and another nuisance abate. Note. Nuisance\, abatement. Notice will be going to a hearing next week. \nRBRA: All vessels are due to vacate the anchorage. By October fifteenth\, 2024\, with the exception of the 7 safe and seaworthy vessels all vessels that were due to vacate were issued a 12 month advance notice last October. \nRBRA: The a copy of the notices on the slide here. \nRBRA: Our plan is to prepare another notice for January\, and then\, as we progress into the summer\, the the number of notices \nRBRA: will increase in frequency \nRBRA: as vessels\, and then hopefully\, all vessels will also\, the number of vessels on the anchorage will decrease as we increase our both enforcement efforts and notice \nRBRA: and education efforts towards where vessels can legally anchor\, and which vessels are to be removed. \nRBRA: Finally\, for enforcement\, our planning is underway as director. Gross message mentioned for our signage and posting for the anchorage. 5 signs are to be to place on existing piles. \nRBRA: We have already identified the owners of those piles and have been in touch with them. and installation of one new pile and 3 floating buoys will be put in place to mark the actual bounds of the legal anchorage. \nRBRA: Plans are also underway to create the permit and submit to Bcd staff \nRBRA: permits are not yet submitted. The effective date for the permits will be this October and then all vessels in the Egrass protection zone as I mentioned\, did receive a 12 month notice to vacate\, and they’ll be receiving another mo another notice \nRBRA: this month. \nRBRA: Next slide\, please. \nRBRA: and that concludes my portion. And now I’m gonna turn it back over to Director Gross\, however\, similar to Rebecca. I will be remaining for the end of the presentation for any questions. \nBrad Gross: Thank you\, Jim. And thank you again\, Commissioners. \nBrad Gross: I’m gonna talk about our housing program now\, and how this all ties in with the vessels in the anchorage and the eel grass improvements that we’re planning\, as I’ve stated in the past our housing program is comprised by 4 components funding temporary housing support \nBrad Gross: case management and marina participations. And I’ve talked about all this in the past and just gonna go through it really quick our funding. 3 million dollars was received in March of 2023\, with thanks to Senator Mcguire for his support. The program began seeking applications in May of 2023\, and to date there’s been over a hundred $80\,000 expended into the program. \nBrad Gross: moving on Rbra rent housing authority contract was approved. We discussed their prefunding of $30\,000 last time we met with another $86\,000 provided to health and human services. \nBrad Gross: The contract between Health and Human Services and Episcopal community services for case management was approved in August of 2023 and Ecs. Has established a well received landside meeting dates in Sausalito. \nBrad Gross: and recently began there on the water outreach effort. I think the last time we talked. We were still looking for that full time case worker\, and that full time case worker with Ecs did begin employment very successfully\, I might say\, in October of 2023. \nBrad Gross: Regarding the Marina’s activities during this reporting period one marina is now committed\, and one marina has withdrawn participation. We are still seeking marinas\, not just in the Sausalito area\, but surrounding areas that are interested in assisting our bra and our programs to relocate the qualified vessels to Marinas. \nBrad Gross: This\, at a previous meeting this committee approved an extension for the post 2019 vessels that I mentioned earlier and harbor Master Malcolm mentioned\, and as part of that approval of that extension we \nBrad Gross: committed to providing this slide\, and this is a spreadsheet of tracking their progress. As you can see. \nBrad Gross: all but 3 vessels are either gone or engaged in some forward fashion in the program. So I wanna thank the committee. The Commission again for the extension\, because it’s proved to be very successful. We are working to get the last 3 folks engaged\, and the a few of these. I I’m not privy to the names of the people who have received vouchers\, but a few of these people I do know on this slide have vouchers and are actively seeking housing right now. \nBrad Gross: the temporary housing voucher program. There are 4 persons that are now housed. This again. This slide is a month dated there are 10 persons that are participating. I know that number is now 11\, which includes the 4 persons that are housed. 5 persons are in the queue to participate \nBrad Gross: with 2 persons that have a voucher and one pending as of last month. But as of today\, there are actually 6 people with vouchers that are actively seeking \nBrad Gross: housing. \nBrad Gross: What that important to us is that those 6 people relate to 6 more vessels being off the anchorage by the time. These soon after these folks get their housing\, and 4 vessels have been purchased via the vessel buyback program. Once those 6 people with vouchers are housed\, we anticipate getting those vessels which would bring us up into double digits vessels turned in via the vessel. Buy back program. \nBrad Gross: Now\, this is a new slide. You haven’t seen this one before but this slide\, and I’d like to explain it quickly. The the top 2 lines represent the vessels and the floating homes in the anchorage. \nBrad Gross: The bottom 7 lines represent our different supported programs like floating homes turned in persons\, house persons and process and remaining floating homes\, vessels turned in\, total vessels of loading homes turned in\, and persons with with vouchers. \nBrad Gross: and\, as you can see\, all the lines representing the ve. The vessels along the top are trending down. \nBrad Gross: and program related. Lines of vessels and floating home surged in persons with the vouchers. And most importantly\, persons housed are all trending up \nBrad Gross: and over the next few months we will see these lines eventually intercept and ultimately completely switch sides\, top to bottom\, which would be representing more successes in our programs. This is a very exciting trend that we’re seeing. And at our next presentation\, I think\, this. This slide will be very telling. \nBrad Gross: with that I want to \nBrad Gross: close\, and I’ll acknowledge this committee and BC. DC. Staff for their flexibility to work with us and our Bra\, and to explore \nBrad Gross: creative and common sense solutions to achieve our common goals. I’m convinced that this type of innovative and collaborative work will prove successful in the end. Thank you very much for your time and letting us present our latest achievements. If there are any questions \nBrad Gross: myself. Our master\, Malcolm and Rebecca Short Lustburg would be glad to answer them. Thank you very much. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you very much for that very comprehensive \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: presentation \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and I think I’m gonna ask the committee if you will hold all your questions. Until we hear the city of Sausalito. I know that was a lot of information. But I know you guys probably took great notes. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So Adrian\, do you have an introduction for the city of Sausalita. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. Chair Gilmore. Again. It is brief and follows the identical format. \nBoardroom SX80: So maybe\, Brad\, if you unshare your screen\, please and \nBoardroom SX80: If I could kindly ask Mtc. To share Adrian. \nBoardroom SX80: Chair. Goma\, we have. Barbara Salzman would like to speak. \nbarbara salzman marin audubon society: Well\, I just had. \nBoardroom SX80: You’re muted chair. \nBoardroom SX80: chair. Gilmore\, you’re muted. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: I’m sorry. Is Miss Salzman part of the presentation? Or is this public comment. \nBoardroom SX80: public comment\, public comment. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, we’re gonna hold public comment until later. We’re gonna go through the city of Sausalito’s presentation\, and then we’ll take questions and comments from committee members\, and then we will take public comments. So that’s kind of the way I see the scope \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: alright. So Miss Klein\, would you please give your introduction to the city of Sausalito’s presentation\, please? \nBoardroom SX80: Yes\, I’d be happy to thank you very much. \nBoardroom SX80: Good morning again\, Adrian Klein. \nBoardroom SX80: So next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: Again. These are the 10 sections of the city of Sausalito settlement agreement between BCDC. \nBoardroom SX80: And I believe the focus of their presentation today will be on vessel removal and eel grass\, habitat mitigation and damage next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: Most relevant is that \nBoardroom SX80: the city requested and received an extension mentioned earlier today by Matthew \nBoardroom SX80: to remove a the largest of the anchor outs known as the Fedora \nBoardroom SX80: from December 30\, first to March thirty-first. For reasons similar to those described by the Rba this will promote voluntary resolution. Next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: This \nBoardroom SX80: image outlines the settlement agreement\, provisions relating to illgress\, habitat mitigation\, and damage avoidance. \nBoardroom SX80: I’ll give you a chance to just glance through that. \nBoardroom SX80: And if that’s enough time next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: And this is a summary of the actions by the city and BC. DC. On this eel Grass Restoration plan. Most relevant is that in the summer and the fall we received an excellent draft eelgrass Restoration plan\, provided some comments on 2 occasions and also received input from third party experts. \nBoardroom SX80: We’re continuing as we do with the Rba to meet monthly we are. \nBoardroom SX80: The city is preparing to submit its I believe\, final eel grass restoration plan. Soon. We’re in agreement on the majority of the components of that plan \nBoardroom SX80: with some discussion around the total acreage that will be \nBoardroom SX80: planted\, and whether the agreement \nBoardroom SX80: goal of one to 2 mitigation to one acre impact is a requirement. and I believe the city may address that\, but we just wanted to \nBoardroom SX80: share that \nBoardroom SX80: question. That’s on the table with you. Thank you very much. I’ll turn this over. I would expect first to councilmember Joan Cox\, who will then go ahead\, I believe\, and introduce her staff. Thank you very much. \nBoardroom SX80: and we could unshare the VCDC. Presentation to allow the city to share its presentation. Thank you very much. \nJoan Cox: Thank you so much. Adrienne\, and good morning\, Chair Gilmore and members \nJoan Cox: of the Enforcement Committee. This is our triannual update to the Enforcement Committee. My name is Joan Cox\, and I’m the vice mayor for \nJoan Cox: Sausalita. \nJoan Cox: Here’s an outline of the topics that we will cover today. We’ll start off with our waterfront management update \nJoan Cox: provided by sassy police \nJoan Cox: the department Brian Mathers. Then we will have a report on our regional cooperation in housing presented by our community and economic development. Director Brandon. \nJoan Cox: Then our resiliency and sustainability manager Katie throw Garcia will provide an update on the eel grass habitat mitigation and damage avoidance plan and I’ll include some comments there and then we will close and \nJoan Cox: be available for questions. So with that I’ll turn it over to \nJoan Cox: Brian matters. \nBrian Mather: Good morning\, everybody. Thanks for having me. \nBrian Mather: So I’ll go over a brief review of our waterfront management. So currently we have 5 total vessels in our anchorage. Right now\, what? That’s actually a reduction from the last meeting or triannual update\, I believe. We had. \nBrian Mather: We had 5 legacy and and one extra. So there were 6. So next slide\, please. \nBrian Mather: if we have a slide next slide. \nBrian Mather: anyway. So what we have is for legacy anchor routes. We actually ended up one of our legacy members ended up \nBrian Mather: getting ill. And so we’ve removed that person from the water\, and we’re working on housing for that person currently. The \nso the main issue or the main focus right now is the vendor\, as you see\, and that’s why we asked for the extension \nBrian Mather: and it was granted. So we appreciate that. So we’ve been in communication with the owner. We’ve been trying to work with the owner. There’s been some delays in the cooperation with the owner. And so we’ve been actively and currently are still actively working on the enforcement piece of that\, and are hoping to have that done within the next \nBrian Mather: month or so. But you know\, with whether finances staffing for marine assets and everything else\, it it’s a pretty complicated venture\, because it’s a very large boat. \nBrian Mather: So we’re we’re doing 2 things trying to get cooperation still from the owner and also working on the enforcement end of it\, if if that needs to take place. \nBrian Mather: So that’s the the end of our update. As far as our waterfront management. We haven’t had any. We had 2 vessels come in in the last month we were able to get them to move on within the 72Â h period\, in accordance with our State ordinance. \nBrian Mather: So that’s where we stand at this moment. If there’s any questions after\, I’ll be standing by for any questions. \nJoan Cox: thank you. And with that we’ll turn to Brandon Phipps\, our community Development Director. \nBrandon Phipps\, Community & Econ. Dev. Director\, Sausalito: Good morning\, Chair\, Gilmore\, Dcdc. Members and members of the public as Vice Mayor Cox mentioned. My name is Brandon Phipps\, Community and Economic Development Director. With so solido. Glad to be addressing you today to provide a brief update in connection with Section 3\, a per agreement related to regional cooperation and the development of resources\, and taking\, if necessary\, actions to support housing opportunities for anchor outs and Richardson Bay. \nBrandon Phipps\, Community & Econ. Dev. Director\, Sausalito: Regarding ad use. The city recently updated its adu ordinance to comply with State adu law. More specifically\, this item was approved with recommendations by the planning Commission in July was adopted by City Council in October. \nBrandon Phipps\, Community & Econ. Dev. Director\, Sausalito: The Community Development Department continues to track new housing policy at the State level and may be required to make additional updates to our ordinance this year in order to continue to be compliant\, and we certainly intend to do that as required. \nBrandon Phipps\, Community & Econ. Dev. Director\, Sausalito: Additionally\, I’ll just briefly speak to this. On January 5 of this year the city of Sausalito released a public comment draft environmental impact report for the implementation of our housing element programs. And this document has been prepared to address \nBrandon Phipps\, Community & Econ. Dev. Director\, Sausalito: potential environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the proposed project\, that being our housing element\, but particularly as related to the rezoning and selected opportunity sites at higher densities\, and this is all required under the California Environmental Quality Act. \nBrandon Phipps\, Community & Econ. Dev. Director\, Sausalito: So the draft Eir will be circulated for a 45 day review period\, during which comments on the draft Eir may be submitted to the city\, and I hope this goes without saying. But the city welcomes any comments from the Bcd. On the public comment Draft Eir\, which is posted to our website. And I am happy to \nBrandon Phipps\, Community & Econ. Dev. Director\, Sausalito: provide any personal contact information or follow up with individual BC. DC members. If there are any questions\, that will do it for my update this morning. Thank you all for your time today\, and I will now pass the mic to our illgress. Consultant Robert Moody\, who will discuss excuse me\, I will pass the mic to Katie. Back. Garcia. Go ahead\, Katie. Thank you. \nCatie Thow Garcia\, CIty of Sausalito: Thank you so much. Brandon. I’m here to present the the city’s progress on illgrass habitat mitigation and damage avoidance. In the blue text on the left you can see the the status updates which Adrian also presented which which have been presented to the Enforcement Committee prior to this meeting today in the text\, \nCatie Thow Garcia\, CIty of Sausalito: on in the red. You will see our our updates from the most recent Enforcement Committee meeting\, which took place on August 20 third\, where we provided an update \nCatie Thow Garcia\, CIty of Sausalito: on October eleventh we received A. BC DC. Response to expert review on our draft Eelgrass restoration Plan. \nCatie Thow Garcia\, CIty of Sausalito: Following this\, South\, Ludo submitted a summary of future eel Grass Restoration Plan efforts on November twenty-seventh\, which included the city’s offer of additional protection measures rec recommended by regional experts. As far as this. This is the brief update on eel grass habitat from my end\, and I will. I will pass it on to Vice. Mayor Cox. \nBrandon Phipps\, Community & Econ. Dev. Director\, Sausalito: vice Mayor\, I think you’re on mute. Excuse me. \nJoan Cox: thank you. Thank you\, Katie. \nJoan Cox: so I would like to address the issue that Adrian Klein made mention of during her introductory comments\, and that is the requirement of the settlement agreement. So the settlement agreement with the city of Sausalito States \nJoan Cox: quote goals in the plan will include compensatory mitigation at a ratio of no less than 1.2 to one mitigation area to impact area. So the settlement agreement says\, goals in the plan will include \nJoan Cox: on these and and indeed\, \nJoan Cox: that is important. Because the it’s important that it’d be a goal and not a requirement\, because it may actually be be infeasible. \nJoan Cox: So \nJoan Cox: on July 31\, 2023 regional experts\, lawyer and Merkel\, as well as coastal policy solutions opined that the 1.2 to one mitigation ratio could be infeasible to attain. Given Richardson Bay’s Natural Geomorphology and ability to support ingress. \nJoan Cox: It was therefore suggested that the settlement agreement be revisited. \nJoan Cox: And so\, on August seventeenth\, 2023\, I requested that Pcdc. Council provide a written analysis of Bcd. C’s position \nJoan Cox: without ever providing us with that analysis. BC DC. Staff on December thirteenth\, for the first time\, announced that the 1.2 to one ratio in the settlement agreement is a requirement and not just a goal. \nJoan Cox: as stated in the executed settlement agreement. It’s it baffles me that \nJoan Cox: the sentence in settlement agreement States goals in the plan will include\, and that BC. DC. Staff is now taking a position that this is a requirement in contravention of what regional experts opine is feasible. \nJoan Cox: So converting a goal into a requirement appears to be setting the city up for failure. \nJoan Cox: And this is very puzzling to me\, because we have a long history of cooperation and rapid progress toward meeting BC. DC. Goals\, and we would prefer to continue to work collaboratively\, moving forward. \nJoan Cox: It also is notable to me that this \nJoan Cox: goal is not in the settlement agreement with Rbra. \nJoan Cox: I noticed that this morning\, during Adrian Klein’s presentation that language does not appear in their settlement agreement. So why is BC. DC. Turning a goal into a requirement and insisting upon that goal only against the city of Sausalito\, and not \nJoan Cox: the Rvra. So \nJoan Cox: II hate to close on a challenging note. But this is an issue of great concern to the city. \nJoan Cox: And with that that concludes our presentation\, and we’re available to answer any questions. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you very much. The this committee thanks Ra. And the city of Sausalito’s representatives for the briefings. For being here and the time that it took to craft presentations. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So at this point\, do any of the Enforcement Committee members have \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: questions for either staff or for our guests. \nBoardroom SX80: I don’t see any. \nBoardroom SX80: No questions. Actually\, Chair Gilmore. Commissioner Eisen. \nBoardroom SX80: Okay\, Commissioner Eisen\, I can’t. I can’t see her on the screen. So it’s difficult. That’s the problem with showing up in person actually less visible. \nBoardroom SX80: Ii have a number of questions I did try to take notes as you suggested. Chair Gilmore\, but stick with me as I go back through the slides. \nBoardroom SX80: So with respect to the the \nBoardroom SX80: requests for extension that we’ve been told about today. \nBoardroom SX80: I am wondering\, and I guess I would go back to Director Gross. I’m going all the way back to the beginning of the slides. I think I heard from Adrian that the reason for those requests was to promote voluntary resolution. I think that was the phrase Adrianism. Yeah. \nSo I am wondering what? What exactly that means. What are we trying to reach some kind of a settlement agreement \nBoardroom SX80: in lieu of some kind of enforcement action. With respect to a couple of these vessels \nBrad Gross: for the question\, I appreciate it\, and no\, we are not looking for a settlement. We are actually\, we’re looking for a a conclusion. We’re looking for an amicable conclusion\, which is\, I’ll give you an example of the first floating home who was\, provided a 60 day extension. He worked diligently\, and was able to \nwith the assistance of the flexibility of this committee. \nBrad Gross: Get into a legal liverboard slip with this loading hall. \nBrad Gross: the next floating home that we’re working on. He claimed. We. We went through the citation process. We went through the abatement process. We are ready to move forward with a warrant if necessary\, but I thought it was\, \nBrad Gross: a a better solution to give him one more opportunity to get his boat relocated\, or turn it into our bra for proper disposal as opposed to \nBrad Gross: going through legal action\, II have to tell you\, and it’s no secret rvra is a very small agency with a very small budget with very high insurance costs all related to litigation. \nBrad Gross: Because of the actions that we’re taking. We will take those actions\, but it’s makes more sense to us to \nBrad Gross: give folks ample opportunity to abide by the regulations. Ultimately \nBrad Gross: this last vessel that got the extension and the other vessels got the extension \nBrad Gross: will be removed hopefully those folks will be housed. But \nBrad Gross: A perfect example is that if if we force people out of our anchorage. \nBrad Gross: they end up being a liability to somebody else. They move somewhere else. I could tell you that some of the the vessels that were really recently removed from saw Slato anchorage on the 72Â h notice simply made it over to our anchorage\, and one of them \nBrad Gross: is on a 30 day. Permit one of them’s getting a citation. So it’s become our problem. And we don’t want to. We don’t want to incur that type of oppression and any other agency. So working with these\, with the committee and these extensions\, I believe\, allows us\, and allows the voters ample time to take the correct actions. \nBoardroom SX80: Yep. \nwell\, I totally appreciate that these are in enormously complex \nBoardroom SX80: but what I’m trying to understand\, because we’ve heard now reports of regularly\, and each time there are sort of more and more \nBoardroom SX80: discussions about extensions\, but on the milestone slide one of the original slides. It’s the one with the black oyster catchers on it. \nI’m wondering if there is \nBoardroom SX80: any anticipation that there will be more requests for extension beyond the ones that have. \nBoardroom SX80: Just been provided. \nBrad Gross: That’s a great question. And and with in all honesty\, we are sitting with \nBrad Gross: over 30\, about 35 people who qualify for housing voucher program. \nBrad Gross: We have 6 factors out right now. We have\, according to our colleagues from health and human services. And we’re in housing authority. \nBrad Gross: They’re figuring we’re going to be able to get another 13 of them house within the year. As I told this committee\, and anybody who will listen\, we’re figuring they can house about 2 a month. So and all\, honestly\, yeah\, we’ll probably be back in close to 2\,024 to say\, look\, we’ve got a successful program. We’ve house 20 people. We remove 20 boats. We have a dozen left. We’re going to need some more time with them. \nBrad Gross: And I’m hoping that the this committee will see the wisdom in providing extensions if they’re required. As long as we are proving that the program is successful\, it’s really just as you know. The officers from Salsa said. It’s a time money staffing issue. Convincing \nBrad Gross: landlords to take these folks\, which isn’t really a problem. It’s just really a a timing and processing to get these people through the system. If we had. \nBrad Gross: you know\, we were\, we were allotted 3 million dollars. If we were allotted 6 million dollars we would have been able to bring in double the staff and put and house double the people. But we’re working diligently. We’re working successfully. It’s all proving to be working. So we’re hoping that if we do come that this committee will see the wisdom and providing another extension if required. \nBoardroom SX80: And II recognize that there’s a balancing act that goes on in terms of you know what what you achieve by an extension versus what you lose by an extension. But from what I understand from the eelgrass presentations both from the Rbra and Sausalito\, is that as these vessels continue to sit out there\, we continue to have \nBoardroom SX80: consequences to the eel grass which themselves require money and time to restore\, and to get back to where we should have been\, especially at this \nBoardroom SX80: critical time in our history\, where we have to do everything we can to capture carbon. So I’m hoping all of that is being balanced as we move through this problem. And along those lines. I’m wondering with respect to the Fedura. So now I’m sort of switching to Sausalito for a second. How long has it been that we have been \nBoardroom SX80: working with this particular owner? \nJoan Cox: When did we start that process. We’ve been working with this owner since since I’ve been involved in 2\,017 and perhaps longer. \nJoan Cox: Can provide an update. It it the last I understood. It looks as though we actually may have to \nJoan Cox: it it when it’s not entirely here\, we may actually have to undertake removal \nJoan Cox: through the enforcement process. But I’ll let Lieutenant another address. That group. \nBrian Mather: Yes\, Vice Mayor\, that’s accurate. You know we we’ve been engaged in some lengthy conversations\, and you know it’s turned into \nBrian Mather: the owner and the rep representatives not responding and getting legal aid. And and so there’s some stall tact\, tactics involved in that. So you know\, the city side at this point is enforcement. We’re hoping that maybe during the enforcement period that \nBrian Mather: they wake up and decide to actually take custody of their boat and and take care of it. But then\, you know\, like our bra says\, you know\, we run the risk of them moving that boat just into to their jurisdiction. We don’t want that\, and we’re not gonna allow that. So it’s a delicate situation. With resources\, and also taking people’s property and litigation. And what could happen after that? So we’re trying to do this right? \nBrian Mather: And that’s why we requested that extension is we gotta make sure we do this right for all parties involved and not rush into this. I know we\, the books\, been here for 26 years. So \nwe’re not trying to do this hastily. Here\, we’re just trying to do it right so. \nJoan Cox: And I will say\, you know\, we undertook the expense of doing a survey of the boat to see whether the boat is still salvageable. At this point the boat is actually considered to be marine debris under the definition. And so but we’ve made every effort to identify creative solutions. At this point. \nJoan Cox: Given this looming deadline we’ve into the enforcement approach. \nBoardroom SX80: Yeah\, I mean\, if you’re saying that we have been trying to resolve this for 6 going on 7 years now\, yeah\, it really does think sound like the time is \nBoardroom SX80: ripe for moving to a different strategy than trying to get voluntary cooperation. But \nBoardroom SX80: at the last the last question I have\, and I’m I’m sorry to hear. \nThat a dispute has arisen between Sausalito and our staff\, because we have commented on each and every one of these presentations \nBoardroom SX80: about the thoroughness and the cooperation\, and how pleased we are at how things are moving. So I it’s concerning that we’ve had maybe the first of our sort of bumps in the road together. I’m I don’t know enough about this issue to ask even intelligent questions\, but it seemed to me \nBoardroom SX80: that when we set forth the 1.2 to one goal in the settlement agreement in the agreement \nBoardroom SX80: that there must have been some basis for thinking that was possible. So one of the things I would want to know\, maybe as we move forward is what has changed to make that now sound like it’s impossible. \nBoardroom SX80: because at at least a couple of years ago it sounds like it was considered feasible enough to set it as a goal. So that’s just a comment. I’m not really expecting a response. But that \nBoardroom SX80: is something that I think you know needs to be explored for for our committee. That’s all I have\, Mr. Chair Gilmore. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you\, Commissioner Eisen. Any other committee members \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: have questions or comments \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: I wanna weigh in on that last point about the the settlement agreement. And I think this is going to be right for \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: either a future briefing by staff or the next time. Our scheduled briefing with the city of Sausalito. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Not only do I wanna know\, along with Commissioner Eisen is what’s changed between the time we entered into the agreement. And now that makes this infeasible. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: But I would like to hear from the the experts\, or or get more information on their expert opinion as to why it’s infeasible. And also Staff’s response to that. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: I just basically like to have a discussion. So we can understand a little bit more clearly. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: The the facts of the situation. So that’s all I’m gonna say for now. And obviously I don’t expect \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: a comment. Now this is for a a future meeting. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So\, having said that\, I’m going to ask if there’s any public comment on this item\, I know we had one hand raised earlier. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So first of all\, is there anybody in in the room \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: that would like to speak? \nBoardroom SX80: Non\, chair\, Gilmore. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, so then let’s go to the commenter \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: who attended this stage previously. \nBoardroom SX80: we have an online public comment from Barbara Salzman. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay. go ahead. I believe you have 3Â min to speak. \nbarbara salzman marin audubon society: Barbara Saulson. I represent them more in Audubon society\, and I first like to commend Rebecca for her good presentation. And also say that I assume that we could just contact you for a copy of the record report\, because\, yeah\, we I don’t have that \nbarbara salzman marin audubon society: and secondly\, about the RA presentation. There was a mention. I don’t think we need to spend a lot of time on this\, but there was a mention of going to other marine is in the vicinity for a possible relocation. \nbarbara salzman marin audubon society: and that does raise some concern for me because I it was my\, it’s been my understanding that Marina is a really only allowed to have liver boards or or people living on their boats for protection purposes. And it’s very limited. So I do have to raise. It’s a question of how how realistic that is as a as a \nbarbara salzman marin audubon society: a relocation \nbarbara salzman marin audubon society: potential moving forward because II wouldn’t. You wouldn’t be wanting to move people as to other marine is where it’s not legal\, of course. \nbarbara salzman marin audubon society: And thirdly\, with regard to to Sausalito and the the the apparent change here in in requirements. \nbarbara salzman marin audubon society: You know\, I’d like to point out the source of lead\, though it’s really been in the forefront of moving this along. They they they took the initial action\, and they are continuing our small city and they’re continuing to make in my view efforts and I would hope that this would be clarified and the the good point made by the city that it’s now changed to a requirement. \nbarbara salzman marin audubon society: II if II find it \nbarbara salzman marin audubon society: You know\, unexplainable. Why\, why\, that’s taking place\, and so maybe something’s going on that I don’t understand. But I’ve been involved in this a long time\, and I do think that it’s not fair to have 1 one jurisdiction ha! Having to make certain requirements that are pretty \nbarbara salzman marin audubon society: owner is\, and and the other jurisdiction\, I mean\, I want success for everybody but the other jurisdiction not having to \nbarbara salzman marin audubon society: have that requirement. So I hope you consider that. \nbarbara salzman marin audubon society: Thanks a lot. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you very much. \nBoardroom SX80: Do we have any other? \nBoardroom SX80: Sorry\, that’s all we have here\, Gilmore. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, thank you. One last chance for any committee members to make a final comment or question. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, seeing then\, once again\, I want to extend the committee’s thanks to both the Rba and the city of Sausledo for very comprehensive and informative presentations today. Thank you very much. And enjoy the rest of your day. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay. So now we move on to Item number 7. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: It is a staff presentation\, and a vote on a post recommend recommended decision to adopt a settlement agreement to be entered into with Roger Stan Bridge\, of Alameda\, City and County. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: If this committee votes to adopt the recommended Enforcement decision\, which includes the proposed settlement agreement\, it will be put up for a vote of approval or rejection by the full Commission at its January eighteenth. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: 2024\, meeting\, which is scheduled to be held online and in person at the Metro Center\, which is located at 3 75 Beale Street\, in San Francisco City and county\, and that meeting begins at 10’clock. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, after the staff gives her presentation\, I will ask\, respondent to affirm its agreement with the terms and conditions of the stipulated order. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Then I will hold public comment on this item\, and then afterwards we\, the committee\, will hold our discussion and vote on the staff’s recommendation. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, at this time. Will. The representative or representatives of the respondents. Please identify themselves for the record. \nBoardroom SX80: Margie\, just this is Adrian Klein. Just inform me\, Mister Standridge had been online\, but he is working. So it seems that we’ve lost him at this point. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, thank you for that. But clearly he has been notified of the meeting and he was here. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So we will. Go ahead and proceed with policy enforcement analyst Adrian Klein. Will give her her presentation. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. Chair. Gilmore. May I have the item? 7 slide? Thank you very much. Next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: So as per usual. This will be quite brief\, but we’ll run through location timeline of events. Summary of the violation and staff recommendation to the Enforcement Committee next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: So the site addresses 3 0 2 5 Marina. Drive in the city and county of Alameda the Red Arrow is pointing roughly to the address on the Alameda shoreline next slide\, please. Zooming in a second Google Earth image \nBoardroom SX80: next slide\, please\, when you’re ready. Thank you so much. There may be a little lag. So this red arrow is now pointing to \nBoardroom SX80: 3025\, Marina drive. \nBoardroom SX80: and you can see a single boat dock with a white boat. The single boat dock is the \nBoardroom SX80: subject of this proceeding. Next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: So as you will have read in the staff\, recommended Enforcement decision. There was a an existing boat\, Doc\, that was replaced in 2\,000 by a former owner\, who submitted\, but never filed as complete a permit application. The BC. DC. Staff did not pursue resolution of this violation. Between \nBoardroom SX80: the year 2\,000 \nBoardroom SX80: and the present in 2018\, Mr. Roger Standrich Pre. Purchased this property\, and in 2021 BC. DC. Or 2022 BC. DC. Staff\, initiated communications with Mister Sandridge to have him either remove the unauthorized Doc or submit \nBoardroom SX80: a complete permit application so that we could retroactively authorize the existing structure. \nBoardroom SX80: Mr. Standridge was not surprisingly surprised to be hearing from us and to to learn of this unauthorized structure. So\, despite the fact that he was initially not particularly responsive\, recently he’s been very responsive and cooperative. \nBoardroom SX80: so we did. He wasn’t responsive to our initial enforcement communication\, so we escalated to commence a formal enforcement proceeding. This hearing is the culmination of that he did respond to the violation report\, and indicated that he would like to settle rather than have a contested order\, and we were able to reach those terms which I will describe. So next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: So this is just a single violation. For the failure to obtain a permit to replace a smaller replacement. Dock. So it is less bay fill than had been previously in place for a legitimate water oriented use of the bay next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: So the terms which we have negotiated\, and both both Staff and Mister Standard Degree to our to either by the middle of February\, remove the unauthorized doc and gangway\, and submit photographic evidence or submit a filed application for the existing structures\, and to pay a $2\,000 penalty which Mr. Sandridge Hand delivered to the office yesterday. \nBoardroom SX80: and that concludes the staff presentation with that recommended recommended \nBoardroom SX80: decision for the committee. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you\, Adrienne. Normally. This is where we would ask the respondent to \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: affirm that he agrees with the terms and conditions of the proposed settlement. Agreement. However\, he’s not here\, but I wanna point out again for the record that he has signed the settlement agreement. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: However. It does not become effective until the full Commission votes on it on January eighteenth\, 2024. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So\, having said\, all of that do any members have questions for Adrian at this point. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, not seeing any. Margie\, do we have any public comment on this item? \nBoardroom SX80: We do not hear Gilmore \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and I believe we didn’t have any written public comment prior to this correct \nBoardroom SX80: correct. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, great. So at this point in time\, I’ll need a motion and a second to approve \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: the settlement agreement. \nBoardroom SX80: Move the staff recommendation. \nLetty Belin\, Commissioner: Second. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay. So \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: the it was a new spot. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So it was moved by Commissioner Eisen and seconded by Commissioner best kids. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and Matthew\, would you please call the roll? \nBoardroom SX80: Yes\, Commissioner Bieland. \nLetty Belin\, Commissioner: Aye. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Eisen. Aye. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: Commissioner Buscis. Yes. \nBoardroom SX80: Chair Gilmour. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Yes. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: okay\, so this item is concluded\, and I wanna remind everybody that the Commission is scheduled to hear and vote on this recommended Enforcement decision at its February first. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So February first\, or January eighteenth meeting. Excuse me. Chair. W. Would you mind for the record stating the \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Oh\, I’m sorry\, unanimously \nBoardroom SX80: thank you. And \nBoardroom SX80: the next \nso you’re asking\, when is the next Commission meeting this? \nBoardroom SX80: Ph. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: yes. The next Commission meeting is the eighteenth. Is this gonna be heard on the eighteenth \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: or February? First cause? I have 2 different notes here. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Oh\, goodness\, I’m sorry about that. Let me make sure I get the right date out \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: for public and for the record. \nBoardroom SX80: Let me get pull up that information for you. If you’ll \nBoardroom SX80: indulge me for a moment. \nBoardroom SX80: It’s it’s it’s on the agenda. \nBoardroom SX80: I’m sorry\, having trouble accessing the agenda. So I just wanna make sure I give you the correct information \nso \nexcellent. Tell me \nBoardroom SX80: I’m sorry I can’t. I can’t pull it up\, but I think it’s it. I just was told by Margie. She believes it’s perhaps February first\, in fact. \nBoardroom SX80: which makes sense. At this point. I am pulling up the agenda right now. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and it is \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: okay. I can confirm that it is not on \nBoardroom SX80: commission meeting. February first. Yes\, okay\, so it’s on the February First Commission meeting. I just got confirmation from rachel. Thank you\, Rachel. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, so \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So for the court reporter strike all references to this being held on January eighteenth. The correct date is February first\, 2024. The meeting will be held at 3 75 Field Street in San Francisco at 10’clock. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Alright\, thank you. Everybody. Item\, 8 is a \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: vote\, a hearing\, and a vote on the recommended Enforcement decision to resolve enforcement case er 2021 0 4 4.0 0. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So our next agenda item is a staff presentation and a vote on a proposed recommended decision to adopt the settlement agreement to be entered into with Carl \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Yohans Meyer\, of Tiburon\, Marin County. If this committee votes to adopt the recommended Enforcement decision\, which includes the proposed settlement agreement. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: It will be put up for a vote \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: of approval or or rejection \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: by the full commission at its February first\, 2024\, meeting\, which is scheduled to be held online and in person \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: at the Metro Center\, located at 375 Beale Street. in San Francisco City and county\, starting at 10’clock. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Excuse me\, Matthew wants to speak. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: No\, actually\, I put my hand out. Sorry I wanted to make sure that you gave the right date there\, too. It’s also going to be February first. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So after the staff presentation\, I’m going to ask the respondent to affirm. It’s agreement with the terms and conditions of the proposed agreement. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Then I will allow public comment on this item\, and afterwards the committee will hold our discussion and vote on Staff’s recommendation. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So at this time will the representative or representatives for the respondent please identify themselves for the record. \nJohn Sharp: Yes\, good morning. I’m John Sharp. I’m the attorney for Mr. Johan’s Meyer the owner of 5 blending lane in Belvedere. Not Tiburon. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Oh\, thank you very much for that clarification. Thank you for being here today\, and welcome. So I will. I will now invite enforcement analyst Rachel Cone to give her opening remarks. Rachel. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. Just one moment while I share my screen. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: And \nBoardroom SX80: does that look okay for everyone. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Yes. \nBoardroom SX80: okay. \nBoardroom SX80: So good morning chair\, Gilmore\, committee\, members and all in attendance today I’ll present Enforcement case number er 2021 dot 0 4 dot 0 0 \nBoardroom SX80: for which the respondent is Mr. Carl H. Johansmeyer\, represented today by Attorney John Sharp\, and thanks Mr. Sharp\, for being here. \nBoardroom SX80: I will begin by familiarizing you with the location of the violation\, followed by a timeline of events\, and then end by summarizing the violation and finally presenting the staff’s recommendation. \nBoardroom SX80: So there are 2 images on this slide. The one on the left is a zoomed out vicinity map\, and the one on the right focuses in more closely on the location of the violation. There is a red PIN on each image at 5 Blanding Lane\, Belvedere Island\, Marin County. \nBoardroom SX80: and the home is close to the southern tip of Belvedere island and faces east. \nBoardroom SX80: This is a photo of the property from the lower shoreline area taken facing west\, and there’s a yellow oval outlining the specific location of the violation. \nBoardroom SX80: On this slide the image on the left side of the screen shows the violation more closely. The respondent has represented that there was a fence surrounding this property for the past century\, and they needed to replace an 11 foot 2 inch long. Section of a 6 foot tall wire fence in approximately 2021 \nBoardroom SX80: that 11 foot 2 inch long. Section is the section that the respondent needed. Bcdc authorization prior to placing. \nBoardroom SX80: And I’ll now take you through the timeline of events in this case. So in May of 2021 BC. DC. Enforcement staff received a report from City of Belvedere Staff\, alleging that unpermitted fencing had been installed on the property of 5 Blanding lane within BC. DC’s 100 foot shoreline ban jurisdiction \nBoardroom SX80: BC DC. Opened enforcement case er 2021 dot 0 4 0 0\, and made initial contact with respondents authorized Representative Attorney John Sharp. \nBoardroom SX80: between May and June of 2021 respondent\, and Mr. Sharp informed Staff that they were meeting with consultants and a surveyor\, and had hired an architect\, indicating that they were beginning to put together initial application materials to seek and obtain after the fact permit for the fence replacement. \nBoardroom SX80: In September of 2021 city of Belvedere staff and a surveyor conducted a site visit at 5 Blanding Lane\, and reported their findings to BCDC. Staff\, who were unavailable to attend that day. \nBoardroom SX80: City staff confirmed that fencing had been placed on Mr. Johan’s Meyers property without permits. So with this information\, in October of 2021 Bcd. C. Staff issued a notice of violations to Mr. Johan’s Meyer\, initiating a standardized fine process which gave him 35 days to either remove the unpermitted fill\, or to seek and obtain a permit for the fence before standardized fines began accruing. \nBoardroom SX80: In March of 2022\, Mr. Sharp submitted an incomplete region. Wide permit application on behalf of the respondent\, seeking after-the-fact authorization for defense. \nBoardroom SX80: Then\, between October 2022 and October 2023\, Enforcement staff made several attempts to urge Mr. Johansmeyer to complete his Permit application and on October thirteenth\, 2\,023\, staff notified the respondent that the executive director was rescinding the opportunity to resolve the violation\, using the standardized fines. Process after determining that the respondent had not made a good faith effort to resolve the violation. \nBoardroom SX80: On October thirtieth\, 2023 staff mailed a violation report and complaint for administrative civil penalties to the respondent. \nBoardroom SX80: and finally\, on November thirtieth\, 2023 respondent and staff agreed to resolve this enforcement matter via the proposed settlement agreement. \nBoardroom SX80: So to summarize the one violation is for the failure to obtain a Bcd C. Permit prior to placing fencing in Bcd. C’s 100 foot shoreline ban jurisdiction\, and this is in violation of section 6\, 6\, 3\, 2. A of the Mccoyer Petras Act \nBoardroom SX80: to resolve this case. Staff recommends that the Enforcement committee vote to recommend that the Commission authorizes the executive director to execute the proposed settlement agreement\, which requires respondent to \nBoardroom SX80: one pay $2\,500 in administrative civil liability within 30 days of executing the agreement\, and 2 by February 2820\, 24. Either remove the unauthorized fence and submit photographic evidence of the same\, or submit their filed application\, seeking after the fact authorization for the fence. And that concludes the staff’s presentation\, and I will stop sharing my screen. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you very much\, Rachel. At this point\, Mr. Sharp\, I’m gonna ask you if your client agrees to the terms and the conditions of the proposed settlement agreement. Yes\, my client does\, and I am authorized to state that he’s prepared to execute the agreement. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Great! Thank you. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Do any Enforcement Committee members have any questions for either staff or for Mr. Sharp. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Eisen. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Go ahead. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. So just so that I’m understanding we sent a notice in March 2022\, that you have 35 days to fix this problem. \nBoardroom SX80: And now. a year and a half later. we’re settling it. Is that okay? What? What was happening in between then? Because. \nBoardroom SX80: what I’m worried about is the agreement says that they have to remove the fence or submit \nBoardroom SX80: the application which they said they were going to submit\, and really never did. So what happens if on February 2820 24\, \nBoardroom SX80: I mean\, we have. I don’t know how much effort has been put into this. We’re getting $2\,500 out of it. \nBoardroom SX80: What happens if yet again\, the respondent decides that they are going to neither remove the fence nor submit the proper application. \nBoardroom SX80: So that would then mean that the the settlement agreement goes away\, and we would commence formal enforcement through and and \nBoardroom SX80: require action through an order. Additional penalties we can seek\, because 2\,500 is not really going to be sufficient at that point. In time I would have to get back to you on that I’m not exactly sure. And how that would work. \nBoardroom SX80: Well\, I think the Commission may want to know that before they vote on that\, because an awful lot of effort is being put into getting somebody to do what they really should have done a year ago. \nBoardroom SX80: so \nBoardroom SX80: that’s that’s all I have. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you\, Rebecca. I think you bring up a very good point. I think\, as part of the presentation to the full commission \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: given given the history\, I mean no disrespect. But given the history of this I think the Commission should be informed as to if there’s non compliance\, what the next steps are\, and what penalties could conceivably be levy for non-compliance? \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Are there any other questions or comments by commission members\, committee members? Excuse me. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay. Seeing then\, Margie\, do we have any public comments? \nBoardroom SX80: He no public comment. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: And did we? I don’t believe we had any written comments prior to the meeting. \nBoardroom SX80: That’s correct. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, so one last time for committee members\, any final comments or questions. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, so at this point in time\, I would like a motion to approve the Executive Director directors recommended enforcement decision regarding proposed settlement agreement. \nLetty Belin\, Commissioner: Someone \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: I didn’t hear who moved. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, we have a motion by Commissioner Billen\, and a second by Commissioner Vasquez. Matthew\, would you please call them Wrong \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Bielin. \nLetty Belin\, Commissioner: Yes. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Eisen. \nBoardroom SX80: Yes\, Commissioner Busque. \nBoardroom SX80: Chair Gilmour. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Yes. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: so the motion passes unanimously. 4 0. And this item is concluded. The Commission is scheduled to hear and vote on this recommended Enforcement decision at its February first\, 2\,024 meeting. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and that will be held at feels 375 Deal Street in San Francisco at 10’clock committee members\, I will entertain a motion and a second to adjourn our meeting. \nBoardroom SX80: So moved \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: second. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: moved by Commissioner Eisen\, seconded by Commissioner Vasquez. Thank you very much. Everyone. Have a good day. We are adjourned. \n  \n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Learn How to Participate\n				Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act\nAs 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 access Commission Meetings under the “Public Meetings” tab on the website and select the date of the meeting. \nHow to Provide Comments and Comment Time Limits\nPursuant to state law\, the Commission is currently conducting its public meetings in a “hybrid” fashion. Each meeting notice will specify (1) where the meeting is being primarily held physically\, (2) all teleconference locations\, which will be publicly-accessible\, and (3) 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 or a teleconference meeting location; (2) emailing comments in advance to public comment until 10 a.m. on the day of the meeting; and (3) participating via ZOOM during the meeting. \nIf 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. \nQuestions and Staff Reports\nIf 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. \nCampaign Contributions\nState 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. Other 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. \nAccess to Meetings\nMeetings 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.
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/january-24-2024-enforcement-committee-meeting/
CATEGORIES:Enforcement Committee
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20240111T093000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20240111T120000
DTSTAMP:20260429T234345
CREATED:20240130T040950Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20250320T191038Z
UID:10000125-1704965400-1704974400@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:January 11\, 2024 Enforcement Committee Meeting
DESCRIPTION:This Enforcement meeting will be conducted in a hybrid format in accordance withSB 143 (2023). To maximize public safety while maintaining transparency and public access\, members of the public can choose to participate either virtually via Zoom\, by phone\, or in person at the location listed below. Physical attendance at Metro Center requires that all individuals adhere to the site’s health guidelines including\, if required\, wearing masks\, health screening\, and social distancing. \n9:30 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. \nPhysical Location \nMetro CenterBoard Room \n375 Beale StreetSan Francisco\, CA 94105415-352-3600 \nLive Webcast \nJoin the meeting via Zoomhttps://bcdc-ca-gov.zoom.us/j/82124816434?pwd=LrQsC3appV0cSHTnxie2UYKxTaJTe7.1 \nSee information on public participation \n\n\nTeleconference numbers(816) 423-4282Conference code374334 \n\nMeeting ID821 2481 6434 \nPasscode642155 \n\n\nIf you call in by telephone: \n\nPress *6 to unmute or mute yourself\nPress *9 to raise your hand or lower your hand to speak\n \n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Tentative Agenda\n				\nCall to Order\nRoll Call\nPublic CommentThe Committee will hear public comments on matters that are not on the agenda.\nApproval of Draft Minutes from the November 9\, 2023\, and December 14\, 2023 Enforcement Committee meeting.\nEnforcement ReportStaff will update the committee on the current status of the enforcement program’s activities(Matthew Trujillo) [415/352-3633; matthew.trujillo@bcdc.ca.gov]\nBriefings by the Richardson Bay Regional Agency (RBRA) and the City of Sausalito.The City of Sausalito’s and RBRA’s staffs will brief the Committee on each of the agencies’ progress implementing the settlement agreements executed in 2020 and 2021\, respectively\, to regulate illicit activities and conduct compensatory restoration projects in Richardson’s Bay.(Adrienne Klein) [415/352-3609; adrienne.klein@bcdc.ca.gov]Presentation // Staff Presentation\nHearing and Vote on a Recommended Enforcement Decision to Resolve Enforcement Case ER2000.004.00.The Committee will consider whether to support a recommended enforcement decision to enter into a settlement agreement to resolve a violation at 3025 Marina Drive\, City and County of Alameda.(Adrienne Klein) [415/352-3609; adrienne.klein@bcdc.ca.gov]Presentation\nHearing and Vote on a Recommended Enforcement Decision to Resolve Enforcement Case ER2021.044.00.The Committee will consider whether to support a recommended enforcement decision to enter into a settlement agreement to resolve a violation at 5 Blanding Lane\, Belvedere\, Marin County.(Rachel Cohen) [415/352-3661; rachel.cohen@bcdc.ca.gov].Presentation\nAdjournment\n\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Meeting Minutes\n				Meeting Minutes \n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Audio Recording & Transcript\n				\nAudio Recording \nhttps://www.bcdc.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/354/2024/01/01-11-EC-audio-recording-1.mp3 \nTranscript \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and this meeting of the Bcdc. Enforcement Committee is here by call to order. My name is Marie Gilmore\, and I am chair of this committee \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: for Commissioners\, including those attending at Beale Street. Please ensure that your video camera cameras are always on\, and please mute yourselves when you are not speaking. Our first order of business to day is to call the roll. Matthew\, please call the Roll Commissioners. Please unmute yourselves while he does this\, to respond\, and then mute yourselves \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: after responding. \nBoardroom SX80: Good morning\, Commissioner Bielyn. \nLetty Belin\, Commissioner: Here. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Eisen\, here Commissioner Vasquez. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: here \nBoardroom SX80: Chair Gilmour. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: here. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So we have a quorum present\, and are duly constituted to conduct business\, and that brings us to item 3 on our agenda public comment period. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: 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 the agenda. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and I believe\, Margie\, we have not received any general comments prior to the meeting. \nBoardroom SX80: We did share. We received one\, and it will be posted on our website. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you very much \nMarie 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. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Please raise your hand in the zoom application by clicking on the participants. Icon at the bottom of your screen. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and look in the box where your name is listed under attendees. Find a small palm icon on the left. If you click on that palm\, icon\, it will raise your hand. or if you are joining this meeting by phone\, you must Dial Star 9 to raise your hand\, then Dial star 6 on your keypad to unmute your phone. When the host asks you in order to make a comment. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: The meeting hosts 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 \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: for members of the public attending in person. Please queue up at the Speaker’s podium and wait to be called upon to speak. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Commenters are limited to 3Â min 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. \nMarie 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. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Margie\, do we have any commenters? \nBoardroom SX80: Chair Gilmour\, for online? We do not have\, as well as in person. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Commissioner Vasquez. Is there anybody? Are there any members of the public that which to make general comments at your location? \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: No\, there are not. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay. The next item on our agenda. Approval of the draft minutes for I believe\, is at the last 2 meetings. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Staff. \nBoardroom SX80: Yes. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: thank you. So committee members\, I would appreciate a motion and second\, to approve these meet meeting minutes. \nLetty Belin\, Commissioner: Second\, second. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: we have a motion from Commissioner Vasquez\, and a second from Commissioner Bill in Matthew. Would you please call the role \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Bielin? \nLetty Belin\, Commissioner: Aye. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Eisen. \nBoardroom SX80: Hi\, Commissioner Vasquez. \nBoardroom SX80: chair Gilmour. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Yes. thank you. The minutes are approved. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: The next item on our agenda is the Enforcement report and the Enforcement policy manager\, Matthew Trujillo will now provide the enforcement. Matthew. \nBoardroom SX80: thank you good morning\, chair committee members and greetings\, while members of the public in attendance welcome\, and also welcome to \nBoardroom SX80: Michael in who is acting general counsel here to day while Greg is on vacation. \nBoardroom SX80: First is a case update. Since our last meeting on November ninth\, 2023. In the past 2 months we’ve opened 5 new cases. We resolved 7 cases\, and as of today\, there are 71 unresolved cases in the queue. \nwhich is a net change of negative 2. Since my last report. \nBoardroom SX80: Second\, I want to note for this committee that we have issued extensions of time to both the city of Sausalito and to the Rbra\, to remove 2 vessels from Richardson’s Bay. \nThese extensions of time were granted on a finding of good cause by the executive director\, and they were both reviewed and approved by General by the general counsel prior to distributing \nBoardroom SX80: the city’s extension\, was granted through March 30\, first 2024\, and Rbra’s extension was granted through February 20\, seventh\, 2024\, \nBoardroom SX80: and that concludes my report. I’ll be glad to entertain any. Follow up questions about the status of the Enforcement program from the committee. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you\, Matthew. Do any members of the committee have questions for Matthew for comments? \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, seeing none? Are there any members of the public who have comments or questions on the Enforcement report. \nBoardroom SX80: There’s none. Joe Gilmore. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, thank you very much. Well\, that moves us on to item number 6\, \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: which is briefings by the Richardson Bay Regional Agency\, or Rvra\, and the city of Sausalito. On the anchor out abatement and eel grass restoration efforts in Richardson’s Bay. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: by both the Rb. Ra. And the city of Sausalito. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So at this time will the representatives or Rvra please identify themselves for the record. \nBrad Gross: Good good morning\, chair\, Giomore. This is Brad\, Gross\, executive director for Rvra with me today I have our harbor\, Master Jim Malcolm and our eel grass representative Rebecca Schwartz Lessberg from coastal polis policy solutions. I’d I’d like to begin with a quick apology. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: You’re jumping the gun just a tag. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: I would also like to have the representatives for the city of Sausalito identify themselves for the record. \nCatie Thow Garcia\, CIty of Sausalito: Hello! I’m Katie via the city of sustainability manager. \nBoardroom SX80: Clear. \nBrandon Phipps\, Community & Econ. Dev. Director\, Sausalito: Good morning\, Brandon Phipps\, community and Economic Development director with city of Sausalito. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Joan\, you’re muted \nJoan Cox: Joan Cox\, vice Mayor of Sausalito. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you both city of Sausalito and our Bra representatives for being here. Welcome? \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: And can I caution anybody? If you’re not \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: being speaking directly\, could you please mute yourself\, cause I’m hearing some whispers or feedback. I’m not quite sure where it’s coming from\, but if you can mute mute yourself if you’re not speaking\, it would be greatly appreciated \nJoan Cox: if I might\, as we also have Robert Mooney with us\, who is our field brass consultant. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Great. Thank you very much. \nCatie Thow Garcia\, CIty of Sausalito: Sorry to interrupt. I think we also should have a \nCatie Thow Garcia\, CIty of Sausalito: Brian Mather from the police department. I’m not sure if he was promoted\, or if he is online. But \nCatie Thow Garcia\, CIty of Sausalito: I was told that he was coming \nand \nCatie Thow Garcia\, CIty of Sausalito: let me confer with him. I’m not seeing him on the attendee list. Sorry about that. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, thank you. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, so at this point I’m going to invite Adrian Kline to give her introduction to this this presentation\, Adrian. \nBoardroom SX80: Let’s see. \nBoardroom SX80: Good morning. \nBoardroom SX80: everybody. Thank you very much. \nBoardroom SX80: so I have a quick little Powerpoint\, the purpose of which is really just to highlight in blue text\, the settlement agreement terms which \nBoardroom SX80: the RBRA. And then the city will expand upon so next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: So this\, these 21 points. Mark the the categories in the Rba Settlement agreement\, and the 4 in blue\, I believe\, will be the focus of the Rba’s presentation today. Next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: So this is direct text from the agreement regarding eelgrass\, habitat restoration. And I’ll just give you a chance to read \nBoardroom SX80: those 3 points. \nBoardroom SX80: therefore. \nBoardroom SX80: and the next slide is a continuation of this \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: section. \nBoardroom SX80: Go ahead\, please. I oops! I think we skipped one. \nBoardroom SX80: Go back one\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: Oh\, I’m sorry. My my mistake. \nBoardroom SX80: yes\, forward! \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you very much. So regarding management of vessels on the anchorage after 2019\, the agreement required that they be removed by the middle of October of last year\, and the Rbi requested and received a one year long extension\, to meet this requirement\, which was \nBoardroom SX80: greatly influenced by the COVID-19 pandemic next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: For vessels on the air anchorage prior to 2019 the floating homes were also to have been removed. The rba has been working hard to achieve this goal. For one\, they requested\, and received a 60 day extension\, and you’ll be hearing the status of that today. That was through December fifteenth\, and \nBoardroom SX80: in early December they received\, they requested\, a hundred 40 day extension\, and that\, as was just noted by Matthew\, was granted through February twenty-seventh. First\, a different single houseboat. So they are very discrete requests to rectify discrete. So negotiations. \nBoardroom SX80: or allow time for discrete negotiations. Next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: and these will be the presenters who you have all met\, so I’ll cede the floor to Brad Gross. Thank you. \nBrad Gross: Thank you very much\, Adrian\, and and my apologies. Chair Gilmore\, for jumping the gun I had just signed in. I was having problems with my connection\, and I was about to say that I apologize for no camera. But I’m going to leave it off \nBrad Gross: just to protect this connection that that we have and that I’m able to present to this board. So\, Adrian\, will you be presenting? Put it posting our Powerpoint. \nBrad Gross: I was counting on you to do that\, Brad. Is that okay? Great? Thank you. \nBrad Gross: If I \nBoardroom SX80: we’re happy to do that. Just let us know that day or 2 before next time. Thank you. \nBrad Gross: Not a problem. If \nBrad Gross: let me share my screen. Sorry for that. Everybody. My apologies. \nBrad Gross: Okay\, good morning\, everybody. \nBrad Gross: Chair Gail Moore\, Commissioners and members of BC. BC. Staff. As I said earlier\, I am Brad Gross\, and I have already. Introduced Jim Malcolm\, our harbor master\, and Rebecca Short Usberg will be presenting in conjunction with me today \nBrad Gross: before I begin. \nBrad Gross: I’d like to say that this presentation is dated by one month\, as we were originally scheduled as everybody knows\, to present on the December fourteenth\, and I will update any items verbally. If there have been any changes \nBrad Gross: as we have presented in the past\, we couldn’t do what we do here without our many partners. You see their logos displayed on this slide one of the changes. I did realize when looking at this slide\, that we fail to include coastal policy solutions\, and Merkel and associates who are ha obviously have been working with us for for many\, many years and helping us with our upcoming eographs program. \nBrad Gross: I’m just going to go through some of these milestones that Adrian had identified. And you’ve all seen in the past. \nBrad Gross: first of all\, \nBrad Gross: The petition for necessary Federal action has been completed and is on and going the removal of unoccupied. Most of these and the bright blue\, have already been done the ones with later due dates you see\, and that kind of I don’t know what to describe that color\, that other blue color \nBrad Gross: but the removal of unoccupied marine debris is done\, and ongoing as vessels may become marine debris\, we had we give them our immediate attention. We finalize the Environmental Protection and Management plan in 2021. No new vessels in the Eel Grass Protection zone is ongoing. There’ll be more discussion about that as we move on. The installation of moorings is on hold \nBrad Gross: the initiation of the Eel Grass restoration studies was done in 2022. The removal of the post 2019 vessels. As Adrian pointed out\, they received an extension\, and to October fifteenth of 2024\, and there’s some good progress that we’ll be talking about later on. What’s happening with those? The removal of the floating off floating homes off of all the point by October fifteenth. \nBrad Gross: 2023\, 2 were removed by the deadline\, and one \nBrad Gross: was actually the one that was provided. These initial 60 day extension was moved on a December eleventh to illegal floating home birth that leaves us one floating home\, and that vessel has been through a citation process and a nuisance abatement process for removal. And Rbra has requested\, and was recently granted one last \nBrad Gross: one last extension to allow the owner to repair and relocate his vessel. That extension now goes through February 20 twenty-seventh\, so our next presentation will have some more information on the the results of the extension\, and where that vessel there lies\, we anticipate it being out of the anchorage by the end of February. \nBrad Gross: moving on complete admin actions update ordinances has all been done\, and as we’ll show later in the presentation\, we do have their Coast Guard response\, which I’ve mentioned in the past\, and we have a new supporting order received from Judge Oric on December first\, which I will talk about further in the presentation \nBrad Gross: beginning of the implementation of the 10 Year Adaptive Management Plan. That plan was due. This again. This slide is a month old. It was planned\, was to be submitted on December fifteenth\, and it was submitted on time and on schedule. \nBrad Gross: Next item\, no vessels in the Epz. By October of 2024 we are working on a signage program and rubber. Master Malcolm will talk about the notifications that we’ve given to the vessels and our plans moving forward\, the removal of all occupied non safe and seaworthy vessels\, and now has an extension to october of 24 \nBrad Gross: and all these vessels in this category have been provided with the 12 month advance notice\, and again more of that by harbor. Master Malcolm. \nBrad Gross: Applying for a morning permit \nBrad Gross: the rest of these items have a due date by October of 2026\, so they will be reported on in future presentations\, but removal of all occupied safety\, worthy vessels\, removal of all vessels and occupants\, and only transient seaworthy vessels in the anchor zone\, all due dates of October of 2026. \nBrad Gross: I’m gonna just go through and report on \nBrad Gross: activities during this reporting period. I’m not going to go on the \nBrad Gross: Pass reporting period. But this is the vessel buyback program. During this reporting period 5 vessels have been purchased and properly disposed of. One floating home was purchased and disposed of during this reporting period\, bringing 8 total vessels\, purchasedly and properly disposed of since the reinstatement of the program\, in April of 2023\, \nBrad Gross: right around $40\,000 has been distributed since the reinstatement of the program\, and then just over $81\,000 has been distributed\, and 21 vessels have been properly disposed of since the program exception in 2022. \nBrad Gross: This is the letter I was talking about from the coastguard where it talks about Cfr. Section 33 dash point 1 10.1 2 6 alpha\, where the Coast Guard has delegated authority for the operational management to Richards of a regional agency. \nBrad Gross: This is a an important slide that I would like to present. On an order received by George Ork on December first\, 2023\, Judge Orrick provided an order to dismiss without leave to amend a claim against Rbra with language that supports Rbra’s position and codes regarding Rvra\, I’m sorry regarding Richardson Bay. \nBrad Gross: Specifically\, when Cfr. 33.1 10.1 2 6\, Alpha was identified\, the judge appined the following. the plaintiff argues or implies that Rbra’s anchorage ordinance is preempted by Federal law. He goes on to say that I agree that no regulation or Federal authority identified by the plaintiff\, preempts the authority of Rbra to control anchorages in Richardson Bay. Instead\, the Federal regulation he identified established Richardson Bay as a special anchorage and directs mariners to comply with Rbra’s permit scheme. \nBrad Gross: and although this opinion is still subject to appeal\, it mentions more than once regarding anchoring and living aboard on Richardson Bay that the United States Constitution does not confer a blanket right to anchor in Richardson Bay. Boaters do not have a constitutional right to unregulated long term anchorage in public navigable waters. \nHe goes on to talk about this particular plaintiff\, who was planning to live on his vessel. \nBrad Gross: where he says he admits that he intended to live on his boat in Richardson Bay\, which is not allowed under Arbra code\, and means that he would be denied a permit. \nBrad Gross: He goes on to say\, living aboard a houseboat or vessel anchored in Moore or moored in Richardson Bay is prohibited. \nIf \nBrad Gross: I’m gonna leave you with that\, well\, I’ll be back after Eographs update from Rebecca Schwartz\, Lessburg\, and the anchorage update by our harbour master. So I’ll turn this over to Rebecca. Now\, thank you. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Good morning\, everyone. Thank you\, Brad. Hello! I believe I’m know you all. But for those who I haven’t met\, my name is Rebecca Schwartz\, Lesburg. I’m the president of Coastal policy solutions. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: and I’ve been working with Rvra to advance their ill re their efforts to protect and restore Eel grass in Richard Simbay. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: So I’ll be sharing 2 main components today. The first is an update about the grant our Bra received from the Us. Environmental Protection agency to restore eelgrass\, and the second is\, I’ll be sharing results from our 2023 monitoring update that describes the Eelgrass monitoring efforts over the past year \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: next slide. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: so\, as you may remember\, Rbra was awarded 2.8 million dollars from the EPA’s San Francisco Bay Water Quality Improvement Fund. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: and that award funds\, the development of the Restoration and Adaptive Management plan that Brad mentioned\, that was submitted to BC. DC. On December fifteenth. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: It also funds the restoration of 15 acres of eel grass by 2027\, and the related ongoing adaptive management\, monitoring and partner engagement outreach associated with that Restoration effort \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: to implement this grant\, RBRA. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Awarded consultant services to Co. Still policy solutions and Merkel and associates for project management\, stakeholder engagement policy support\, and for the actual on the ground\, eel grass restoration. All of this is being done in collaboration with San Francisco State University’s Estuary and Ocean Science Center. Specifically\, Dr. Kathy Boyer and her lab \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: and Audubon\, California. The sub awards for those project partners are in process \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: next slide. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: So a little bit about the Restoration and adaptive management plan\, which we call the ramp. As Brad mentioned\, it was submitted on the fifteenth\, and this is a technical document that describes a 10 Year Adaptive Management Plan for restoration of 75 acres of eelgrass and Richardson Bay. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Now those 75 acres are anticipated to be restored through a combination of active restoration. So actually planting eel grass. non planting\, restoration actions\, things like removal of marine debris that’s on the bay bottom. \nand also \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: anticipated natural recovery of the eelgrass bed. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: This plan is consistent with the San Francisco Bay Plan\, the Richardson Bay special area plan and the California Ill. Grass mitigation policy. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: It does consider the beneficial reuse of dredge sediment. If backfill of mooring scars is required\, although that is not recommended as a first line action in this area. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: and then genetic accounts for both passive and active restoration\, and it builds on the results of the ongoing restoration studies that have been going on in the anchor scars over the past couple of years. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: The ramp itself\, as a document may be periodically updated as we receive results from those restoration studies\, other monitoring results or other adaptive management actions that become prudent \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: next slide. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Now\, I’d like to switch gears and talk about the 2023 monitoring update this update was given to the Rba. Board of Directors and the public. In the during the fall. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: and it’s a comprehensive report on all of the various \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: monitoring actions that have taken place over the past year to really get a sense of what is going. The dynamics of the ill grass bed and its health. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: There’s a variety of monitoring activities that we’ve taken. The first is that I’ll describe is the side scan sonar survey. \nThe survey was completed by Merkel and associates \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: during the summer of 2022. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: And this really looks at the in the health of the bed overall. So not just in the area where boats are anchoring and not just in the sanctuary or restoration areas\, but really the the overall bed. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: And there’s a few things that we can take away from these results. The first is that we have the same general pattern of eel grass covering Richardson Bay as previous years. So we see the core of the bed. In the central bay \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: it is present\, but less dense in the shallows. and there’s some evidence of wasting disease. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: and it as expected. It is absent from the deeper parts of the bay. basically anywhere deeper than about 5 feet mean lower low water\, and that’s consistent with what we know about the light limits of eel grass in the San Francisco Bay Area. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Now\, if we look at the overall acreage. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: we’re see and and how dense it is\, we can see a couple of things. The first is that we have just over 950 acres of eel grass\, and that’s \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: a good increase from the previous \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: size cancel in our survey that was completed\, which I’ll talk about in a moment. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: but ignoring for a second the total acreage. What I wanted to talk about is the cover class. So that gives us a sense of how dense the eelgrass bed is\, and that’s a proxy for eelgrass health \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: in the image. On the left hand side of the screen you see Richardson Bay. The green area is all the area that’s covered in eel grass\, and essentially the darker the green\, the more dense the eel grass is. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: So\, even though we have 950 acres or so of eel grass. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Less than half of that eel grass \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: is in the 40 to 100% cover class. So less than half of it is in that really dense \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: cover class and over a quarter is in the less than 5% cover class. \nSo it’s important to look at\, not just the total acreage\, but also how dense and healthy the Yalegrass bed is \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: next slide. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: So again\, I mentioned that binary change. If we look at 2019 versus 2022\, we see that 13% increase in the total acreage which is within normal bed variability next slide. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: But if we take a closer look at that change again on the left hand side\, both the the green and red and tan areas\, that’s all eel grass cover. But essentially\, what we’re seeing is that there are some areas of the eel grass bed that have expanded. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: And there’s some areas that have declined \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: the areas that are in tan\, orange and getting into that red color. Those are areas where we’ve actually seen a decrease in the old grass cover \nthe portions of their green and getting into the darker greens. That’s where we see expansion. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: What we can see here is a general decline in that nor in that northern reach\, as we’re getting up into the Audubon sanctuary\, and that’s likely due to thermal stress. The water up there is more shallow\, it gets warmer\, and it pushes the eel grass beyond its thermal limits. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: That red area in the core of the bed is where? \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Oh\, no\, not yet. Is where we’re seeing evidence of eelgrass wasting disease next slide. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: So as we look at our results through time\, we have these sides canceled on our surveys 6 times since 2\,003. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: The biggest change that we saw historically\, was the 2\,009 to 2\,013\, and overall absolute cover is generally increasing\, but variable over the past 20 years. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Now 20 years may feel like a long time to have data. And it’s a great data set to be working with. But it’s actually not very long in the context of an eel grass bed that can persuade me persist over hundreds or thousands of years. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Now\, the reason I was really digging into the cover class and the areas where we have changes increase or \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: expansion or contraction of the eel grass is that it gets to what we call the 100% cover equivalency. Basically\, what that means is that looking at the total acreage of eel grass that we have. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: if all of it\, if we collapsed it down so that all of it was at a hundred per cent. Covered. What acreage would we have then? \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Now\, if we look\, and and that is a better indicator of the bed health\, because that can tell us things about eel grass\, bed assumed productivity\, biomass\, and other metrics\, things like carbon storage. \nSo that is the dashed black line in the graph on the left-hand side. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: And again we have that same variable but generally increasing patterns since 2\,003. But where is the total acreage from 2019 to 2022 increased. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: The 100% cover equivalency decreased. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Basically\, what is telling us is that we’re getting mixed messages and mixed signals from the eelgrass bed\, about how it’s how the how it’s doing from a health and productivity perspective \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: next slide. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: the the second way that we’ve monitored. The bed is through aerial photography and Gis analysis. This has been done by Audubon\, California\, and has been repeated several times over the past several years \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: as opposed to the side scanned sonar which takes\, gets a comprehensive map of all of the eelgrass in Richard Simbay. The aerial photography is really designed as a damage assessment. So we just photograph the area where eel grass and anchoring co-occur so that we can get a better understanding \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: of how much eel grass is damaged by anchor scour\, and how much recovery we see within those scars \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: as a reminder. Anchor scour is the damage that we see to the eel grass from Anchor’s Change\, another ground tackle \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: and these methods were \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: verified\, and by a peer reviewed journal that was published\, peer reviewed journal article that was published in 2019. And so we’ve been repeating the methods for several years since \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: next slide. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: This is this may be a familiar image to many of you. This is an example of the aerial photography that we receive. From these the aerial views that we receive from this photography. Now\, hopefully. Then\, if you go to the next slide. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Yes\, that’s what I wanted to happen. What we’re doing is \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: looking specifically in roughly\, the area that is circled in blue here\, because that’s the area where we have both eel grass and anchoring. And so if when we zoom in to here\, we’re then able to say \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: how much of the eelgrass has been damaged from acre scour\, and you can see examples of what we call crop circles in this image\, depending on the clarity that you have on your screen. Basically the darker areas within this blue circle \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: or blue polygon. Those darker areas are eel grass and the circles that you see of lighter area within there. Those are the anchor scars or the crop circles that we’re talking about. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Next slide \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: we can. On the left is a more close up view of what we’re able to see in that photography. And the anchor scars that we’re able to document \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: on the right hand. Oh\, not yet on the right hand side \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: we’re looking at anchor scour. So basically\, if we add up the acreage of those of all those circles\, how much damage do we have? \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: We have results from 2017\, 2021\, and 2022. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Our methods provide both a low and high estimate for total anchor scour \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: back in 2017\, which is the first time this method was done\, we saw between 50 and 85 acres\, or 8\, sorry 50 and 84 acres \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: in 2021. That high estimate was even higher. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: And then in 22\, we’re really seeing a plateau of the damage. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: which is great news over all. We’re not seeing \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: robust recovery yet overall in the bed\, but we have it\, but we have seen \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: a plateau in the damage\, which is great news. We’ve at least stemmed the tide of ongoing anchor scour. Next slide a couple of notes about these damage assessments. In 2022 there was an area of unknown damage to the bed\, and it’s suspected that was a harmful algal bloom. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: and that limited some of the interpretations we could make of the data next slide in 2023. The assessment actually wasn’t possible \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: because there was what’s called a macro algal mat\, basically\, a large \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: film of algae over the eel grass bed that was obscuring it from view. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: And now these photographs cannot be taken at any time of the year\, so we couldn’t just wait for that to go away\, because the photographs have to be taken during the summer\, when the eel grass is at its maximum extent. It is a perennial plant. It grows and dies back each year\, so we need to take it during the summer. \nand it has to be taken at an extreme low tide. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: so unfortunately\, that Macro Algolat happened during those windows of when we could have taken the photograph\, so we were not able to do the survey in 2023\, \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: next slide. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: some additional findings that I wanted to share. So what we have. In these photographs here. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: on the left hand side we have some examples of where we’ve seen recovery within anchor scars. So on top are the images from 2021\, and on the bottom are the images from 2022. The green circles on the left are the same in each photograph\, and you can see we can see robust regrowth of eel grass within specific eelgrass scars \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: on the right hand side. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: It’s the same years of images\, but these are examples of scars where we have not yet seen recovery. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: So this is again\, both good news\, but also mixed news. The good news is that \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: again\, we’re demonstrating that as vessels are removed from the eograss protection zone we can expect for the eelgrass to recover. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: But if you’ll notice\, on the left hand side\, where we do see recovery\, those circles in 2021. They don’t have boats in them. We don’t know exactly what year those vessels were removed\, so from 2021 to 2022 \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: seems on our end as one year of recovery. But those scars actually could have been recovering for several years\, whereas on the right hand side\, where we don’t see the recovery in 2021. The boats are still there in 2022. They’re not there. So what this suggests is that it takes more than one year for the anchor scars to recover. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: which is good data for us to have\, because we don’t. Actually. there’s there’s not a lot of documented cases that can tell us how long we should expect it to take for these scars to restore themselves next slide. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: The last area of monitoring that we’ve been doing is our water bird monitoring\, and really the goal for this was to see where in Richardson Bay large groups of birds are doing what are codes called rafting\, which is when large groups of birds together rest on the base surface\, and they can rest in groups of up to 10\,000 birds. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: The reason we’re looking at. This is because we wanted to know as we change the pattern of where boats are anchoring in Richardson Bay. Are we also seeing a change in the pattern of where birds are using the bay. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: What we’ve seen here. So on the left hand side\, these are all of the drone. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: These are the I’m sorry. On the left hand side. It’s the results from the 6 drone surveys that we did during the 2022\, 2023 monitoring year. \nSo each of those image 6 images represents one survey. The red dots are where we see the rafts of birds. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Now we\, similar to previous years. We continue to see rats primarily along the northern and eastern shorelines. So so far we have not seen any change in how birds are using the bay \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: next slide. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Okay\, that was a lot of data\, a lot of graphs\, a lot of information\, some major takeaways from that information. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: So the good news is that the damage to eel grass from anchor scour appears to have plateaued. and we continue to see evidence of eel grass recovery \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: the less good \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: the overall health of the bed is questionable because we’re seeing an increase in that very sparse cover class. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: These are likely due to things like thermal stress\, wasting disease\, algal competition all things that are expected to increase with climate change. So the biggest takeaway from this is that\, given these known stressors that are going to continue to \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: stressed the eel grass in Richardson Bay. protecting and restoring the bed is more crucial now than ever. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: I believe I now hand it over to Jim\, but I will also be here at the end to answer any questions. \nRBRA: Morning. Thank you very much\, Rebecca. My name is Jim Malcolm\, the Harbor master for Richardson Bay Regional Agency going to talk this morning about our vessel census and status of vessels out on the anchorage to open our vessel census. We are currently our vessel. Census continues to drop. \nRBRA: We are as of December. We are sitting at 43 vessels. There has actually been. There has been a change to this\, but it went down by one and went back up by one. So we still sit at 43 vessels for January next slide\, please. \nRBRA: I’ll now go through the milestones individually\, and kind of discuss our trending for each milestone. Our first one is the post 2019 vessels as Director Gross had mentioned. In August we had\, we were at 14 of those post\, 2\,019 vessels. We currently in December. We are at 7\, and probably by the end of the week we’ll be sitting at 6. Post 2\,000 vessels \nRBRA: for our floating homes again\, as Director Gross have mentioned. In A. We were 2 in August\, and now we are down to our one remaining floating home. \nRBRA: our vessels in the Ap. In the eel grass protection zone 53. And we’re present last July 42 in August. And now we are down to 35 \nRBRA: and this is efforts through both vessel removals and efforts to \nRBRA: move vessels out of the eel grass protection zone into the actual anchoring zone. This will \nRBRA: be this number will continue to drop as we move forward on our signage project. And yeah\, actually mark out where the anchorage is\, and we continue on our efforts towards relocating\, reap both relocating vessels into the actual anchorage out of the eel grass protection zone\, and remove vessels from the anchorage and remove vessels from the Bay completely. \nRBRA: Our our October fifteenth\, of 2\,026 deadline for all occupied safe and seaworthy vessels removed. There were 10 last June or 10 in June of 2022\, 7 in August of 2023\, and that number remains steady at 7. \nRBRA: Total vessels on the water. We were 57 last last July 48\, and August\, and as I mentioned\, 43\, \nRBRA: and then\, in addition to that\, we have our th vessels that are present legally present under a 30 day permit. We have that numbers actually change since December. We now have 6 \nRBRA: 30 day permits. However\, 3 of those have overstayed their permit\, and are in various mechanisms of enforcement to have those vessels depart \nRBRA: next slide\, please. \nRBRA: 6. As I mentioned\, the this is the part of our efforts to work with the vessels that are over staying there. 30 day permits 6 citations were issued as of last December\, that numbers actually increased to 7 \nRBRA: 7 citations issued 3 initial. \nRBRA: 2Â s and one third. Actually\, that has increased by another. Third note\, third citation for a vessel. All of the citations that have been issued so far are for the Rba code section for entering in excess of 72Â h. \nRBRA: 2 nuisance abatements\, 2 nuisance abatement processes have been commenced one is on our one remaining floating home\, which we’ve put a stay on while the \nRBRA: responsible party for that floating home as their extension to remove the vessel\, and another nuisance abate. Note. Nuisance\, abatement. Notice will be going to a hearing next week. \nRBRA: All vessels are due to vacate the anchorage. By October fifteenth\, 2024\, with the exception of the 7 safe and seaworthy vessels all vessels that were due to vacate were issued a 12 month advance notice last October. \nRBRA: The a copy of the notices on the slide here. \nRBRA: Our plan is to prepare another notice for January\, and then\, as we progress into the summer\, the the number of notices \nRBRA: will increase in frequency \nRBRA: as vessels\, and then hopefully\, all vessels will also\, the number of vessels on the anchorage will decrease as we increase our both enforcement efforts and notice \nRBRA: and education efforts towards where vessels can legally anchor\, and which vessels are to be removed. \nRBRA: Finally\, for enforcement\, our planning is underway as director. Gross message mentioned for our signage and posting for the anchorage. 5 signs are to be to place on existing piles. \nRBRA: We have already identified the owners of those piles and have been in touch with them. and installation of one new pile and 3 floating buoys will be put in place to mark the actual bounds of the legal anchorage. \nRBRA: Plans are also underway to create the permit and submit to Bcd staff \nRBRA: permits are not yet submitted. The effective date for the permits will be this October and then all vessels in the Egrass protection zone as I mentioned\, did receive a 12 month notice to vacate\, and they’ll be receiving another mo another notice \nRBRA: this month. \nRBRA: Next slide\, please. \nRBRA: and that concludes my portion. And now I’m gonna turn it back over to Director Gross\, however\, similar to Rebecca. I will be remaining for the end of the presentation for any questions. \nBrad Gross: Thank you\, Jim. And thank you again\, Commissioners. \nBrad Gross: I’m gonna talk about our housing program now\, and how this all ties in with the vessels in the anchorage and the eel grass improvements that we’re planning\, as I’ve stated in the past our housing program is comprised by 4 components funding temporary housing support \nBrad Gross: case management and marina participations. And I’ve talked about all this in the past and just gonna go through it really quick our funding. 3 million dollars was received in March of 2023\, with thanks to Senator Mcguire for his support. The program began seeking applications in May of 2023\, and to date there’s been over a hundred $80\,000 expended into the program. \nBrad Gross: moving on Rbra rent housing authority contract was approved. We discussed their prefunding of $30\,000 last time we met with another $86\,000 provided to health and human services. \nBrad Gross: The contract between Health and Human Services and Episcopal community services for case management was approved in August of 2023 and Ecs. Has established a well received landside meeting dates in Sausalito. \nBrad Gross: and recently began there on the water outreach effort. I think the last time we talked. We were still looking for that full time case worker\, and that full time case worker with Ecs did begin employment very successfully\, I might say\, in October of 2023. \nBrad Gross: Regarding the Marina’s activities during this reporting period one marina is now committed\, and one marina has withdrawn participation. We are still seeking marinas\, not just in the Sausalito area\, but surrounding areas that are interested in assisting our bra and our programs to relocate the qualified vessels to Marinas. \nBrad Gross: This\, at a previous meeting this committee approved an extension for the post 2019 vessels that I mentioned earlier and harbor Master Malcolm mentioned\, and as part of that approval of that extension we \nBrad Gross: committed to providing this slide\, and this is a spreadsheet of tracking their progress. As you can see. \nBrad Gross: all but 3 vessels are either gone or engaged in some forward fashion in the program. So I wanna thank the committee. The Commission again for the extension\, because it’s proved to be very successful. We are working to get the last 3 folks engaged\, and the a few of these. I I’m not privy to the names of the people who have received vouchers\, but a few of these people I do know on this slide have vouchers and are actively seeking housing right now. \nBrad Gross: the temporary housing voucher program. There are 4 persons that are now housed. This again. This slide is a month dated there are 10 persons that are participating. I know that number is now 11\, which includes the 4 persons that are housed. 5 persons are in the queue to participate \nBrad Gross: with 2 persons that have a voucher and one pending as of last month. But as of today\, there are actually 6 people with vouchers that are actively seeking \nBrad Gross: housing. \nBrad Gross: What that important to us is that those 6 people relate to 6 more vessels being off the anchorage by the time. These soon after these folks get their housing\, and 4 vessels have been purchased via the vessel buyback program. Once those 6 people with vouchers are housed\, we anticipate getting those vessels which would bring us up into double digits vessels turned in via the vessel. Buy back program. \nBrad Gross: Now\, this is a new slide. You haven’t seen this one before but this slide\, and I’d like to explain it quickly. The the top 2 lines represent the vessels and the floating homes in the anchorage. \nBrad Gross: The bottom 7 lines represent our different supported programs like floating homes turned in persons\, house persons and process and remaining floating homes\, vessels turned in\, total vessels of loading homes turned in\, and persons with with vouchers. \nBrad Gross: and\, as you can see\, all the lines representing the ve. The vessels along the top are trending down. \nBrad Gross: and program related. Lines of vessels and floating home surged in persons with the vouchers. And most importantly\, persons housed are all trending up \nBrad Gross: and over the next few months we will see these lines eventually intercept and ultimately completely switch sides\, top to bottom\, which would be representing more successes in our programs. This is a very exciting trend that we’re seeing. And at our next presentation\, I think\, this. This slide will be very telling. \nBrad Gross: with that I want to \nBrad Gross: close\, and I’ll acknowledge this committee and BC. DC. Staff for their flexibility to work with us and our Bra\, and to explore \nBrad Gross: creative and common sense solutions to achieve our common goals. I’m convinced that this type of innovative and collaborative work will prove successful in the end. Thank you very much for your time and letting us present our latest achievements. If there are any questions \nBrad Gross: myself. Our master\, Malcolm and Rebecca Short Lustburg would be glad to answer them. Thank you very much. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you very much for that very comprehensive \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: presentation \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and I think I’m gonna ask the committee if you will hold all your questions. Until we hear the city of Sausalito. I know that was a lot of information. But I know you guys probably took great notes. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So Adrian\, do you have an introduction for the city of Sausalita. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. Chair Gilmore. Again. It is brief and follows the identical format. \nBoardroom SX80: So maybe\, Brad\, if you unshare your screen\, please and \nBoardroom SX80: If I could kindly ask Mtc. To share Adrian. \nBoardroom SX80: Chair. Goma\, we have. Barbara Salzman would like to speak. \nbarbara salzman marin audubon society: Well\, I just had. \nBoardroom SX80: You’re muted chair. \nBoardroom SX80: chair. Gilmore\, you’re muted. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: I’m sorry. Is Miss Salzman part of the presentation? Or is this public comment. \nBoardroom SX80: public comment\, public comment. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, we’re gonna hold public comment until later. We’re gonna go through the city of Sausalito’s presentation\, and then we’ll take questions and comments from committee members\, and then we will take public comments. So that’s kind of the way I see the scope \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: alright. So Miss Klein\, would you please give your introduction to the city of Sausalito’s presentation\, please? \nBoardroom SX80: Yes\, I’d be happy to thank you very much. \nBoardroom SX80: Good morning again\, Adrian Klein. \nBoardroom SX80: So next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: Again. These are the 10 sections of the city of Sausalito settlement agreement between BCDC. \nBoardroom SX80: And I believe the focus of their presentation today will be on vessel removal and eel grass\, habitat mitigation and damage next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: Most relevant is that \nBoardroom SX80: the city requested and received an extension mentioned earlier today by Matthew \nBoardroom SX80: to remove a the largest of the anchor outs known as the Fedora \nBoardroom SX80: from December 30\, first to March thirty-first. For reasons similar to those described by the Rba this will promote voluntary resolution. Next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: This \nBoardroom SX80: image outlines the settlement agreement\, provisions relating to illgress\, habitat mitigation\, and damage avoidance. \nBoardroom SX80: I’ll give you a chance to just glance through that. \nBoardroom SX80: And if that’s enough time next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: And this is a summary of the actions by the city and BC. DC. On this eel Grass Restoration plan. Most relevant is that in the summer and the fall we received an excellent draft eelgrass Restoration plan\, provided some comments on 2 occasions and also received input from third party experts. \nBoardroom SX80: We’re continuing as we do with the Rba to meet monthly we are. \nBoardroom SX80: The city is preparing to submit its I believe\, final eel grass restoration plan. Soon. We’re in agreement on the majority of the components of that plan \nBoardroom SX80: with some discussion around the total acreage that will be \nBoardroom SX80: planted\, and whether the agreement \nBoardroom SX80: goal of one to 2 mitigation to one acre impact is a requirement. and I believe the city may address that\, but we just wanted to \nBoardroom SX80: share that \nBoardroom SX80: question. That’s on the table with you. Thank you very much. I’ll turn this over. I would expect first to councilmember Joan Cox\, who will then go ahead\, I believe\, and introduce her staff. Thank you very much. \nBoardroom SX80: and we could unshare the VCDC. Presentation to allow the city to share its presentation. Thank you very much. \nJoan Cox: Thank you so much. Adrienne\, and good morning\, Chair Gilmore and members \nJoan Cox: of the Enforcement Committee. This is our triannual update to the Enforcement Committee. My name is Joan Cox\, and I’m the vice mayor for \nJoan Cox: Sausalita. \nJoan Cox: Here’s an outline of the topics that we will cover today. We’ll start off with our waterfront management update \nJoan Cox: provided by sassy police \nJoan Cox: the department Brian Mathers. Then we will have a report on our regional cooperation in housing presented by our community and economic development. Director Brandon. \nJoan Cox: Then our resiliency and sustainability manager Katie throw Garcia will provide an update on the eel grass habitat mitigation and damage avoidance plan and I’ll include some comments there and then we will close and \nJoan Cox: be available for questions. So with that I’ll turn it over to \nJoan Cox: Brian matters. \nBrian Mather: Good morning\, everybody. Thanks for having me. \nBrian Mather: So I’ll go over a brief review of our waterfront management. So currently we have 5 total vessels in our anchorage. Right now\, what? That’s actually a reduction from the last meeting or triannual update\, I believe. We had. \nBrian Mather: We had 5 legacy and and one extra. So there were 6. So next slide\, please. \nBrian Mather: if we have a slide next slide. \nBrian Mather: anyway. So what we have is for legacy anchor routes. We actually ended up one of our legacy members ended up \nBrian Mather: getting ill. And so we’ve removed that person from the water\, and we’re working on housing for that person currently. The \nso the main issue or the main focus right now is the vendor\, as you see\, and that’s why we asked for the extension \nBrian Mather: and it was granted. So we appreciate that. So we’ve been in communication with the owner. We’ve been trying to work with the owner. There’s been some delays in the cooperation with the owner. And so we’ve been actively and currently are still actively working on the enforcement piece of that\, and are hoping to have that done within the next \nBrian Mather: month or so. But you know\, with whether finances staffing for marine assets and everything else\, it it’s a pretty complicated venture\, because it’s a very large boat. \nBrian Mather: So we’re we’re doing 2 things trying to get cooperation still from the owner and also working on the enforcement end of it\, if if that needs to take place. \nBrian Mather: So that’s the the end of our update. As far as our waterfront management. We haven’t had any. We had 2 vessels come in in the last month we were able to get them to move on within the 72Â h period\, in accordance with our State ordinance. \nBrian Mather: So that’s where we stand at this moment. If there’s any questions after\, I’ll be standing by for any questions. \nJoan Cox: thank you. And with that we’ll turn to Brandon Phipps\, our community Development Director. \nBrandon Phipps\, Community & Econ. Dev. Director\, Sausalito: Good morning\, Chair\, Gilmore\, Dcdc. Members and members of the public as Vice Mayor Cox mentioned. My name is Brandon Phipps\, Community and Economic Development Director. With so solido. Glad to be addressing you today to provide a brief update in connection with Section 3\, a per agreement related to regional cooperation and the development of resources\, and taking\, if necessary\, actions to support housing opportunities for anchor outs and Richardson Bay. \nBrandon Phipps\, Community & Econ. Dev. Director\, Sausalito: Regarding ad use. The city recently updated its adu ordinance to comply with State adu law. More specifically\, this item was approved with recommendations by the planning Commission in July was adopted by City Council in October. \nBrandon Phipps\, Community & Econ. Dev. Director\, Sausalito: The Community Development Department continues to track new housing policy at the State level and may be required to make additional updates to our ordinance this year in order to continue to be compliant\, and we certainly intend to do that as required. \nBrandon Phipps\, Community & Econ. Dev. Director\, Sausalito: Additionally\, I’ll just briefly speak to this. On January 5 of this year the city of Sausalito released a public comment draft environmental impact report for the implementation of our housing element programs. And this document has been prepared to address \nBrandon Phipps\, Community & Econ. Dev. Director\, Sausalito: potential environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the proposed project\, that being our housing element\, but particularly as related to the rezoning and selected opportunity sites at higher densities\, and this is all required under the California Environmental Quality Act. \nBrandon Phipps\, Community & Econ. Dev. Director\, Sausalito: So the draft Eir will be circulated for a 45 day review period\, during which comments on the draft Eir may be submitted to the city\, and I hope this goes without saying. But the city welcomes any comments from the Bcd. On the public comment Draft Eir\, which is posted to our website. And I am happy to \nBrandon Phipps\, Community & Econ. Dev. Director\, Sausalito: provide any personal contact information or follow up with individual BC. DC members. If there are any questions\, that will do it for my update this morning. Thank you all for your time today\, and I will now pass the mic to our illgress. Consultant Robert Moody\, who will discuss excuse me\, I will pass the mic to Katie. Back. Garcia. Go ahead\, Katie. Thank you. \nCatie Thow Garcia\, CIty of Sausalito: Thank you so much. Brandon. I’m here to present the the city’s progress on illgrass habitat mitigation and damage avoidance. In the blue text on the left you can see the the status updates which Adrian also presented which which have been presented to the Enforcement Committee prior to this meeting today in the text\, \nCatie Thow Garcia\, CIty of Sausalito: on in the red. You will see our our updates from the most recent Enforcement Committee meeting\, which took place on August 20 third\, where we provided an update \nCatie Thow Garcia\, CIty of Sausalito: on October eleventh we received A. BC DC. Response to expert review on our draft Eelgrass restoration Plan. \nCatie Thow Garcia\, CIty of Sausalito: Following this\, South\, Ludo submitted a summary of future eel Grass Restoration Plan efforts on November twenty-seventh\, which included the city’s offer of additional protection measures rec recommended by regional experts. As far as this. This is the brief update on eel grass habitat from my end\, and I will. I will pass it on to Vice. Mayor Cox. \nBrandon Phipps\, Community & Econ. Dev. Director\, Sausalito: vice Mayor\, I think you’re on mute. Excuse me. \nJoan Cox: thank you. Thank you\, Katie. \nJoan Cox: so I would like to address the issue that Adrian Klein made mention of during her introductory comments\, and that is the requirement of the settlement agreement. So the settlement agreement with the city of Sausalito States \nJoan Cox: quote goals in the plan will include compensatory mitigation at a ratio of no less than 1.2 to one mitigation area to impact area. So the settlement agreement says\, goals in the plan will include \nJoan Cox: on these and and indeed\, \nJoan Cox: that is important. Because the it’s important that it’d be a goal and not a requirement\, because it may actually be be infeasible. \nJoan Cox: So \nJoan Cox: on July 31\, 2023 regional experts\, lawyer and Merkel\, as well as coastal policy solutions opined that the 1.2 to one mitigation ratio could be infeasible to attain. Given Richardson Bay’s Natural Geomorphology and ability to support ingress. \nJoan Cox: It was therefore suggested that the settlement agreement be revisited. \nJoan Cox: And so\, on August seventeenth\, 2023\, I requested that Pcdc. Council provide a written analysis of Bcd. C’s position \nJoan Cox: without ever providing us with that analysis. BC DC. Staff on December thirteenth\, for the first time\, announced that the 1.2 to one ratio in the settlement agreement is a requirement and not just a goal. \nJoan Cox: as stated in the executed settlement agreement. It’s it baffles me that \nJoan Cox: the sentence in settlement agreement States goals in the plan will include\, and that BC. DC. Staff is now taking a position that this is a requirement in contravention of what regional experts opine is feasible. \nJoan Cox: So converting a goal into a requirement appears to be setting the city up for failure. \nJoan Cox: And this is very puzzling to me\, because we have a long history of cooperation and rapid progress toward meeting BC. DC. Goals\, and we would prefer to continue to work collaboratively\, moving forward. \nJoan Cox: It also is notable to me that this \nJoan Cox: goal is not in the settlement agreement with Rbra. \nJoan Cox: I noticed that this morning\, during Adrian Klein’s presentation that language does not appear in their settlement agreement. So why is BC. DC. Turning a goal into a requirement and insisting upon that goal only against the city of Sausalito\, and not \nJoan Cox: the Rvra. So \nJoan Cox: II hate to close on a challenging note. But this is an issue of great concern to the city. \nJoan Cox: And with that that concludes our presentation\, and we’re available to answer any questions. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you very much. The this committee thanks Ra. And the city of Sausalito’s representatives for the briefings. For being here and the time that it took to craft presentations. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So at this point\, do any of the Enforcement Committee members have \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: questions for either staff or for our guests. \nBoardroom SX80: I don’t see any. \nBoardroom SX80: No questions. Actually\, Chair Gilmore. Commissioner Eisen. \nBoardroom SX80: Okay\, Commissioner Eisen\, I can’t. I can’t see her on the screen. So it’s difficult. That’s the problem with showing up in person actually less visible. \nBoardroom SX80: Ii have a number of questions I did try to take notes as you suggested. Chair Gilmore\, but stick with me as I go back through the slides. \nBoardroom SX80: So with respect to the the \nBoardroom SX80: requests for extension that we’ve been told about today. \nBoardroom SX80: I am wondering\, and I guess I would go back to Director Gross. I’m going all the way back to the beginning of the slides. I think I heard from Adrian that the reason for those requests was to promote voluntary resolution. I think that was the phrase Adrianism. Yeah. \nSo I am wondering what? What exactly that means. What are we trying to reach some kind of a settlement agreement \nBoardroom SX80: in lieu of some kind of enforcement action. With respect to a couple of these vessels \nBrad Gross: for the question\, I appreciate it\, and no\, we are not looking for a settlement. We are actually\, we’re looking for a a conclusion. We’re looking for an amicable conclusion\, which is\, I’ll give you an example of the first floating home who was\, provided a 60 day extension. He worked diligently\, and was able to \nwith the assistance of the flexibility of this committee. \nBrad Gross: Get into a legal liverboard slip with this loading hall. \nBrad Gross: the next floating home that we’re working on. He claimed. We. We went through the citation process. We went through the abatement process. We are ready to move forward with a warrant if necessary\, but I thought it was\, \nBrad Gross: a a better solution to give him one more opportunity to get his boat relocated\, or turn it into our bra for proper disposal as opposed to \nBrad Gross: going through legal action\, II have to tell you\, and it’s no secret rvra is a very small agency with a very small budget with very high insurance costs all related to litigation. \nBrad Gross: Because of the actions that we’re taking. We will take those actions\, but it’s makes more sense to us to \nBrad Gross: give folks ample opportunity to abide by the regulations. Ultimately \nBrad Gross: this last vessel that got the extension and the other vessels got the extension \nBrad Gross: will be removed hopefully those folks will be housed. But \nBrad Gross: A perfect example is that if if we force people out of our anchorage. \nBrad Gross: they end up being a liability to somebody else. They move somewhere else. I could tell you that some of the the vessels that were really recently removed from saw Slato anchorage on the 72Â h notice simply made it over to our anchorage\, and one of them \nBrad Gross: is on a 30 day. Permit one of them’s getting a citation. So it’s become our problem. And we don’t want to. We don’t want to incur that type of oppression and any other agency. So working with these\, with the committee and these extensions\, I believe\, allows us\, and allows the voters ample time to take the correct actions. \nBoardroom SX80: Yep. \nwell\, I totally appreciate that these are in enormously complex \nBoardroom SX80: but what I’m trying to understand\, because we’ve heard now reports of regularly\, and each time there are sort of more and more \nBoardroom SX80: discussions about extensions\, but on the milestone slide one of the original slides. It’s the one with the black oyster catchers on it. \nI’m wondering if there is \nBoardroom SX80: any anticipation that there will be more requests for extension beyond the ones that have. \nBoardroom SX80: Just been provided. \nBrad Gross: That’s a great question. And and with in all honesty\, we are sitting with \nBrad Gross: over 30\, about 35 people who qualify for housing voucher program. \nBrad Gross: We have 6 factors out right now. We have\, according to our colleagues from health and human services. And we’re in housing authority. \nBrad Gross: They’re figuring we’re going to be able to get another 13 of them house within the year. As I told this committee\, and anybody who will listen\, we’re figuring they can house about 2 a month. So and all\, honestly\, yeah\, we’ll probably be back in close to 2\,024 to say\, look\, we’ve got a successful program. We’ve house 20 people. We remove 20 boats. We have a dozen left. We’re going to need some more time with them. \nBrad Gross: And I’m hoping that the this committee will see the wisdom in providing extensions if they’re required. As long as we are proving that the program is successful\, it’s really just as you know. The officers from Salsa said. It’s a time money staffing issue. Convincing \nBrad Gross: landlords to take these folks\, which isn’t really a problem. It’s just really a a timing and processing to get these people through the system. If we had. \nBrad Gross: you know\, we were\, we were allotted 3 million dollars. If we were allotted 6 million dollars we would have been able to bring in double the staff and put and house double the people. But we’re working diligently. We’re working successfully. It’s all proving to be working. So we’re hoping that if we do come that this committee will see the wisdom and providing another extension if required. \nBoardroom SX80: And II recognize that there’s a balancing act that goes on in terms of you know what what you achieve by an extension versus what you lose by an extension. But from what I understand from the eelgrass presentations both from the Rbra and Sausalito\, is that as these vessels continue to sit out there\, we continue to have \nBoardroom SX80: consequences to the eel grass which themselves require money and time to restore\, and to get back to where we should have been\, especially at this \nBoardroom SX80: critical time in our history\, where we have to do everything we can to capture carbon. So I’m hoping all of that is being balanced as we move through this problem. And along those lines. I’m wondering with respect to the Fedura. So now I’m sort of switching to Sausalito for a second. How long has it been that we have been \nBoardroom SX80: working with this particular owner? \nJoan Cox: When did we start that process. We’ve been working with this owner since since I’ve been involved in 2\,017 and perhaps longer. \nJoan Cox: Can provide an update. It it the last I understood. It looks as though we actually may have to \nJoan Cox: it it when it’s not entirely here\, we may actually have to undertake removal \nJoan Cox: through the enforcement process. But I’ll let Lieutenant another address. That group. \nBrian Mather: Yes\, Vice Mayor\, that’s accurate. You know we we’ve been engaged in some lengthy conversations\, and you know it’s turned into \nBrian Mather: the owner and the rep representatives not responding and getting legal aid. And and so there’s some stall tact\, tactics involved in that. So you know\, the city side at this point is enforcement. We’re hoping that maybe during the enforcement period that \nBrian Mather: they wake up and decide to actually take custody of their boat and and take care of it. But then\, you know\, like our bra says\, you know\, we run the risk of them moving that boat just into to their jurisdiction. We don’t want that\, and we’re not gonna allow that. So it’s a delicate situation. With resources\, and also taking people’s property and litigation. And what could happen after that? So we’re trying to do this right? \nBrian Mather: And that’s why we requested that extension is we gotta make sure we do this right for all parties involved and not rush into this. I know we\, the books\, been here for 26 years. So \nwe’re not trying to do this hastily. Here\, we’re just trying to do it right so. \nJoan Cox: And I will say\, you know\, we undertook the expense of doing a survey of the boat to see whether the boat is still salvageable. At this point the boat is actually considered to be marine debris under the definition. And so but we’ve made every effort to identify creative solutions. At this point. \nJoan Cox: Given this looming deadline we’ve into the enforcement approach. \nBoardroom SX80: Yeah\, I mean\, if you’re saying that we have been trying to resolve this for 6 going on 7 years now\, yeah\, it really does think sound like the time is \nBoardroom SX80: ripe for moving to a different strategy than trying to get voluntary cooperation. But \nBoardroom SX80: at the last the last question I have\, and I’m I’m sorry to hear. \nThat a dispute has arisen between Sausalito and our staff\, because we have commented on each and every one of these presentations \nBoardroom SX80: about the thoroughness and the cooperation\, and how pleased we are at how things are moving. So I it’s concerning that we’ve had maybe the first of our sort of bumps in the road together. I’m I don’t know enough about this issue to ask even intelligent questions\, but it seemed to me \nBoardroom SX80: that when we set forth the 1.2 to one goal in the settlement agreement in the agreement \nBoardroom SX80: that there must have been some basis for thinking that was possible. So one of the things I would want to know\, maybe as we move forward is what has changed to make that now sound like it’s impossible. \nBoardroom SX80: because at at least a couple of years ago it sounds like it was considered feasible enough to set it as a goal. So that’s just a comment. I’m not really expecting a response. But that \nBoardroom SX80: is something that I think you know needs to be explored for for our committee. That’s all I have\, Mr. Chair Gilmore. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you\, Commissioner Eisen. Any other committee members \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: have questions or comments \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: I wanna weigh in on that last point about the the settlement agreement. And I think this is going to be right for \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: either a future briefing by staff or the next time. Our scheduled briefing with the city of Sausalito. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Not only do I wanna know\, along with Commissioner Eisen is what’s changed between the time we entered into the agreement. And now that makes this infeasible. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: But I would like to hear from the the experts\, or or get more information on their expert opinion as to why it’s infeasible. And also Staff’s response to that. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: I just basically like to have a discussion. So we can understand a little bit more clearly. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: The the facts of the situation. So that’s all I’m gonna say for now. And obviously I don’t expect \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: a comment. Now this is for a a future meeting. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So\, having said that\, I’m going to ask if there’s any public comment on this item\, I know we had one hand raised earlier. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So first of all\, is there anybody in in the room \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: that would like to speak? \nBoardroom SX80: Non\, chair\, Gilmore. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, so then let’s go to the commenter \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: who attended this stage previously. \nBoardroom SX80: we have an online public comment from Barbara Salzman. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay. go ahead. I believe you have 3Â min to speak. \nbarbara salzman marin audubon society: Barbara Saulson. I represent them more in Audubon society\, and I first like to commend Rebecca for her good presentation. And also say that I assume that we could just contact you for a copy of the record report\, because\, yeah\, we I don’t have that \nbarbara salzman marin audubon society: and secondly\, about the RA presentation. There was a mention. I don’t think we need to spend a lot of time on this\, but there was a mention of going to other marine is in the vicinity for a possible relocation. \nbarbara salzman marin audubon society: and that does raise some concern for me because I it was my\, it’s been my understanding that Marina is a really only allowed to have liver boards or or people living on their boats for protection purposes. And it’s very limited. So I do have to raise. It’s a question of how how realistic that is as a as a \nbarbara salzman marin audubon society: a relocation \nbarbara salzman marin audubon society: potential moving forward because II wouldn’t. You wouldn’t be wanting to move people as to other marine is where it’s not legal\, of course. \nbarbara salzman marin audubon society: And thirdly\, with regard to to Sausalito and the the the apparent change here in in requirements. \nbarbara salzman marin audubon society: You know\, I’d like to point out the source of lead\, though it’s really been in the forefront of moving this along. They they they took the initial action\, and they are continuing our small city and they’re continuing to make in my view efforts and I would hope that this would be clarified and the the good point made by the city that it’s now changed to a requirement. \nbarbara salzman marin audubon society: II if II find it \nbarbara salzman marin audubon society: You know\, unexplainable. Why\, why\, that’s taking place\, and so maybe something’s going on that I don’t understand. But I’ve been involved in this a long time\, and I do think that it’s not fair to have 1 one jurisdiction ha! Having to make certain requirements that are pretty \nbarbara salzman marin audubon society: owner is\, and and the other jurisdiction\, I mean\, I want success for everybody but the other jurisdiction not having to \nbarbara salzman marin audubon society: have that requirement. So I hope you consider that. \nbarbara salzman marin audubon society: Thanks a lot. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you very much. \nBoardroom SX80: Do we have any other? \nBoardroom SX80: Sorry\, that’s all we have here\, Gilmore. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, thank you. One last chance for any committee members to make a final comment or question. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, seeing then\, once again\, I want to extend the committee’s thanks to both the Rba and the city of Sausledo for very comprehensive and informative presentations today. Thank you very much. And enjoy the rest of your day. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay. So now we move on to Item number 7. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: It is a staff presentation\, and a vote on a post recommend recommended decision to adopt a settlement agreement to be entered into with Roger Stan Bridge\, of Alameda\, City and County. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: If this committee votes to adopt the recommended Enforcement decision\, which includes the proposed settlement agreement\, it will be put up for a vote of approval or rejection by the full Commission at its January eighteenth. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: 2024\, meeting\, which is scheduled to be held online and in person at the Metro Center\, which is located at 3 75 Beale Street\, in San Francisco City and county\, and that meeting begins at 10’clock. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, after the staff gives her presentation\, I will ask\, respondent to affirm its agreement with the terms and conditions of the stipulated order. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Then I will hold public comment on this item\, and then afterwards we\, the committee\, will hold our discussion and vote on the staff’s recommendation. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, at this time. Will. The representative or representatives of the respondents. Please identify themselves for the record. \nBoardroom SX80: Margie\, just this is Adrian Klein. Just inform me\, Mister Standridge had been online\, but he is working. So it seems that we’ve lost him at this point. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, thank you for that. But clearly he has been notified of the meeting and he was here. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So we will. Go ahead and proceed with policy enforcement analyst Adrian Klein. Will give her her presentation. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. Chair. Gilmore. May I have the item? 7 slide? Thank you very much. Next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: So as per usual. This will be quite brief\, but we’ll run through location timeline of events. Summary of the violation and staff recommendation to the Enforcement Committee next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: So the site addresses 3 0 2 5 Marina. Drive in the city and county of Alameda the Red Arrow is pointing roughly to the address on the Alameda shoreline next slide\, please. Zooming in a second Google Earth image \nBoardroom SX80: next slide\, please\, when you’re ready. Thank you so much. There may be a little lag. So this red arrow is now pointing to \nBoardroom SX80: 3025\, Marina drive. \nBoardroom SX80: and you can see a single boat dock with a white boat. The single boat dock is the \nBoardroom SX80: subject of this proceeding. Next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: So as you will have read in the staff\, recommended Enforcement decision. There was a an existing boat\, Doc\, that was replaced in 2\,000 by a former owner\, who submitted\, but never filed as complete a permit application. The BC. DC. Staff did not pursue resolution of this violation. Between \nBoardroom SX80: the year 2\,000 \nBoardroom SX80: and the present in 2018\, Mr. Roger Standrich Pre. Purchased this property\, and in 2021 BC. DC. Or 2022 BC. DC. Staff\, initiated communications with Mister Sandridge to have him either remove the unauthorized Doc or submit \nBoardroom SX80: a complete permit application so that we could retroactively authorize the existing structure. \nBoardroom SX80: Mr. Standridge was not surprisingly surprised to be hearing from us and to to learn of this unauthorized structure. So\, despite the fact that he was initially not particularly responsive\, recently he’s been very responsive and cooperative. \nBoardroom SX80: so we did. He wasn’t responsive to our initial enforcement communication\, so we escalated to commence a formal enforcement proceeding. This hearing is the culmination of that he did respond to the violation report\, and indicated that he would like to settle rather than have a contested order\, and we were able to reach those terms which I will describe. So next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: So this is just a single violation. For the failure to obtain a permit to replace a smaller replacement. Dock. So it is less bay fill than had been previously in place for a legitimate water oriented use of the bay next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: So the terms which we have negotiated\, and both both Staff and Mister Standard Degree to our to either by the middle of February\, remove the unauthorized doc and gangway\, and submit photographic evidence or submit a filed application for the existing structures\, and to pay a $2\,000 penalty which Mr. Sandridge Hand delivered to the office yesterday. \nBoardroom SX80: and that concludes the staff presentation with that recommended recommended \nBoardroom SX80: decision for the committee. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you\, Adrienne. Normally. This is where we would ask the respondent to \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: affirm that he agrees with the terms and conditions of the proposed settlement. Agreement. However\, he’s not here\, but I wanna point out again for the record that he has signed the settlement agreement. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: However. It does not become effective until the full Commission votes on it on January eighteenth\, 2024. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So\, having said\, all of that do any members have questions for Adrian at this point. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, not seeing any. Margie\, do we have any public comment on this item? \nBoardroom SX80: We do not hear Gilmore \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and I believe we didn’t have any written public comment prior to this correct \nBoardroom SX80: correct. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, great. So at this point in time\, I’ll need a motion and a second to approve \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: the settlement agreement. \nBoardroom SX80: Move the staff recommendation. \nLetty Belin\, Commissioner: Second. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay. So \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: the it was a new spot. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So it was moved by Commissioner Eisen and seconded by Commissioner best kids. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and Matthew\, would you please call the roll? \nBoardroom SX80: Yes\, Commissioner Bieland. \nLetty Belin\, Commissioner: Aye. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Eisen. Aye. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: Commissioner Buscis. Yes. \nBoardroom SX80: Chair Gilmour. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Yes. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: okay\, so this item is concluded\, and I wanna remind everybody that the Commission is scheduled to hear and vote on this recommended Enforcement decision at its February first. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So February first\, or January eighteenth meeting. Excuse me. Chair. W. Would you mind for the record stating the \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Oh\, I’m sorry\, unanimously \nBoardroom SX80: thank you. And \nBoardroom SX80: the next \nso you’re asking\, when is the next Commission meeting this? \nBoardroom SX80: Ph. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: yes. The next Commission meeting is the eighteenth. Is this gonna be heard on the eighteenth \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: or February? First cause? I have 2 different notes here. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Oh\, goodness\, I’m sorry about that. Let me make sure I get the right date out \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: for public and for the record. \nBoardroom SX80: Let me get pull up that information for you. If you’ll \nBoardroom SX80: indulge me for a moment. \nBoardroom SX80: It’s it’s it’s on the agenda. \nBoardroom SX80: I’m sorry\, having trouble accessing the agenda. So I just wanna make sure I give you the correct information \nso \nexcellent. Tell me \nBoardroom SX80: I’m sorry I can’t. I can’t pull it up\, but I think it’s it. I just was told by Margie. She believes it’s perhaps February first\, in fact. \nBoardroom SX80: which makes sense. At this point. I am pulling up the agenda right now. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and it is \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: okay. I can confirm that it is not on \nBoardroom SX80: commission meeting. February first. Yes\, okay\, so it’s on the February First Commission meeting. I just got confirmation from rachel. Thank you\, Rachel. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, so \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So for the court reporter strike all references to this being held on January eighteenth. The correct date is February first\, 2024. The meeting will be held at 3 75 Field Street in San Francisco at 10’clock. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Alright\, thank you. Everybody. Item\, 8 is a \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: vote\, a hearing\, and a vote on the recommended Enforcement decision to resolve enforcement case er 2021 0 4 4.0 0. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So our next agenda item is a staff presentation and a vote on a proposed recommended decision to adopt the settlement agreement to be entered into with Carl \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Yohans Meyer\, of Tiburon\, Marin County. If this committee votes to adopt the recommended Enforcement decision\, which includes the proposed settlement agreement. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: It will be put up for a vote \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: of approval or or rejection \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: by the full commission at its February first\, 2024\, meeting\, which is scheduled to be held online and in person \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: at the Metro Center\, located at 375 Beale Street. in San Francisco City and county\, starting at 10’clock. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Excuse me\, Matthew wants to speak. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: No\, actually\, I put my hand out. Sorry I wanted to make sure that you gave the right date there\, too. It’s also going to be February first. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So after the staff presentation\, I’m going to ask the respondent to affirm. It’s agreement with the terms and conditions of the proposed agreement. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Then I will allow public comment on this item\, and afterwards the committee will hold our discussion and vote on Staff’s recommendation. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So at this time will the representative or representatives for the respondent please identify themselves for the record. \nJohn Sharp: Yes\, good morning. I’m John Sharp. I’m the attorney for Mr. Johan’s Meyer the owner of 5 blending lane in Belvedere. Not Tiburon. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Oh\, thank you very much for that clarification. Thank you for being here today\, and welcome. So I will. I will now invite enforcement analyst Rachel Cone to give her opening remarks. Rachel. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. Just one moment while I share my screen. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: And \nBoardroom SX80: does that look okay for everyone. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Yes. \nBoardroom SX80: okay. \nBoardroom SX80: So good morning chair\, Gilmore\, committee\, members and all in attendance today I’ll present Enforcement case number er 2021 dot 0 4 dot 0 0 \nBoardroom SX80: for which the respondent is Mr. Carl H. Johansmeyer\, represented today by Attorney John Sharp\, and thanks Mr. Sharp\, for being here. \nBoardroom SX80: I will begin by familiarizing you with the location of the violation\, followed by a timeline of events\, and then end by summarizing the violation and finally presenting the staff’s recommendation. \nBoardroom SX80: So there are 2 images on this slide. The one on the left is a zoomed out vicinity map\, and the one on the right focuses in more closely on the location of the violation. There is a red PIN on each image at 5 Blanding Lane\, Belvedere Island\, Marin County. \nBoardroom SX80: and the home is close to the southern tip of Belvedere island and faces east. \nBoardroom SX80: This is a photo of the property from the lower shoreline area taken facing west\, and there’s a yellow oval outlining the specific location of the violation. \nBoardroom SX80: On this slide the image on the left side of the screen shows the violation more closely. The respondent has represented that there was a fence surrounding this property for the past century\, and they needed to replace an 11 foot 2 inch long. Section of a 6 foot tall wire fence in approximately 2021 \nBoardroom SX80: that 11 foot 2 inch long. Section is the section that the respondent needed. Bcdc authorization prior to placing. \nBoardroom SX80: And I’ll now take you through the timeline of events in this case. So in May of 2021 BC. DC. Enforcement staff received a report from City of Belvedere Staff\, alleging that unpermitted fencing had been installed on the property of 5 Blanding lane within BC. DC’s 100 foot shoreline ban jurisdiction \nBoardroom SX80: BC DC. Opened enforcement case er 2021 dot 0 4 0 0\, and made initial contact with respondents authorized Representative Attorney John Sharp. \nBoardroom SX80: between May and June of 2021 respondent\, and Mr. Sharp informed Staff that they were meeting with consultants and a surveyor\, and had hired an architect\, indicating that they were beginning to put together initial application materials to seek and obtain after the fact permit for the fence replacement. \nBoardroom SX80: In September of 2021 city of Belvedere staff and a surveyor conducted a site visit at 5 Blanding Lane\, and reported their findings to BCDC. Staff\, who were unavailable to attend that day. \nBoardroom SX80: City staff confirmed that fencing had been placed on Mr. Johan’s Meyers property without permits. So with this information\, in October of 2021 Bcd. C. Staff issued a notice of violations to Mr. Johan’s Meyer\, initiating a standardized fine process which gave him 35 days to either remove the unpermitted fill\, or to seek and obtain a permit for the fence before standardized fines began accruing. \nBoardroom SX80: In March of 2022\, Mr. Sharp submitted an incomplete region. Wide permit application on behalf of the respondent\, seeking after-the-fact authorization for defense. \nBoardroom SX80: Then\, between October 2022 and October 2023\, Enforcement staff made several attempts to urge Mr. Johansmeyer to complete his Permit application and on October thirteenth\, 2\,023\, staff notified the respondent that the executive director was rescinding the opportunity to resolve the violation\, using the standardized fines. Process after determining that the respondent had not made a good faith effort to resolve the violation. \nBoardroom SX80: On October thirtieth\, 2023 staff mailed a violation report and complaint for administrative civil penalties to the respondent. \nBoardroom SX80: and finally\, on November thirtieth\, 2023 respondent and staff agreed to resolve this enforcement matter via the proposed settlement agreement. \nBoardroom SX80: So to summarize the one violation is for the failure to obtain a Bcd C. Permit prior to placing fencing in Bcd. C’s 100 foot shoreline ban jurisdiction\, and this is in violation of section 6\, 6\, 3\, 2. A of the Mccoyer Petras Act \nBoardroom SX80: to resolve this case. Staff recommends that the Enforcement committee vote to recommend that the Commission authorizes the executive director to execute the proposed settlement agreement\, which requires respondent to \nBoardroom SX80: one pay $2\,500 in administrative civil liability within 30 days of executing the agreement\, and 2 by February 2820\, 24. Either remove the unauthorized fence and submit photographic evidence of the same\, or submit their filed application\, seeking after the fact authorization for the fence. And that concludes the staff’s presentation\, and I will stop sharing my screen. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you very much\, Rachel. At this point\, Mr. Sharp\, I’m gonna ask you if your client agrees to the terms and the conditions of the proposed settlement agreement. Yes\, my client does\, and I am authorized to state that he’s prepared to execute the agreement. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Great! Thank you. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Do any Enforcement Committee members have any questions for either staff or for Mr. Sharp. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Eisen. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Go ahead. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. So just so that I’m understanding we sent a notice in March 2022\, that you have 35 days to fix this problem. \nBoardroom SX80: And now. a year and a half later. we’re settling it. Is that okay? What? What was happening in between then? Because. \nBoardroom SX80: what I’m worried about is the agreement says that they have to remove the fence or submit \nBoardroom SX80: the application which they said they were going to submit\, and really never did. So what happens if on February 2820 24\, \nBoardroom SX80: I mean\, we have. I don’t know how much effort has been put into this. We’re getting $2\,500 out of it. \nBoardroom SX80: What happens if yet again\, the respondent decides that they are going to neither remove the fence nor submit the proper application. \nBoardroom SX80: So that would then mean that the the settlement agreement goes away\, and we would commence formal enforcement through and and \nBoardroom SX80: require action through an order. Additional penalties we can seek\, because 2\,500 is not really going to be sufficient at that point. In time I would have to get back to you on that I’m not exactly sure. And how that would work. \nBoardroom SX80: Well\, I think the Commission may want to know that before they vote on that\, because an awful lot of effort is being put into getting somebody to do what they really should have done a year ago. \nBoardroom SX80: so \nBoardroom SX80: that’s that’s all I have. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you\, Rebecca. I think you bring up a very good point. I think\, as part of the presentation to the full commission \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: given given the history\, I mean no disrespect. But given the history of this I think the Commission should be informed as to if there’s non compliance\, what the next steps are\, and what penalties could conceivably be levy for non-compliance? \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Are there any other questions or comments by commission members\, committee members? Excuse me. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay. Seeing then\, Margie\, do we have any public comments? \nBoardroom SX80: He no public comment. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: And did we? I don’t believe we had any written comments prior to the meeting. \nBoardroom SX80: That’s correct. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, so one last time for committee members\, any final comments or questions. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, so at this point in time\, I would like a motion to approve the Executive Director directors recommended enforcement decision regarding proposed settlement agreement. \nLetty Belin\, Commissioner: Someone \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: I didn’t hear who moved. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, we have a motion by Commissioner Billen\, and a second by Commissioner Vasquez. Matthew\, would you please call them Wrong \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Bielin. \nLetty Belin\, Commissioner: Yes. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Eisen. \nBoardroom SX80: Yes\, Commissioner Busque. \nBoardroom SX80: Chair Gilmour. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Yes. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: so the motion passes unanimously. 4 0. And this item is concluded. The Commission is scheduled to hear and vote on this recommended Enforcement decision at its February first\, 2\,024 meeting. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and that will be held at feels 375 Deal Street in San Francisco at 10’clock committee members\, I will entertain a motion and a second to adjourn our meeting. \nBoardroom SX80: So moved \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: second. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: moved by Commissioner Eisen\, seconded by Commissioner Vasquez. Thank you very much. Everyone. Have a good day. We are adjourned. \n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Learn How to Participate\n				Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act\nAs 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 access Commission Meetings under the “Public Meetings” tab on the website and select the date of the meeting. \nHow to Provide Comments and Comment Time Limits\nPursuant to state law\, the Commission is currently conducting its public meetings in a “hybrid” fashion. Each meeting notice will specify (1) where the meeting is being primarily held physically\, (2) all teleconference locations\, which will be publicly-accessible\, and (3) 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 or a teleconference meeting location; (2) emailing comments in advance to public comment until 10 a.m. on the day of the meeting; and (3) participating via ZOOM during the meeting. \nIf 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. \nQuestions and Staff Reports\nIf 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. \nCampaign Contributions\nState 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. Other 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. \nAccess to Meetings\nMeetings 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.
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/january-11-2024-enforcement-committee-meeting/
CATEGORIES:Enforcement Committee
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20231227T080000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20231227T170000
DTSTAMP:20260429T234345
CREATED:20240131T060022Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240131T060022Z
UID:10000169-1703664000-1703696400@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:December 27\, 2023 Enforcement Committee Meeting (Cancelled)
DESCRIPTION:
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/december-27-2023-enforcement-committee-meeting-cancelled/
CATEGORIES:Enforcement Committee
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20231214T093000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20231214T120000
DTSTAMP:20260429T234345
CREATED:20240131T071126Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240131T072656Z
UID:10000171-1702546200-1702555200@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:December 14\, 2023 Enforcement Committee Meeting
DESCRIPTION:This Enforcement meeting will be conducted in a hybrid format in accordance with SB 143 (2023). To maximize public safety while maintaining transparency and public access\, members of the public can choose to participate either virtually via Zoom\, by phone\, or in person at the location listed below. Physical attendance at Metro Center requires that all individuals adhere to the site’s health guidelines including\, if required\, wearing masks\, health screening\, and social distancing. \nMetro Center375 Beale StreetSan Francisco\, 415-352-3600 \nJoin the meeting via ZOOM \nhttps://bcdc-ca-gov.zoom.us/j/87615183792?pwd=MnQrSC96ZEhETEFVODJJRTBCN0h5dz09 \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers(816) 423-4282Conference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID876 1518 3792 \nPasscode058228 \nIf you call in by telephone: \nPress *6 to unmute or mute yourselfPress *9 to raise your hand or lower your hand to speak  \n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Tentative Agenda\n				\nCall to Order\nRoll Call\nPublic CommentThe Committee will hear public comments on matters that are not on the agenda.\nApproval of Draft Minutes from the November 9\, 2023\, Enforcement Committee meeting.\nEnforcement ReportStaff will update the committee on the current status of the enforcement program’s activities(Matthew Trujillo) [415/352-3633; matthew.trujillo@bcdc.ca.gov]\nBriefings by the Richardson Bay Regional Agency (RBRA) and the City of Sausalito.The City of Sausalito’s and RBRA’s staffs will brief the Committee on each of the agencies’ progress implementing the settlement agreements executed in 2020 and 2021\, respectively\, to regulate illicit activities and conduct compensatory restoration projects in Richardson’s Bay.(Adrienne Klein) [415/352-3609; adrienne.klein@bcdc.ca.gov]Presentation\nHearing and Vote on a Recommended Enforcement Decision to Resolve Enforcement Case ER2000.004.00.The Committee will consider whether to support a recommended enforcement decision to enter into a settlement agreement to resolve a violation at 3025 Marina Drive\, City and County of Alameda.(Adrienne Klein) [415/352-3609; adrienne.klein@bcdc.ca.gov]Presentation\nHearing and Vote on a Recommended Enforcement Decision to Resolve Enforcement Case ER2021.044.00.The Committee will consider whether to support a recommended enforcement decision to enter into a settlement agreement to resolve a violation at 5 Blanding Lane\, Belvedere\, Marin County.(Rachel Cohen) [415/352-3661; rachel.cohen@bcdc.ca.gov].Presentation \nAdjournment\n\n  \n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Meeting Minutes\n				Meeting Minutes \n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Audio Recording & Transcript\n				Audio recording \nhttps://www.bcdc.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/354/2024/01/12-14-EC-audio-recording.mp3\n  \nAudio Transcripts \nMarie Gilmore: Good morning\, everyone. \nMarie Gilmore: Good morning\, everyone the time is 9 30\, and this is a meeting of the Bcd. C. Enforcement Committee is hereby call to order. My name is Marie Gilmore\, and I am the chair of this committee \nMarie Gilmore: for Commissioners\, including those attending at Beale Street. Please ensure that your video camera is always on\, and please mute yourselves when you are not speaking. \nMarie Gilmore: Our first order of business is to call the roll. \nMarie Gilmore: Matthew\, please call the Roll Commissioners. Please unmute yourselves while he does this to respond\, and then mute yourselves. After responding. \nMatthew Trujillo: Good morning. Commissioner Bielin \nLetty Belin: Gilmore \nMarie Gilmore: here. \nMarie Gilmore: So\, ladies and gentlemen\, we do not have a quorum present\, and are not duly constituted constituted to conduct business. Therefore we will adjourn this meeting at this time. \nMarie Gilmore: The next meeting of the Enforcement Committee is scheduled for January eleventh\, 2024\, at 9 30 Am. \nMarie Gilmore: This meeting will be held online and in person for information on how to join online\, or where to attend in person. Please visit the public meetings. page@wwwbcdc.ca\, dot\, Gov. And on behalf of the the committee. I would like to apologize for any inconvenience that moving. This meeting has caused. \nMarie Gilmore: We had something unexpected. Come up\, and therefore we’re not able to a \nMarie Gilmore: constitute a quorum today. So thank you\, everybody for your patience and indulgence. This meeting is now adjourned. \n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Learn How to Participate\n				Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act\nAs 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 access Commission Meetings under the “Public Meetings” tab on the website and select the date of the meeting. \nHow to Provide Comments and Comment Time Limits\nPursuant to state law\, the Commission is currently conducting its public meetings in a “hybrid” fashion. Each meeting notice will specify (1) where the meeting is being primarily held physically\, (2) all teleconference locations\, which will be publicly-accessible\, and (3) 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 or a teleconference meeting location; (2) emailing comments in advance to public comment until 10 a.m. on the day of the meeting; and (3) participating via ZOOM during the meeting. \nIf 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. \nQuestions and Staff Reports\nIf 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. \nCampaign Contributions\nState 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. Other 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. \nAccess to Meetings\nMeetings 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.
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/december-14-2023-enforcement-committee-meeting/
CATEGORIES:Enforcement Committee
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20231122T080000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20231122T170000
DTSTAMP:20260429T234345
CREATED:20240131T055858Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240131T055858Z
UID:10000168-1700640000-1700672400@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:November 22\, 2023 Enforcement Committee Meeting (Cancelled)
DESCRIPTION:
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/november-22-2023-enforcement-committee-meeting-cancelled/
CATEGORIES:Enforcement Committee
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20231109T093000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20231109T120000
DTSTAMP:20260429T234345
CREATED:20240131T060305Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240206T225609Z
UID:10000170-1699522200-1699531200@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:November 9\, 2023 Enforcement Committee Meeting
DESCRIPTION:his Enforcement meeting will be conducted in a hybrid format in accordance with SB 143 (2023). To maximize public safety while maintaining transparency and public access\, members of the public can choose to participate either virtually via Zoom\, by phone\, or in person at the location listed below. Physical attendance at Metro Center requires that all individuals adhere to the site’s health guidelines including\, if required\, wearing masks\, health screening\, and social distancing. \nPhysical Location \nMetro Center375 Beale StreetSan Francisco\, 415-352-3600 \nIf you have issues joining the meeting using the link\, please enter the Meeting ID and Password listed below into the ZOOM app to join the meeting. \nJoin the meeting via ZOOM \nhttps://bcdc-ca-gov.zoom.us/j/83980384080?pwd=YmlaazJCOE56MzdjUjBra1dyVUxqUT09 \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers(816) 423-4282Conference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID839 8038 4080 \nPasscode824357 \nIf you call in by telephone: \nPress *6 to unmute or mute yourselfPress *9 to raise your hand or lower your hand to speak  \n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Tentative Agenda\n				\nCall to Order\nRoll Call\nPublic CommentThe Committee will hear public comments on matters that are not on the agenda.\nApproval of Draft Minutes from the September 27\, 2023\, Enforcement Committee meeting\nEnforcement ReportStaff will update the committee on the current status of the enforcement program’s activities(Matthew Trujillo) [415/352-3633; matthew.trujillo@bcdc.ca.gov]\nHearing and Vote to Recommend Approval of Stipulated Orders CCD2023.002.00 and CCD2023.003.00The Committee will review\, discuss\, and vote whether to recommend to the full Commission for approval two stipulated orders to resolve BCDC Enforcement Case No. ER2019.063.00 against Seaplane Investments LLC alleging unauthorized development activities and violations of BCDC permits 1973.014.04 and M1985.030.01 in Sausalito\, Marin County.(Adrienne Klein) [415/352-3609; adrienne.klein@bcdc.ca.gov];(Matthew Trujillo) [415/352-3633; matthew.trujillo@bcdc.ca.gov]Executive Director’s Recommended Enforcement Decision with exhibits // Staff Presentation\nAdjournment\n\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Meeting Minutes\n				Meeting Minutes \n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Audio Recording & Transcript\n				\nAudio Recording \nhttps://www.bcdc.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/354/2024/01/11-09-EC-Audio-Recording.mp3 \nAudio Transcript \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Eating of the beast. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: The Bcd. C. Enforcement Committee is here by call to order. My name is Marie Gilmore\, and I am the chair of this Committee for Commissioners\, including those attending at Field Street. Please ensure that your video cameras are always on\, and please mute yourselves when you are not speaking. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Our first order of business is to call the role. Matthew. Please call the role commissioners. Please unmute yourselves while he does this\, to respond\, and then mute yourselves after responding. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enf. Program Mgr.: Okay. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enf. Program Mgr.: Mr. Bieland. \nBoardroom SX80: Here. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enf. Program Mgr.: Commissioner Eisen. Commissioner Gilmore. I’m sorry. Share it\, Gilmore. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: here. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So we have a quorum present\, and are duly constituted to conduct business\, and that brings us to item 3 on our agenda\, which is public comment. \nMarie 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. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and\, as far as I know\, we have received no general public comments in advance of this meeting. \nBoardroom SX80: That’s correct. \nBoardroom SX80: Yes. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: thank you. So 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. 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. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Find the small palm icon on the left. If you click on that palm\, icon\, it will raise your hand. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: or if you are joining this meeting by phone\, you must Dial Star 9 to raise your hand. Then Dial Star 6 on your keypad to unmute your phone. When the host asks you in order to make a comment. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: the meeting host will call call on individuals who have raised their hands in the order in which 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 \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: for members of the public attending in person. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Please queue up at the speaker’s podium and wait to be called upon to speak. Commenters are limited to 3Â min to speak. Please keep your comments respectful and focus. We are here to listen to any individual who requests to speak. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: but each speaker has the responsibility to act in a civil and courteous manner as determined by the chair. We will not tolerate hate\, speech\, direct threats\, indirect threats\, or abusive language. We will mute anyone who fails to follow these guidelines. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Margie\, do we have any commenters? \nBoardroom SX80: We do not. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay. And \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: since I’m I myself at my location\, I have no commenters. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair:  Any anybody else zooming in as public speakers. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Chair\, Rebecca. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: nobody’s at my location\, either. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, so that brings us on to Item Number 4\, \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: which is approval of draft minutes. From the last meeting. 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. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: So moved \nBoardroom SX80: second \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: moved by Commissioner Eisen\, seconded by Commissioner Billen and \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Anybody opposed to this motion \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: any extensions. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Motion carries unanimously. Thank you all. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Item 5 is the Enforcement report. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Enforcement policy manager Matthew Trujillo will now provide the Enforcement report. Matthew. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enf. Program Mgr.: I have 3 items to report out on today. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enf. Program Mgr.: First\, the case update since our last meeting on September twenty-seventh. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enf. Program Mgr.: In the past 43 days we received 7 new cases\, resolved 11 cases\, and as of today\, there are 74 unresolved cases in the queue\, which is a net change of negative 5. Since my last report. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enf. Program Mgr.: second\, is an update on the status of compliance with issued orders by the Commission. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enf. Program Mgr.: Tony Daysau\, one of our company’s analysts reports that he has been monitoring compliance with Ccd. 2022 0 0 3\, which was issued to the port of Oakland in july 2022\, to address public access maintenance issues at Jacqueline Square. He notes that there are no issues of concern. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enf. Program Mgr.: John Creech reports that he’s been monitoring compliance with Ccd 2\,020 dot 0 0 2 \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enf. Program Mgr.: issue to Param and Amande Dylan for illegal filling in white\, slew in Bolivo also for an authorized fill at the Family Gun Club and the Zoom\, March \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enf. Program Mgr.: and Ccd 2020 dot 0 0 1 issue to the city of Oakland for failing to maintain the public access and shoreline areas at Union Point Park. He reports that there are no issues of concern with the Dillon and Family Gun Club orders\, and that the City of Open has not responded to his outreach efforts lately. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enf. Program Mgr.: Finally\, I’m pleased to report that\, thanks to the fine investigative work of Rachel Cohen\, of our Enforcement staff and the negotiations led by former chief counsel\, Mark Zapatelo\, who\, generous\, generously donated his time to assist us in its resolution. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enf. Program Mgr.: The case against the Bay Area Council for failing to abide by the terms and conditions of its permits. 2021 dot 0 0 one\, which was to redevelop the historic ferry boat climate for public access of tier 9 in San Francisco has been settled. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enf. Program Mgr.: The settlement agreement was executed by our executive director on November seventh\, and the settlement establishes a timeline by which the Council must complete his public access obligations under its permit\, and pay a fine of $50\,000. Executive director gold span will provide further comments on the settlement at the next Commission meeting on the sixteenth\, where\, incidentally\, I am scheduled to deliver my third quarterly report on the status of the Enforcement program to the full Commission. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enf. Program Mgr.: and this concludes my report. I’d be glad to entertain any. Follow up questions that you may have. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you\, Matthew\, do any members of the Enforcement Committee. Have questions. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Commissioner Eisen. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: Thank you\, Matthew. I’m just curious. I think you said we got 7 new cases and settled 11\, and we’re still down minus 5 instead of minus 4. Is that \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: because something dropped off somehow? \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enf. Program Mgr.:  I believe that that report\, probably incorporates cases that yes\, have been either combined or were closed\, and we didn’t get to it right away. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enf. Program Mgr.: Sometimes those things happen. It’s a pretty big \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enf. Program Mgr.:  database\, and we don’t really have a systematic way of\, you know\, tracking everything in real time. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enf. Program Mgr.: Okay\, great thanks. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Any other committee members have questions. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, do we have any public comment on the Enforcement report. \nBoardroom SX80: We do not. Chair Gilmore. Commissioner Vasquez has joined us. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Welcome\, Commissioner. Good morning. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: Wasn’t raining cats and dogs\, but I cats and dogs problem this morning. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: I know how that happens. So just for the record. Do you have any members of the public at your location. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you. Thank you. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay. The next item on our agenda is item number 6\, which is seaplane investments. Llc. Stipulated orders. This is going to be a briefing and a vote on a proposed recommended decision to adopt 2 stipulated Cease and assist orders to be issued to seaplane investments. Llc. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Porto\, Madera\, Marin County. If this committee votes to adopt \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: either or both of these stipulated orders than the recommended Enforcement decision. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: which includes the orders\, will be put up for a vote for approval or rejection by the full Commission at its December seventh\, 2023\, meeting\, which is scheduled to be held online and in person at the Metro Center\, located at 3 75 Beale Street\, in San Francisco. Beginning at one Pm. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: After Vcdc. Staff gives its opening remarks\, I will ask the respondent to affirm its agreement with the terms and conditions of the stipulated order. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Then I will allow public comment on this item\, and then afterwards the committee shall hold our discussion and vote on Staff’s recommendation. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So at this time will the representative or representatives or the responded please identify themselves for the record. \nJillian Blanchard\, RLG\, Seaplane Investments LLC: Good morning\, Commissioners. This is Gillian Blanchard with Rudder log group\, and I represent seaplane investments. Llc. The respondent. \nLou Vasquez: Thank you very much and welcome\, and I have with me here today\, Lou Vasquez\, the managing member seaplane investments. Lllc. Morning\, everyone. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Good morning and thank you both for being here. \nKey. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: I. Now I’m going to ask general counsel\, Greg Sharff and principal enforcement analyst\, Adrian Klein\, to begin their opening remarks. \nGreg Scharff: Thank you\, Chair Gilmore. So I first wanted to start off by just really thanking the respondents\, Lou Vasquez and Milly Ricklin\, as well as their counsel\, Gillian Blanchard\, for really their hard work in resolving this matter. \nGreg Scharff: You know it wasn’t easy\, but we worked through all the issues\, and II thought we did it in an open and collaborative manner that resolved all of the outstanding issues. \nGreg Scharff: And I just wanted you to know that that was very helpful. And it was sort of unusual. And I’m feeling really positive about \nGreg Scharff: see plan on a going forward basis that they’ll get all the work done they’ve promised to do\, and that they’ll honor their their agreement. Adrian Klein will provide the highlights of the settlement for you and I and Ms. Blanchard are available to answer any questions that you may have regarding the settlement. \nGreg Scharff: Thank you. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you. Adrian. \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: good morning. \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: Everyone can see this screen and hear me. \nBoardroom SX80: Yes\, yes. \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: thanks for confirming \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: in in July of 2022\, Staff issued a violation reporting complaint to resolve 6 unresolved violations\, and in October of 2022 staff issued a complaint for administrative penalties to resolve the penalty portion of 3 resolved violations \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: during a public hearing or 2\, rather on May thirtieth\, 2023\, \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: the Enforcement Committee directed Staff to enter into settlement negotiations\, and today’s public hearing provides an Enforcement committee\, recommended Enforcement decision\, and 2 proposed\, stipulated\, cease and assist orders. \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: So sorry. \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: Let’s see here. \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: I’m just. Oh\, there we go! I’m so sorry. \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: So\, for \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: the presentation will cover the site location. Describe the 9 violations and summarize the staff recommendation. \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: and for some reason my progression is not occurring. \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: Hmm! \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: Pardon me. \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: Matthew\, since I seem to be stuck. Do you wanna share the screen instead of me? \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enf. Program Mgr.: Yes\, I’m gonna need to open it up one moment. Let me try one more time. I’m really sorry about this \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: works fine when I’m not sharing. \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: Oh\, thanks\, Matthew. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enf. Program Mgr.: So third slide\, third slide. \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: Sorry about that. Everyone. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enf. Program Mgr.: this one \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: bingo\, so the red PIN on the vicinity map shows the location where the violations occurred and are occurring\, known as 240242 Redwood highway frontage road\, in an unincorporated area of Marin County. \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: Next. the image on the left shows the site looking to the northeast. \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: The site contains a number of businesses and operations\, while some of the ground level uses and the associated fill appear to have been ongoing in 1965. \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: At the time of enactment of the Mackette\, Petr Sack changes to the ongoing uses and associated fill within Bcd’s jurisdiction\, including maintenance that occurred after the law was enacted\, require A\, BC. DC. Permit or amendment. \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: Vcdc. Permits run with the land\, and new owners are responsible for resolving inherited violations and also violations that they themselves undertake \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: as new owners. Respondents should have. But did not contact. Bcd see as part of a due diligence review to obtain site status in relation to the law\, and existing\, permits \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: the image on the right has an overlay of the approximate locations of the 2 privately owned parcels number 164 and 167\, \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: with the street rights of way that surround them. \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: The docking facility is located on Marin County property. \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: I will now describe the 6 unresolved violations that would be the next slide \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: violation. One respondent is violating special condition. 2 C. Public access of permit\, 197301404. By failing to provide the public shore signage and the public access connection from the site to the Marin County public access west of the site. \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: Violation 2. Respondent is violating special condition 2 c. 2. Maintenance. By failing to maintain the existing required public short pathways and landscaping. \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: The bulkhead. Apparepa Street is severely eroded\, and the adjacent public shoreline pathway is frequently inundated by tides. The northeastern tip of this area is eroded to the point of being gone\, and the remainder is collapsing into the Bay. \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: Violation 3 respondent is violating mackature. Petrus act section 6\, 6\, 6\, 6\, 3\, 2\, a. By placing unauthorized fill in San Francisco Bay and or the shoreline band on Yolo Street. \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: The unauthorized fill includes vehicle\, parking and or equipment\, storage. seaplane\, storage\, repair and maintenance\, seaplane fueling tank and elevated asphalt path across yellow street to allow access during \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: to the to the seaplane. \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: I’m sorry to the Healyport launching area. During high tides. \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: Some of this unauthorized fill also violates special condition to the use of solid fill of the 1973 permit\, by using filled areas at designated to be used only for landscaping\, landscape\, public access and pedestrian and bicycle pathways for private use. \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: Violation for respondent is violating the Mac at your Petrus act by placing unauthorized fill in Bcd’s jurisdiction\, consisting of an unauthorized helicopter landing pad \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: and 4 paved walkways on block 1\, 6\, 4. \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: Violation 5. Respondent is violating the mackature Petrus Act by placing unauthorized\, fill in the bay on Marin county property by expanding an existing U-shaped floating dock during 3 separate episodes with new floating\, fill 2 pilings and relocating an on water fueling station. \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: and finally\, violation. 6. Respondent is violating the Macer Petras Act by placing unauthorized fill in BC. DC. Jurisdiction\, consisting of excavation and fill to construct a new concrete and rebar water access ramp in the yellow street right of way. \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: This completes the violation summary of the 6 unresolved violations. \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: I will now describe the 3 resolved violations next slide \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: to our respondents. Failure to take assignment of both the 1973 and the 1\,985 permits\, and the third is\, respondents\, failure to complete a project prior to the permit\, expiration\, date\, and continuing work with an expired permit \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: next slide. \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: So the staff recommendation for the 6 unresolved violations\, will be covered in the following 4 slides. So first\, there is \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: an agreement by respondent to cease and desist from violating the Macintosh Petras Act\, and both the 1\,973\, and the 1\,985 permits \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: by the thirtieth of June 2024 respondents has stipulated to comply with the existing permits as follows\, by maintaining the permit required public access along the existing shoreline pathway within respondents. Current property \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: on Yellow Street\, from the termination of the shirlin pathway located within the dedicated public access area within respondents\, property to stripe and maintain by restriving is often as necessary to maintain a clearly delineated public shirling pathway \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: an 8 foot wide. Accessible path of travel\, as shown on a plan that will be attached to the order \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: to install a total of 8 public shore signs\, consisting of 5 directional arrows on Belina Street\, \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: And one sign each on prefa and yellow streets\, and a back-to-back sign visible from the Mill Valley \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: bike path. \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: and 3 additional public shore signs \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: respondent agrees to permanently relocate accessible parking to the west side of Elena Street. \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: on Yellow Street to Rou to remove the asphalt path constructed. \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: and to confirm with Bp. B Cdc. Staff\, which helicopter pads and walkways are covered within the existing permit. \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: Next slide \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: within 12 months of the date of the order to file a complete application. to amend the 1973 permit. \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: That would include revised landscaping for areas adjacent to the required public access \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: that includes installation and maintenance of several picnic tables. \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: That will be Ada accessible. And if new public access is proposed\, in a following section\, that that those amenities will be included on the revised landscaping plans. \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: and also to request\, after the fact authorization for any heliport pads\, fuel tanks\, and walkways not otherwise permitted. \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: The 3 unauthorized finger piers that are part of the docking system. The unauthorized \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: launch ramp next slide. \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: Respondent also agrees to provide additional public access. Which would either be provision of the existing required connection to the Marin County bike path from the site. If local approval is \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: obtained. \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: or if it is not to provide alternate access on site \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: and \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: finally respond and agrees to prepare and submit a sea level rise\, risk assessment that addresses potential sea level rise in all permit\, required public access areas \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: and and in additional public access series \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: described above\, and to implement that plan within time frames to be specified. \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: and it shall include adoptive measures to maintain the Peripa Street public access that is frequently flooded and eroded\, and adaptive measures to maintain public access for the life of the project\, or until 2050. \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: That concludes the injunctive relief in the next slide outlines the penalty\, which is 43\,800 10\,000 of which to be paid within 60 days of order issues 16\,900 do within 12 months of order\, issuance\, and 16\,900 do within 24 months of order issuance. \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: So that concludes the terms of the stipulation for the 6 unresolved violations\, and for the 3 resolve violations. The next slide outlines the administrative civil penalty of $5\,000\, half of which is due within 12Â s half\, is due within 12 months of order\, issuance. \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: So together\, the 2 recommendations result in a total penny penalty of 48\,000 and $800. And this concludes the staff presentation. Thank you. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you very much\, Adrienne. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair:  now\, I would like to ask respondents to affirm their agreement in accordance with the terms and conditions of the stipulated orders. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Ccd. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: 202-30-0200 and Ccd\, 202-30-0300. \nJillian Blanchard\, RLG\, Seaplane Investments LLC: Thank you\, Commissioner Gilmore. Yes\, I first wanna say\, thank you very much to staff working with Mr. Sharf. Mr. Trujillo has been very\, very collaborative and we appreciate the opportunity to resolve this matter and move forward with compliance. And I can say\, on behalf of seplain investments\, that we do agree to all the terms and the stipulated orders. And I’ll just to ask \nJillian Blanchard\, RLG\, Seaplane Investments LLC: Mr. Vasquez to come off mute and confirm as well. \nLou Vasquez: Yeah\, I also want to thank Staff for their cooperation and and help in resolving these issues. And we do agree to the stipulated terms. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you. Now\, before we turn to public comment. I wanna ask if any of the Commissioners have any clarifying questions? Not discussion\, just clarifying questions at this point. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: I am not seeing any Commissioner hands raised? \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, so at this point in time we will take public comments on this item. First of all\, Margie\, have we received any written comments. \nBoardroom SX80: No\, we did not. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay. Do we have any public speakers? I don’t see anybody in the room. \nBoardroom SX80: Yeah\, no\, nobody. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Nobody in the room and nobody online. \nBoardroom SX80: Correct? \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay? Then. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: I guess I guess I was a little bit ahead of myself. I since \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: I guess I need a motion to close the public hearing. So somebody wanna okay\, Commissioner Eisen? \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: And did I see Commissioner Blynn raise her hand \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: alright. So now that we’ve done that\, are there any? I’m gonna open it up to discussion from committee members. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Commissioner Eisen. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: Thank you. Well\, I wanna join in the thanks to our staff\, and also to the respondent and the Respondents Council for getting done what was seeming back when we last heard about it\, to be a very difficult and \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: almost intractable problem. So you have done fantastic work getting this done. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: My understanding is that the first thing that will happen in terms of whether we know whether enforcement has occurred is the 60 days penalty that will be due. That will be the first indication of \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: whether we’re going to be able to stay on track with all of the different settlement requirements\, and but \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: I am certainly hoping that we never have to really answer this question. But I am curious\, Greg\, if you could explain to us \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: if for some reason \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: the settlement agreement were not was not complied with either whole or part. \nGreg Scharff: So what would be the steps then? Are we back to square one\, or would we be able to go directly to some kind of enforcement mechanism to make sure the settlement agreement is complied with. So it’s actually not a settlement agreement. It’s a stipulated order. \nGreg Scharff: So what we would do\, we would turn it over to the Attorney General’s office in the worst case\, and they would then prosecute it. \nGreg Scharff: and then fines could be up to $2\,000 a day \nGreg Scharff: for not being in compliance. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: it would not come back to this Enforcement Committee. That’s correct. It would not great. Okay\, thanks for that. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Anyone else. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, I just want to echo the comments and thanks to both the respondents and staff. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: This has been a set of issues going back a long time. I’m just gonna make comment for the record that some of the issues occurred before the respondents. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: bought the property. So that’s that’s always an issue. And just it the length of time that this has gone on and the complexity of the issues. So I wanna say I really appreciate staff and response willingness to work together in a very\, very positive manner. And I’m thankful and grateful for this very positive outcome. And \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: I’m going to look for a motion and a second to \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Accept the recommended Enforcement decision and move it on to the full commission. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: I’ll move it \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: second. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: and need to hear the recommendation before we vote\, or that’s a good point. We do \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: thank you. Keeping me on the straight and narrow here. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Alright\, staff \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: break. You want me to make the recommendation. Yes\, go ahead\, Adrian. so I’m assuming \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: you don’t want me to go into the details\, so the recommendation would be to adopt. The Enforcement Committee recommended Enforcement decision\, and 2 proposed stipulated Cease and desist orders to resolve \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: 6 unresolved\, and 3 resolved violations. Is that adequate? \nGreg Scharff: Yes. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: okay\, thank you. So once again the staff recommendation was moved by Commissioner Vasquez and seconded by Commissioner Eisen. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: And so now we will take a roll call vote. I believe that’s Matthew. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enf. Program Mgr.: Okay. Commissioner Bielin. \nYes. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enf. Program Mgr.: Commissioner Eisen. Commissioner Vasquez. chair. Gilmour. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Yes. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: thank you. Everyone. The motion passes unanimously\, and once again thank you. To everyone involved great work. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: And now\, committee members\, I will entertain a motion and a second to adjourn our meeting. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Moved by Commissioner Eisen\, seconded by Commissioner Vasquez\, and I will note for the record that it is 1001 Am. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you\, everybody. This meeting is now adjourned. \nJillian Blanchard\, RLG\, Seaplane Investments LLC: Thank you. \n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Learn How to Participate\n				Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act\nAs 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 access Commission Meetings under the “Public Meetings” tab on the website and select the date of the meeting. \nHow to Provide Comments and Comment Time Limits\nPursuant to state law\, the Commission is currently conducting its public meetings in a “hybrid” fashion. Each meeting notice will specify (1) where the meeting is being primarily held physically\, (2) all teleconference locations\, which will be publicly-accessible\, and (3) 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 or a teleconference meeting location; (2) emailing comments in advance to public comment until 10 a.m. on the day of the meeting; and (3) participating via ZOOM during the meeting. \nIf 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. \nQuestions and Staff Reports\nIf 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. \nCampaign Contributions\nState 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. Other 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. \nAccess to Meetings\nMeetings 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.
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/november-9-2023-enforcement-committee-meeting/
CATEGORIES:Enforcement Committee
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20231025T080000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20231025T170000
DTSTAMP:20260429T234345
CREATED:20240131T055618Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240131T055618Z
UID:10000167-1698220800-1698253200@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:October 25\, 2023 Enforcement Committee Meeting (Cancelled)
DESCRIPTION:
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/october-25-2023-enforcement-committee-meeting-cancelled/
CATEGORIES:Enforcement Committee
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20231012T080000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20231012T170000
DTSTAMP:20260429T234345
CREATED:20240131T055514Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240131T055514Z
UID:10000166-1697097600-1697130000@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:October 12\, 2023 Enforcement Committee Meeting (Cancelled)
DESCRIPTION:
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/october-12-2023-enforcement-committee-meeting-cancelled/
CATEGORIES:Enforcement Committee
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20230927T093000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20230927T120000
DTSTAMP:20260429T234345
CREATED:20240131T052857Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240206T224955Z
UID:10000165-1695807000-1695816000@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:September 27\, 2023 Enforcement Committee Meeting
DESCRIPTION:This Enforcement meeting will operate as a hybrid meeting under teleconference rules established by the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act. Commissioners are located at the primary physical location and may be located at the teleconference locations specified below\, all of which are publicly accessible. The Zoom video-conference link and teleconference information for members of the public to participate virtually is also specified below. \nPrimary Physical Location \nMetro Center1st Floor – Yerba Buena Room375 Beale StreetSan Francisco\, 415-352-3600 \nTeleconference Locations \nSolano County Government Center675 Texas St.\, Ste. 6500Fairfield\, CA 94533(707-784-6129) \nIf you have issues joining the meeting using the link\, please enter the Meeting ID and Password listed below into the ZOOM app to join the meeting. \nJoin the meeting via ZOOM \nhttps://bcdc-ca-gov.zoom.us/j/83719850693?pwd=MzNsRDhHcm5wSlpSQVZ5bXVVTmZ4QT09 \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers(816) 423-4282Conference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID899 6979 5128 \nPasscode052719 \nIf you call in by telephone: \nPress *6 to unmute or mute yourselfPress *9 to raise your hand or lower your hand to speak  \n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Tentative Agenda\n				\nCall to Order\nRoll Call\nPublic CommentThe Committee will hear public comments on matters that are not on the agenda.\nApproval of Draft Minutes from the August 23\, 2023 \, Enforcement Committee meeting\nEnforcement ReportStaff will update the committee on the current status of the enforcement program’s activities(Matthew Trujillo) [415/352-3633; matthew.trujillo@bcdc.ca.gov]\nBriefing on Oakland Alameda Estuary and Encampment Issue.\nThe Enforcement Committee will receive a briefing on actions taken to address shoreline encampments\, abandoned and derelict vessels\, and anchor-outs in the Oakland-Alameda Estuary by BCDC staff and the Cities of Oakland and Alameda.(John Creech) [415/352-3619; john.creech@bcdc.ca.govPublic Comment \n\nAdjournment\n\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Meeting Minutes\n				Meeting Minutes \n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Audio Recording & Transcript\n				Audio Recording \nhttps://www.bcdc.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/354/2024/01/09-27-EC-Audio-Recording.mp3 \nAudio \nShe stated\, it is 9 35\, and this meeting of the Bcd. Enforcement Committee is hereby call to order. My name is Marie Gilmore\, and I am chair of this committee. \nAnd I’m just gonna ask\, since I’m a little bit away from the microphone. Can everybody hear me? \nCreston: Yes\, yes\, yes\, thumbs up. \nCreston: Okay\, cool. \nalright. For commissioners\, including those who are attending at Beale Street. Please ensure that your video cameras are always on\, and please mute yourselves when you are not speaking. \nCreston: Our first order of business today is to call the role \nMatthew. Please call the Roll Commissioners. Please unmute yourselves. While he does this to respond\, and then mute yourselves after responding. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Manager: Good morning. Let’s see. We’ll start with Commissioner Bielyn. \nLetty Belin\, Commissioner: Here. \nThank you. Commissioner Vasquez here. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Manager: and chair. Gilmour. \nCreston: here. \nCreston: Okay\, we have a corn present and are duly constituted to conduct business. \nand that’s going to bring us to Item 3 on our agenda\, which is public comment \nCreston: 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. \nWe have received one general comment. and a copy has been linked to this agenda item on our website or 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. \nplease 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. \nFind the small palm icon on the left. If you click on that palm\, icon\, it will raise your hand. or if you are joining this meeting by phone. you must dial Star 9 to raise your hand \nand then Dial star 6 on your keypad to unmute your phone when the host asks you in order to make a comment. \nCreston: The meeting host will call on individuals who have raised their hands in the order that they were raised \nafter you were called on\, you will be unmuted\, so that you can share your comments. Please announce yourself first by first and last name for the record before making your comment. \nor members of the public attending in person. Please queue up at the speaker’s podium \nat your location\, and wait to be called upon to speak. \nCreston: Commenters are limited to 3 min to speak. \nPlease keep your comments respectful and focused. We are here to listen to any individual who requests. but each speaker has the responsibility to act in a civil and courteous manner as determined by the chair. \nCreston: We will not tolerate hate\, speech. \ndirect threats. indirect threats\, or abusive language. We will mute anyone who fails to follow those guidelines. \nCreston: Margie\, do we have any commentators? \nWe have any comments? \nCreston: Public comments? \nNo public comments. Share. Gilmore. Okay\, Commissioner Vasquez\, do we have any members of the public at your location that wish to make general comments? \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: No\, we don’t \nCreston: thank you. And let the record reflect that Commissioner Ransott has joined us. \nWelcome. \nCreston: Okay\, so next item of business is\, item number 4\, approval of the draft minutes for the last meeting. \nWe have all been furnished draft minutes from our last meeting committee members. I would appreciate a motion and a second to approve these. \nCreston: I so moved to approve. Second. \nokay\, we have a motion to approve by Commissioner Bielin\, and a second by Commissioner Vasquez. And I want to note for the record that I have reviewed the minutes of the \nCreston: the the meeting\, and I will be voting on this. \nSo let’s we have a motion in a second\, and if there are any objections to approving the minutes\, please speak out. Now. \nCreston: hearing no objections\, the minutes are approved unanimously. \nI’m sorry. \nSorry. \nCreston: Okay\, that brings us to Item Number 5. The Enforcement Report \nand Enforcement policy Manager Matthew Trujillo will now provide the Enforcement report. Good morning\, Matthew. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Manager: Good morning\, chair good morning committee members. Only 2 items to report out today \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Manager: in the first one being a case update as per usual since our last meeting on August 20\, third in the last month we received 7 new cases and resolved 9 cases. And so that brings our total as of today to 79 unresolved cases\, which is a net difference of negative 3 from last month. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Manager: So small progress. But you know\, just imagine what we can do with a fully staffed unit. Second\, an update on the status of compliance with issued orders by the Commission. This is in response to a \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Manager: request \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Manager: that we regularly update this Committee on the the compliance status of commission issued orders. So \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Manager: we did receive a complaint yesterday of new homeless accountants being established within Union Point Park\, which\, as you may recall most of you is under a compliance monitoring for Commission Order number Ccd 2021 dot 0 0. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Manager: I went ahead and referred that complaint to the compliance team for follow up\, and you will see it today as a general public comment that was submitted for this meeting. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Manager: and at a future meeting we’ll update you on the compliance or legal actions that we may take \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Manager: to to to get them back in compliance with their order \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Manager: and \nthat concludes my report. So I’m available for any. Follow up questions you may have. \nCreston: Thank you. Do any committee members have any questions for Matthew? \nCreston: Hmm. \nDo we have any members of the public located in this room who have any questions for Matthew. \nCreston: John. Do you have anybody at your location who has any public comments for Matthew? \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: No\, and II don’t have anyone from the public\, either. you know. That’s good to know. Thank you. \nCreston: All right. \nyes. \nplease go ahead on on this item. \nAnon: Yes. Hi\, I’m wondering why it’s not been enforcement on the encampments and Union Park. There is one near the corner of Denison and Coastguard Island\, along the shore near the abandoned \nAnon: vessels that are up on the rocks\, the ones with graffiti on them. There’s an encampment that’s been there for \nAnon: I don’t know over a year\, and it’s gotten bigger. It’s very. It’s I’ve reported it several times\, and nothing has happened. \nAnon: I don’t know what else I can do. That’s what I had understood was my job as a \nAnon: as a resident of this Marina was to report when things were showing up\, and I was promised that things would be handled\, and that one has not been handled. \nAnon: I’m wondering why\, thank you very much. \nCreston: Next we have Joe de breeze. \nJoe DeVries\, City of Oakland: Hi! I’m actually here to present along with Miss Simmons from the city of Oakland. But I’m in the \nJoe DeVries\, City of Oakland: whatever spectator box. So I wanted to make sure you guys knew I was here. That’s why I have my hand raised. \nCreston: Thank you very much. I’ll promote you. \nCreston: Thank you. Are there any more comments on item number 5 before we move on to Item Number 6\, which is a briefing on the Oakland Alameda estuary and encampment issue. \nSeeing none. Okay. \nCreston: excuse me\, then we will move on to Item number 6. \nThis committee will now receive a briefing on actions taken to address abandoned and derelict vessels and anchor outs in the Oakland Alameda estuary by the cities of Alameda and Oakland \nat this time. Will the representative or representative for the cities please identify themselves for the record\, and we’ll start with the city of Alameda. \nAPD T. Siebert: Good morning. It’s Sergeant Siebert with the city of Alameda Police department. \nCreston: Thank you. And welcome City of Oakland. \nLaTonda Simmons: Oh\, good morning. It’s \nCreston: okay. Thank you. Everyone for attending\, and welcome. \nJoe DeVries\, City of Oakland: II do. Wanna by my apologies. Chair\, Gilmore\, I do want to also acknowledge Officer Albino is raised to sanity is here to present as well. \nExcellent. Okay. Now\, I’m going to invite compliance. Analyst John Creech to give his introduction. John \nJ. Creech: Morning. Thank you very much chair. I’m John Creech. I’m on your \nJ. Creech: compliance team. I’ve been working closely with Adrian Klein\, principal enforcement analyst to meet regularly with the cities of Oakland and Alameda. \nJ. Creech: we recognize that the this issue\, that \nJ. Creech: the Oakland Alameda estuary issue is \nJ. Creech: has received a lot of attention and \nJ. Creech: We are very excited about the progress that has been made. So first\, I would like to have \nJ. Creech: Sergeant Cybert\, go ahead and present. \nAPD T. Siebert: Good morning. Thank you very much. As far as anchor outs on on our side of the estuary and Alameda\, we currently do not have any boats that are that are anchored out \nAPD T. Siebert: we also currently do not have any encampments that are along the shoreline. \nAPD T. Siebert: I know our boat was out of service for about 2\, 2 and a half months\, just due to some maintenance issues and getting some some back\, basically backlog and parts to get the motors back up to \nAPD T. Siebert: back\, up to stuff and running properly to get the boat back in the water. \nAPD T. Siebert: We were just back out on the water. Sunday September 20\, fourth\, and just confirmed\, and no anchor outs and no encampments along our along our shoreline. \nAPD T. Siebert: During our current. Save grant. That we currently have. We have a hundred $1\,000 that was granted to us. For that. We have used that money\, and removed 7 vessels from the water. Both turned in as well as sunken vessels\, and we also assisted the city of Oakland by removing 5 vessels that they had at the aquatic center. \nAPD T. Siebert: We applied for save grants for the coming up cycle\, and we have just gotten approval for $200\,000 in the New Save Grant cycle\, and again plan to \nAPD T. Siebert: help the city of Open with removing some of the vessels that they need help with. \nAPD T. Siebert: And I think that is right. Now. \nCreston: Sorry we’re having some technical difficulties. \nCreston: Can you hear me? \nJ. Creech: Yeah\, people are not hips. \nThis might be picking up. \nAPD T. Siebert: Were you guys able to hear me? \nJ. Creech: Yes\, online\, we could. \nOkay. \nCreston: okay\, I’m sorry\, Mr. Devreeze\, please. \nJoe DeVries\, City of Oakland: Sure. Good morning. And actually\, we when we met with Staff. We wanted to both cover shoreline encampments and anchor outs\, and that’s why our assistant city administrators here\, and we have a Powerpoint that Miss Simmons has\, and she’s gonna start out to talk about encampments\, and then I’ll talk about \nJoe DeVries\, City of Oakland: what’s happening with the anchor outs\, and then\, of course\, we have our officer of\, you know. Here is the man on the ground or in the water. Who can answer some of the operational questions. And so if she can be given host access or \nJoe DeVries\, City of Oakland: ability to share screen\, that’d be great. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Manager: Once I think you should be able to share. If you click the share screen button at the bottom of your window. \nLaTonda Simmons: Good morning. I wanted to make sure that I had the Powerpoint set for presentation\, which is also tricky in this environment. Good morning. And thank you \nLaTonda Simmons: for allowing us to come and present some information in terms of city of open activities in terms of encampment management. So my greetings\, the honorable members of the BC. DC. Will move through this presentation\, at which I will start a portion of it\, and Mr. Debris will \nLaTonda Simmons: engage another portion of it. And so we ask your patience. See that there’s technical difficulties today. And I hope\, the technical guides are gonna work with me. And some of the presentation overall intense to address Bcd Enforcement activities. And specifically those along the shorelines related to encampments. And obviously. \nLaTonda Simmons: okay\, that’s alright. The overview of this presentation will cover the encampment management policy. Specific encampment management operations\, and of course\, then move to the nuisance vessel policy and the nuisance. Special operations \nLaTonda Simmons: just to quickly level set on the conditions in terms of homelessness. We wanted to make sure that the Commission the committee understood\, if you will\, the level of homelessness that the city of Oakland is grappling with. According to the most recent point in time\, count of 2022. You see\, there has been a substantial growth in homelessness\, specifically unsheltered as well as sheltered homelessness \nLaTonda Simmons: that modality breaks down across tents. Cars are these streets and abandoned buildings. Accordingly\, seeing that there’s been a 31. Excuse me. \nLaTonda Simmons: there’s been a 32% increase \nLaTonda Simmons: impact in our tent encampment. But there has been a 31% increase in our vehicular encampment in terms of cars and bands. And of course\, a 27% increase \nLaTonda Simmons: in terms of Rb’s. We believe just to be very candid that these are under counted \nLaTonda Simmons: wanna recognize that the 2022 point in time. Count was a makeup point in time. Count from the 2021 point to time count when it should happen during the pandemic we also see. \nLaTonda Simmons: there’s been a slight reduction in street and \nLaTonda Simmons: street\, and outside encampment activity in terms of people lying sleeping and see sits line sleeping and sitting directly on our streets\, and there is a 1% difference with respect to abandoned buildings. \nLaTonda Simmons: So \nLaTonda Simmons: we also wanted to highlight that \nLaTonda Simmons: as it currently stands \nLaTonda Simmons: the capacity of our shelter systems have a significant limitation in terms of the number of beds available. We cited\, that there’s about 1\,700 individuals that are in a that are homeless and and sheltered. \nLaTonda Simmons: These numbers in terms of the number of beds here\, reflect\, if you will\, a combination of resources from Alameda County\, as well as those that the city has stood up itself. In terms of the city’s inventory. It’s probably just just north of 12\,012\, 1\,200 beds that have been stood up. \nLaTonda Simmons: The encampment management policy\, as you all well know\, of course\, isn’t guide\, is guided much of this work\, however\, there is a number of intersecting policies that have also had a significant impact on the operations. Of course Martin Voise stands at the top of the list\, and that would be the component in terms of the Nice Circuit Course district decision that requires that there be an adequate offer of shelter \nLaTonda Simmons: for every encampment that is closed. And you can imagine\, just from the prior side slides of seeing approximately 1\,700 bids seeing a number of individuals who are sheltered\, and then seeing more than 3\,000 individuals who are unsheltered\, that this is pose to significant challenge for the city. In addition\, the city is also whether it’s some litigation \nLaTonda Simmons: which has also hyper extended some of the requirements to be able to close encampments providing longer terms of constructive notice\, extended terms in terms of the \nLaTonda Simmons: storage of personal belongings\, and then some calculus\, as it relates to the conditions under which we can perform encampment closures associated with the weather. For instance. \nLaTonda Simmons: should we find that the weather reaches more than one inch of rain accumulated over an operation we may be required to shut down. These new factors absolutely have impacted the city’s ability to hyper\, mobilize our response to encampments. Other other policies that help us would be the emergency shelter ordinance\, that the city is adopted\, and it expedites our ability to stand up intervention so that we can expand our shelter. Bad capacity\, however\, that is tethered to relevant \nLaTonda Simmons: state\, local and federal laws and resources. And to the extent that we have tapped our resources\, we are capped at the numbers that we have\, we are still pursuing additional \nLaTonda Simmons: resources to be able to expand our capacity\, and\, of course\, other operational policies\, as it relates to public works\, Osha requirements\, their sops\, other elements as it relates to dots\, enforcement\, authority\, the police departments\, enforcement\, authority\, all of those individuals will come together to be able to assist with the encampment management process\, and I skipped over Cdc. Guidance. But it really begins to \nLaTonda Simmons: elucidate or rather demystify the conditions associated with health and safety conditions. Should the Cdc make a determination about communicable diseases\, it could have an impact \nLaTonda Simmons: on our ability to close that encampment. Typically the Cdc will hold the position that you cannot disband an encampment if specific communicable diseases are within that encampment and other elements that provide us information\, of course\, most recently mentioned was the 2022 point time count. That shows us the census over all of our encampment community and our unhoused community \nLaTonda Simmons: home together\, which is a strategy to end homelessness. Proposals\, if you will\, and concepts centering equity and the design of homelessness systems. And of course\, the Alameda County continuum of care and their policies that advance our ability. \nLaTonda Simmons: Yeah\, it’s with the resources that they provide. \nLaTonda Simmons: You. All are very familiar with the encampment management policy. II know\, of course. This. This Commission is\, has had a number of issues with respect to the encampments along the shorelines\, the policy was adopted to assist all open. This\, of course\, sheltered and on shelter\, to be able to manage the adverse in first impact of encampments. \nLaTonda Simmons: and it intended to balance the interest of our residents in terms of the unhous house businesses in the community\, and even special districts and bodies such as yourself. The goal\, of course\, was to focus on mitigating and negative impacts in terms of health and safety. And this is continue to be the basis by which the \nLaTonda Simmons: Emt is exercising their authority. To abating candidates. So I’ll move a little bit more quickly. \nLaTonda Simmons: These 2 sensitivity areas just intend to give some detail in terms of the proximity\, and how the city set forth\, if you will\, in order of magnitude\, to focus on encampments and their removals\, those in high sensitivity areas where health and safety impacts obviously would impact businesses. \nLaTonda Simmons:  egress routes\, emergency circumstances\, rights of way. \nLaTonda Simmons: I would say that that\, of course\, is where most of the BC. DC. Including other proximity elements. Encampments are in terms of along the wide waterways. Low sensitivity areas would be like your underpasses and things like that where imp. Perhaps some of your industrial areas where the encampments are not necessarily directly associated or more heavily associated with impacts to residences and businesses. \nLaTonda Simmons: The details of the sensitivity areas have been sort of laid out pretty clearly. I just wanted to highlight obviously that the most essential component\, as it relates to the BC. DC. In addition to these other elements\, would be those within 50 feet of a protected waterway as established by any governing body. In addition\, of course\, just wanted to mention that the Public Works Department is also monitoring conditions in terms of \nLaTonda Simmons: activities that would be contaminants to waterways areas\, and their barrier is about one within 500 feet of protected waterways. \nLaTonda Simmons: Low sensitivity compliance also includes many of the things that are actually associated with high sensitivity conditions in terms of health and safety factors. But just quickly wanted to highlight that. Obviously the debris and the dumping of gray and black water. As it affects our waterways and our storm drains\, of course\, is very essential to the conversation that we are having today \nLaTonda Simmons: in terms of our operations. We wanted to show you that\, based on the intersecting policies that were described earlier\, that there’s a significant amount of work that goes into planning the closure of an encampment. First and foremost. \nLaTonda Simmons: it is most certainly about the assembly of the teams\, but more so \nLaTonda Simmons: from intake to verification\, verifying the conditions and assembling the teams proper to abate those specific conditions\, but also the availability of those shelter beds. currently\, the city of Oakland \nLaTonda Simmons: obviously has less shelter beds available than we have on house on the streets\, and I would say that the movement of individuals out of those shelter systems are a factor in terms of the vacancies there. Once we accumulate a number of beds\, we are able to go out and closing encampment\, and that has been challenging. Given the amount of homelessness that we see on the streets\, and the low number of shelter beds that we have \nLaTonda Simmons: just to give you a sample of what it is just a snapshot of the number of requests that we receive. And 2021 when undertaking this work we had approximately 2\,400 requests. In year 2\,022. That number grew to about 3\,500 requests just south of it\, and just counting through the end of June. \nLaTonda Simmons: We are already at above a reasonable high mark of the prior year. At about 2\,100 requests. It’s important to note that even this number is lower than what we can track. We had some issues with respect to the city of Oaklands. \nLaTonda Simmons: Ransomware incident. And as a result of that\, many systems that we were used to using to track reports of encampments. Of course\, 311 was impacted\, and there was some data lost in so this number\, probably in actuality\, in terms of the number of complaints that have been file are probably close to about 2\,700. \nLaTonda Simmons: Just to give you a sense of the reported number of encampments. In 2022\, at the adoption of the policy. It was projected that there was\, you know\, just north of 140 encampments\, possibly about 150. That was the assumed number. However\, by the time that we got to the end of 2021 the number of reported encampments had increased to 635\, and by 2022 \nLaTonda Simmons: to 1\,006\, and of course\, just to date with well\, just to June thirtieth\, we see the reported number of encampments escalated to be at 1\,381. I just wanted to include that in encampment is counted from the body of one\, and that is because the Martin B. Voicey requirements require that if I close an encampment of one person I have to make a shelter offer\, even if it is just simply one person\, and so obviously \nLaTonda Simmons: this this count provides a very significant picture of the impact of homelessness here in the city of Oakland. \nLaTonda Simmons: And just to also underscore the high sensitivity and low sensitivity divide. You’ll see that approximately 90% of our encampments are rated at high sensitivity in terms of their location. And just just\, you know\, I’d say about 11% \nLaTonda Simmons:  are\, are\, you know\, a little bit over our low sensitivity areas. The reason that we share this slide with you is because the intent of the encampment management policy at the time that it had contemplated the lower number of you can be at about 150. You know\, these criteria pieces intended to allow for a prioritization specifically for waterways\, construction areas\, parks. \nLaTonda Simmons: specific areas in the rights of way and egress\, pointing sidewalks\, as you can see\, based on the number of encampments and their sensitivity designations. The city is \nLaTonda Simmons: struggling to keep up with the amount of encampment. The growth of encampments\, the abatement of encampments\, and it is struggling to apply this prioritization. Given the large number of encampments that we are seeing \nLaTonda Simmons: just to be clear. \nLaTonda Simmons: Since the 2021 implementation of this policy the city has completed up through June thirtieth\, 725 operations. Those operations consist of closures and the cleanings. Cleanings intend to address circumstances where we cannot close to date. However\, I can tell you that that number is probably at approximately 825 operations. The city\, as an example in 2\,020 \nLaTonda Simmons: based on the pandemic conditions could only execute approximately 64 operations. And so I just wanted to show you the intensity in which we’re pursuing this work \nLaTonda Simmons: in terms of that breakout across districts. We thought it would be helpful for you to see that our service requests based on the demand\, have been apportioned in terms of our response to be measured accordingly\, a number of the districts in terms of \nLaTonda Simmons: and \nLaTonda Simmons: D 6 and d. 7 and and D 12 aren’t quite seeing\, if you will\, the proportionate share of support based on the number of complaints that we have\, and that is because the metrics of the encampment management policy. Are more prominently in in terms of the spread of the health and safety conditions. And the demand which is a metrics component \nLaTonda Simmons: is\, is\, is providing for a large amount of service in the district 3 area. The city has met with our equity department\, and we intend to adjust our service. \nLaTonda Simmons: response to be with more equitably support the departments. Excuse me. The the district that have high\, that have higher needs than the amount of service that we are providing. And so you will see a redistribution of our activities across the district and certainly across the waterways nearest to the waterways. There is a high rate of occurrence. Reoccurrence and that is because \nLaTonda Simmons: for every area that we clear\, given the number of unhouse that we have on the streets \nLaTonda Simmons: the new\, the remaining members in the community will often see a cleared area as a prime opportunity to rein camp. Other factors also include that specific areas are much more difficult to maintain\, such as our parks. Any area that’s sprawling and large. \nLaTonda Simmons: and particularly attributed to open space very difficult to keep clear. You can see Mosswood Park has had a large number of operations. I’ll tell you to date. We’ve probably been back there 14 times. \nLaTonda Simmons: in terms of the number of operations. And there’s has to be some consideration given to better fortification of these specific areas. As you know\, this also aligns with the interest associated with Union Point Park\, where the recent re encampment has come to our attention. We’re directing resources to that location to be able to remove the individuals that are there. And again\, we regularly respond \nLaTonda Simmons: very swiftly\, typically with enforcement authority to remove encampments when they show up at Union Point Park. We do not wish to allow those conditions to restore themselves based on where they were. In March of 2021. \nLaTonda Simmons: The obvious. \nLaTonda Simmons: the obvious outcomes and challenges to the work is the city certainly next \nLaTonda Simmons: sufficient shelter and housing for the unsheltered population which is necessary to comply with the Federal requirements of providing shelter before you close an encampment\, and those low inventories of shelter have made made this work very challenging for the encampment management team\, and it has directly impacted our ability to have seamless and continuous \nLaTonda Simmons: and focus activity with respect to outreach to be able to perform the shelter offers\, and to close certainly more encampments\, which is the goal of the encampment management policy. The other thing is that I just wanted to underscore that \nLaTonda Simmons: in addition to the \nLaTonda Simmons: low inventories of shelter and housing\, you know\, it is also not being matched in terms of the investments\, that growth of our bids\, and our shelter is not growing at the same rate that our encampments\, the reported number of encampments\, are increasing at this point. \nLaTonda Simmons: From the estimate of a hundred 50 we have increased by 9.2 times that value\, reaching 1\,381 as reference in an earlier slide. The other issue that you all are also probably well aware of is that our encampments are seeing higher levels of criminal activity. \nLaTonda Simmons: which means that these conditions aren’t just dangerous\, based on the general health and safety factors\, but because drug dealing violence\, shootings\, stolen cars and chopped up vehicles are also being centered in our encampments as as activities as \nLaTonda Simmons: these criminal elements see that these are prime spaces to use\, to exploit the unhouse and to and they recognize that the city is challenged with closing encampments as fast as we would like to. \nLaTonda Simmons: And obviously we talked about the recurrence patterns in terms of their increases\, and I don’t have to underscore that. And the the obvious point is that you know encampment support in terms of resources has not been scaled to meet the increased number of homeless encampments. \nLaTonda Simmons: And of course\, in terms of its demographics\, opens homelessness\, continues to be disproportionately African\, American\, and unhoused residents. Those residents need additional supports to transition from encampments to shelter. \nLaTonda Simmons: And this is where I will hand it over to Joe\, and you can \nJoe DeVries\, City of Oakland: thank you system. City administrator Simmons is a tough act to follow\, but I’ll give it my best shot. So on the vessel. policy and background. I just wanted to to kind of remind the Enforcement community where we are\, you know\, in 2\,020 the City Hall to the removal of vessels due to a claim after Opd. Destroyed and abandoned both. \nJoe DeVries\, City of Oakland: and while I think a lot of us who knew the details of the case\, felt some displeasure at settling based on the the mounting\, you know\, legal fees and the potential for liability. We not only settled that that claim. We we halted operations\, which is what started to see some of that accumulation until we could rewrite the policy. \nJoe DeVries\, City of Oakland: you know\, in 2022 we did hire outside council that had expertise from the conditions to assist us. And because they felt that\, you know\, no matter what internal policy Opd developed\, we really needed authority at the local level through our municipal code so they helped us in drafting the new ordinance to present to the City Council. 22 was an election year and so we introduced the the \nJoe DeVries\, City of Oakland: the the ordinance in 2\,023 and you know\, even though we’ve rewritten the the the internal opd policy\, we really felt that we needed to bring a full ordinance to the council. Let’s hope that you can advance that \nJoe DeVries\, City of Oakland: so at the end of 2\,022 we identify 25 vessels that were either abandoned or illegally anchored in the estuary Opd. Did remove 2 vessels in late in 2\,022 they were halted in that operation\, due to damage to the marine unit. after early outreach after outreach and early 23 5 host did leave voluntarily \nJoe DeVries\, City of Oakland: brought the number down to 18. But again. We knew we needed the ordinance just to fully roll out our our abatement program\, which is about to happen next slide\, please. \nJoe DeVries\, City of Oakland: So the nuisance vessel. Ordinance was adopted in March on the twenty-first it adds sections 8.7 to the municipal code it provides further procedures for the payment of abandoned vessels. Whether whether people live on them or or not\, they’re declared nuisance vessels it establishes a distinct timeline time limits in terms of how long someone can use the public docs or be in the estuary of anchor. Oh. \nJoe DeVries\, City of Oakland: where was that? There we go! So the good news is we did apply for save grant funding. Yeah\, to implement the ordinance in the spring opd\, during the summer. Held internal training with our certified marine unit officers and and conducted targeted enforcement really to educate people to get them ready for what? What’s coming \nJoe DeVries\, City of Oakland: and go to the next slide \nJoe DeVries\, City of Oakland: so currently\, we learned just last week. We’ve been awarded $166\,000 and save Grant funding to remove vessels. We need to accept that those funds\, and we’re trying to fast track that to the city Council in October so that Opd can get get down to business \nJoe DeVries\, City of Oakland: first. Obedi will start with the cleanup of abandoned boats. That’ll commence in late October early November the same time noticing of le ill legal\, livable board vessels will occur in November. The goal is to have all of them notice before Thanksgiving with the scheduled removal in December\, and I know officer of\, you know\, can fill in a lot of details. But we are seeking additional staffing to be dedicated to a 90 Day \nJoe DeVries\, City of Oakland: Operations plan so we’ll be reaching out to to Opd leadership to see that they have that support. And I know that Opd is seeking and has been given an offer of assistance from Alameda\, Pd. And the Us. Coast Guard. We really appreciate the partnership. \nJoe DeVries\, City of Oakland: I think that is that last slide. Okay. So oh\, go ahead\, Latana\, you want to do the next steps. \nLaTonda Simmons: Well\, yes\, and and thank you. Joe just wanted to underscore that. There are also some next steps with respect to encampment activities. Mari Collins\, who has served as the deputy\, homeless administrators currently this week\, actually performing a deep cleaning of Alameda Avenue\, lifting debris the goal would be to lift debris in anticipation of a deeper operation coming in October. \nLaTonda Simmons: which would be the full closure of that encampment. We had to do a substantial amount of work to try to work on mitigation strategies in advance of the closure similar to the comments that I made under prior slides. \nLaTonda Simmons: These are areas that are very difficult to keep clear. Because of its geo geographic kind of elements. In addition\, we’re continuing to support Union Point Park to prevent re encampment by quickly taking down anything that we see. That we are made aware of in terms of having been stood up after we cleared it. We’re focused on some planning for lead drive\, which is an area that is also deeply impacted by vehicular encampment. The city \nLaTonda Simmons: and I just wanna give Joe debris kudos here\, having worked to set up another intervention\, but specifically for parking support for rbs\, that \nLaTonda Simmons: resource will be leveraged to be able to perform a closure at lead in Baldwin Court. Baldwin is listed because they tend to go between the 2 locations. If we close lead and they decline the services\, they’ll go to Baldwin\, and then\, if we should take action at Baldwin Court. They’ll come back to lead\, so the goal will be to address both locations. And also there’s planning under way for Park which is\, you know\, which is\, has a water way \nLaTonda Simmons: as well\, but a significant impact. \nLaTonda Simmons: Based on the number of individuals who can encamp under the breeze way very close to those waterways who we have sometimes had to tell to stop bathing in the water. In terms of the unhouse when we both encampments there. We’re gonna also do the reworking of the geomapping that we had begun to prepare \nLaTonda Simmons: for encampments near the waterways and citywide the city had under to in terms of the encampment management team\, the use of the 3\, 1 one system and city works to be able to incorporate it as both the reporting medium\, but also as a work management tool. The ransomware incident of February \nLaTonda Simmons: knocked out about 8 months of really hard work to build that as a workflow. And the city is now redoing that work. It is within city works\, and also 3\, 1 one that Lin\, Geo\, mapping \nLaTonda Simmons: elements in terms of the systems tools that we’re \nLaTonda Simmons: and then\, of course\, we’re gonna continue our work\, you know\, despite the number of encampments that we are seeing in terms of recorded encampments and the amount of work that it takes. I would say that the encampment management team\, you know\, remains committed to keeping the areas clean and clear. \nLaTonda Simmons: We’re working to identify more resources specifically for outreach\, because we know that the sooner that we can get people out there to start those conversations\, even before the team can mobilize to get here. It becomes important in terms of moving people along\, and there were more slides. But what we wanted to do is respect the committee’s time. Because there are conversations being had about the expansion of bits with the county and the State. \nLaTonda Simmons: There are meetings underway. Of course\, those bids are essential to closing more encampments. \nLaTonda Simmons: I’m gonna hand it back to you\, Joe. Oh\, just a slide to let you know who’s in the homelessness division. \nLaTonda Simmons: and if there is a need to report encampments\, the 311 systems are still back up. Please use the 311 system to report encampments. \nJoe DeVries\, City of Oakland: And really\, just it’s it’s I don’t have a whole lot more to add. I think we’re again on the on the nuisance vessels. We are really poised \nJoe DeVries\, City of Oakland: to to to operationalize things. And and we’re we’re excited about that. You know\, and certainly again. Also\, Albino is doing the line share the workout on the water\, and with with his team. And yeah\, happy to take any questions. \nCreston: Thank you. This committee really wants to thank the representatives from the cities of Alameda and Oakland. For these very informative briefings today. \nAnd right now\, I’m going to ask if any members of the Enforcement Committee have questions for our guests. \nCreston: Cause\, I sure. Do. \nCreston: Okay\, Sanjay. \nI was encouraged to hear. There\, there is a grant that’s been received and is going to be made available. It sounds like in October\, assuming the Council approves. Can you not hear\, Adrienne? \nOkay. is that better? \nCreston: Okay\, II was encouraged to hear that there’s a grant that’s been received\, and should be made available sounds like the next month or so. \nAssuming the Council approves. Is there a likelihood of further grant or other funding being received in the near term\, say during Q. 4\, at some point \nJoe DeVries\, City of Oakland: a. As I understand it\, we have the opportunity to apply for save grant funding every year\, and I think that in the past I think Oakland has applied for funding based on our resources\, our ability to execute. But we realize\, with the the growth of the number of vessels that we needed to apply for more. So this is a large larger amount that we apply for\, I imagine next spring depending on how things go this winter\, we would apply for more. \nCreston: Was that it\, Sanjay \nCreston: any other committee members? \nCreston: Okay. So to follow up on the Save Grant. I believe you said it was $166\,000. \nHow many vessels do you think that that amount of money would cover in terms of renewal. Can you give a ballpark? \nJoe DeVries\, City of Oakland: I will ask Officer Albino to to speak on that\, since he’s he’s the operations\, Guy. \nKaleo Albino: Yes\, I do want to say a quick thank you to Latonda and Joe for your really in-depth perspective of this whole \nKaleo Albino: issue that we’re tackling. But the $166\,000 that I applied for. We’re specifically for approximately 21 vessels. \nKaleo Albino: and it will depend on exactly what is on those vessels as far as engines. \nKaleo Albino: hazardous materials that are costly to dispose of\, so it will to be dependent upon the vessels button. I’m assuming that 95% of the vessels that are out there now will be removed from the estuary. \nCreston: That’s excellent news\, and I’m assuming that none of those vessels that are out there are in the navigable waters\, because\, other than if it were\, then the Coast Guard would be involved. Is that correct? \nKaleo Albino: There can be a technicality on what is an avocable water way? But the majority of the waterways are clear for barges and cargo ships. \nKaleo Albino: but it is impacting recreational activities\, such as rowing \nKaleo Albino: other rowing teams that we have out there\, and the youth sailing teams as well. \nCreston: Okay\, well\, that’s good to know. \nCreston: okay\, the other question that I had\, and it would be for \nboth of the officers in terms of your police boats. because we’ve had a lot of complaints from people who live along the estuary of \nincidents that originate on the water\, where people are coming down in boats and basically vandalizing or robbing the liver boards and the marinas. And so my question to both of you is\, how frequently do you patrol? And are any of those patrols during the evening or early morning hours. \nKaleo Albino: I can answer for Oakland\, Pd. First the approximate hours that we’re actually on the water. So I’m the only full-time maritime officer could you. Could you speak into the microphone a little bit closer\, please. Yeah. \nis that better? \nKaleo Albino: Okay. \nKaleo Albino: So\, me being the only full time maritime officer\, a lot of my job is administrative of trying to gather funding for boats\, doing maintenance\, doing trainings with other departments in the Coast Guard in the area. \nKaleo Albino: I’m able to get out on the water approximately 20 to 30 HA week. and then I also adjust my schedule around to try\, and I give the perception that we are out there \nKaleo Albino: during all hours of the day. So I have been doing night patrols. I’m today. I’m doing an afternoon patrol. \nKaleo Albino: Yesterday was a morning patrol. \nKaleo Albino: and I’m trying to get eyes on during all hours of the day. Not just \nKaleo Albino: 6 A. M. To 4 PM. \nCreston: Thank you. \nAlameda. \nAPD T. Siebert: yeah\, for the city of Alvamita. Our marine unit is an ancillary duty for for everybody involved. \nAPD T. Siebert: so we don’t have any full-time officers on the marine unit at this point in time\, when we put our boat back in full time service starting next month. \nAPD T. Siebert: we are being allowed 60 personnel hours per month \nAPD T. Siebert: we staff our boat with a minimum of 2 persons at all times\, so that it will allow us to put as of right now\, will allow us to put our boat back in the water 3 days a month. \nAPD T. Siebert: And we do vary our patrols during the week on the weekends daytime as well as nighttime. We’ll stay out as late as about 2 45 in the morning. \nCreston: Thank you.  So I want to be really sensitive to the challenges that the city of Oakland is facing in terms of the homeless crisis \nand the homeless encampments\, and how that spills out into people thinking that boats are a method of housing. \nClearly. the problem has vastly outstripped your current resources to deal with it.  that being said\, I understand the frustration of the people who actually live on the water because it’s impacting them and their daily lives. And there’s this tendency. If something is excess\, we are laser focused on it\, whereas the city of Oakland has to focus on the entire city. Not just the waterfront. \n But having said all of that I’m wondering if there’s any way that the cities of Oakland and Alameda can partner together in terms of sharing resources\, obtaining more resources. To put more patrols out on the water. \nespecially during the \nCreston: the evening hours\, where it seems like a lot of the vandalism and everything else tends to occur based on \nthe reports and the complaints that we’ve heard. So I’m sort of tossing that out there. And then the other thing I wanted some clarification on was the city of Oakland mentioned that they were looking for more resources. \nboth to help with the to help with the encampments and the homelessness issue. Could you? Is it possible to give us a brief synopsis? Of what kind of resources you’re looking at\, and what the timeline might be for finding out whether or not you’re successful. \nKaleo Albino: Yeah. do a portion of that\, too. \nLaTonda Simmons: I was. But I was going to ask\, did you want us to take those questions in the way that you actually laid them out. And so I was gonna let the officers speak first \nLaTonda Simmons: about collaboration in terms between the jurisdictions for more enforcement and then speak to. \nLaTonda Simmons: I would speak to the resources that we are seeking. \nCreston: Yes\, let’s have the officers speak first\, and then we’ll talk about the more general homeless encampments. Thank you. \nKaleo Albino: So in regards to patrols and increasing \nour footprint on the waterway. \nKaleo Albino: I’ve been training approximately 10 \nKaleo Albino: maritime officers who are dedicated to another assignment. But the merit marine unit is an auxilary assignment for them. \nKaleo Albino: So I’m physically teaching them how to drive the boat\, how to safely operate it on a waterway\, how to approach an anchor it out vessel safely. \nKaleo Albino: and I’m what I’m hoping to do is have the boat available on a 24 7 basis based off of these officers spread out. Most of them are working patrol. so they’re able to take a break from patrol\, go down to the boats. \nKaleo Albino: do a short patrol of the estuary\, and we’re able to expand our footprint that way. \nKaleo Albino: We have already actually collaborated with the Alameda Police Department and the Coast Guard as well. The Alameda Police Department has graciously given us $30\,000 in the last 6 months \nKaleo Albino: to help eradicate some of the anchored out vessels that have already been out there \nKaleo Albino: and then. Chief\, the chief of Alameda police chief Joshi contacted me last week and offered \nKaleo Albino: part of their save Grant to help \nKaleo Albino:  combat all the vessels that we have on our side of the estuary\, so I’m grateful for that funding as well. And then I think Commander Shoop is also listening in from the Coast Guard. \nKaleo Albino: She has reached out and is I think\, just recently sent an email to collaborate with all law enforcement assets in the area to specifically handle these anchor out issues in a team effort. \nKaleo Albino: Approach to this. And then if Alameda please\, if you guys want to speak to this as well. \nAPD T. Siebert: yeah\, I think you covered off on everything. We always try to partner with Albino as much as we can as well as a Sergeant Matthews with the San Francisco \nAPD T. Siebert: marine unit. We do do training with them as as well. \nAPD T. Siebert: And then like Albino\, said our chief offered some of our save grant this coming cycle as well as last cycle\, to partner with them\, to remove some of their sunken and abandoned vessels within the waterways. \nAPD T. Siebert: And then\, like\, I say\, we are limited as far as personnel hours\, and we are all ancillary as well on our marine unit. \nAPD T. Siebert: But any time that there’s a an operation that needs to take place. We can always get our boat out there and team up with open or the Coast Guard or San Francisco to get that job done. \nCreston: Thank you. I’m I’m very gratified to hear about the close cooperation. Be between the law enforcement offices. I think that’s the kind of thing that we want to see. \nIt happened all across the board\, and I also wanna make a comment that I’ve read. And I understand this is no different in Alameda\, in Oakland that it has been very difficult to hire police officers for a variety of different reasons\, particularly since everybody everywhere is looking for police officers. So it’s not just \nan issue of finding the money. It’s also an issue of finding the personnel but II wanna once again commend you for your your joint efforts. \nThank you. \nCreston: Ms. Simmons. \nLaTonda Simmons: Yes\, and thank you. With respect to the city. We’ll first start talking about the authorities and resources within our control. \nLaTonda Simmons: In the Powerpoint deck\, we I indicated that the encampment management team would be working with the units of \nLaTonda Simmons: open public works dot and Opd. \nLaTonda Simmons: With respect to public works\, we are working with public works specifically\, and with their cleaning teams and their watershed division to examine the code authorities that would allow for the closure of encampments under emergency conditions whereby we can \nLaTonda Simmons: see and catch people in the active\, performing specific things that would provide notification to the appropriate teams\, and they would be able to mobilize more swiftly \nLaTonda Simmons: to close those encampments. We see that is common in the areas about Avenue where I talked about and other waterways where we know as soon as people set up we would be able to use those emergency authorities particularly based on the protected codes for waterways to close those encampments more swiftly. That has also risen to the attention of the City Administrators Office \nLaTonda Simmons: to the extent City administrator\, working with our team to plan a second team \nLaTonda Simmons: an expansion of the team to be able to mobilize. Given the number of the in canvas that we have\, the current team’s capacity certainly limits their ability to respond to swiftly and to actually abate accountants more swiftly and to clean it more prestigiously. \nLaTonda Simmons: We are also meeting with Alameda County\, who has come to the table\, recognizing that \nLaTonda Simmons: with Oakland having more than 50% of the encampments in the entire county\, that there is a need to change the disproportionate\, the well\, the proportionate share of resources. \nLaTonda Simmons: would be for the counties to do not to not only provide additional health. \nLaTonda Simmons: support\, and and health services\, but to avail additional resources that would mobilize outreach and the ability to close encampments just to be clear. And I talked about us having a much more comprehensive presentation. But\, the open population in terms of the unhouse\, 46% have issues of mental health and or severe emotional issues. Another 41. Have Ptsd\, another 12 \nLaTonda Simmons: have a traumatic brain injury\, and this means that when you are engaging the unhouse you have to be prepared for de-escalation\, and really all the tools for trauma informed circumstances such as these. So those contributions from the county are going to be significant. Just to be clear. \nLaTonda Simmons: the county’s declaration of a local emergency expands their ability to release more resources and to get support from Federal agencies\, and most recently you may have heard that the county did issue that declaration of a local emergency last week. So we’re anticipating hearing more from them in terms of the timeline and the strategy by which they would deploy. Resources. And we’ll report back\, perhaps\, what that would look like. \nLaTonda Simmons: The other thing that the county has been able to do and it’s similar to what Open has done. \nLaTonda Simmons: obviously\, it takes more bits and more housing to be able to close encampments based on the Federal requirements. The city earlier this year actually committed to afford commitment of measure. You dollars to focus on the development of affordable housing units that would fall within the spectrum of the needs of the unhouse \nLaTonda Simmons: those units would be at about. \nLaTonda Simmons: you know\, 30% of the area Median income and below\, because the in house community typically is not \nLaTonda Simmons: it does not have high income streams\, and it’s most certainly a challenge. In terms of affordability.  Alameda County is also advancing a housing bond. \nLaTonda Simmons: The significance of Alamo County advancing a housing bond is that it would raise capital to be able to capitalize more projects\, and that would be a contribution to city of Oakland projects. That means we would increase the amount of affordable housing development as a target. So we’re excited about that as well. \nLaTonda Simmons: The city is also meeting directly with the governor’s office. For those of you that are that are municipal and government sort of \nLaTonda Simmons: pundits and walks if you will. The loss of the redevelopment agency funding for cities across the State has been significant. \nLaTonda Simmons: The city of Oakland\, and I had another job as the clerk. So I have a lot of detail here. \nLaTonda Simmons: the city of Oakland at the time that the redevelopment agencies were dissolved\, lost approximately 700. Excuse me\, 376 million dollars as an annual allocation of redevelopment agency funds. We are now in year 11\, \nLaTonda Simmons: of not having 376 million dollars\, or what would be the calculus each year that divestment has had a correlating impact to the ability to afford to advance affordable housing development. And we also see that there’s a correlation in the increase of homelessness since redevelopment agency dollars went away. And so that intends to anchor that the city of Oakland is working directly with the Governor’s office. We are not the only city \nLaTonda Simmons: to restore ongoing funding for housing as well as ongoing\, funding for homelessness. We’re not going to be able to address these situations \nLaTonda Simmons: robustly. With what we are using as competitive services. Yes. \nLaTonda Simmons: rather competitive sources. Yes\, there’s home key. Yes\, there’s half dollars\, but those are competitive dollars\, and so we don’t get an ongoing stream. And some of those sources are being questioned. \nLaTonda Simmons: in terms of their ability to continue for the next few years\, based on deficits that the State is facing. And so structurally\, we have to address this in terms of funding. It has to be more \nLaTonda Simmons: a greater commitment from State and Federal resources. And to that end we’re also looking at the Federal\, all in plan which proposed a reduction in homelessness by 2025. What we see is the secretary of Housing \nLaTonda Simmons: and is is also issuing tranches of dollars. They are competitive\, but it’s more money than we’ve seen in a long time coming from Federal Government. We are seeking some direct allocations. Recognizing that some of the prominent \nLaTonda Simmons: political figures in the White House come from the Bay Area. We hope to leverage our relationships there to figure out what we can do\, and then I’ll stop there. \nCreston: Thank you very much. Speaking of the demise of of redevelopment\, it has certainly had \nshall we say? Many unintended consequences? So thank you very much. \nCreston: cities of Alameda and Oakland for your presentations today I thought it was very informative and very well done\, and before I go to public comment\, are there any members of the committee who have questions \nor comments? \nOkay\, seeing none. We will now take public comments on this item. And I believe we have received one written public comment on this item. Margie\, has anything else come in? \nCreston: Cheryl Gomor\, correction. We received for public comment for item 6. \nOh\, okay. okay\, thank you. Okay. Once again\, if we have any online attendees\, if you would like to provide comments at this time\, you will need to raise your hand by clicking on the participants. Tab in zoom or by phone\, by dialing star 9 to raise your hand and star 6 to unmute yourself. \nMargie will then announce you and invite you to comment. Comments are limited to 3 min\, and Margie will be keeping track of time\, and this is a request for comments only on this item and chairs. Prerogative\, we’re going to start with people who are in the room. \nYes. \nCreston: go ahead and make a \nform\, a line. \nCreston: Each of you will have 3 min. Please state your name for the record. \nCreston: Good morning\, Commissioners. My name is Brock. The lab \na decade ago\, in 2013 there was a near 8 million dollars multi-agency cleanup of all illegal anchor outs on the Oakland estuary. The Bcdc. Was an important partner in this project. \nWhen it was over. all of the participating agencies that provided funding said that it wouldn’t be repeated if the estuary was to remain clean. it would be dependent upon diligent monitoring and enforcement. \nThis did not occur. \nCreston: The consequences of this failure are clear. To see. \nThe open shoreline of the estuary is littered with sunken wrecks and derelict end of life vessels. Crime has risen to truly intolerable levels. \nCreston: Multiple vessels have been stolen and ransacked. \nvictims have had to resort to personally confronting the criminals to recover their property without the benefit of police support \nCreston: this\, and is this an appropriate activity for a 79 year old senior. \nCreston: The Oakland estuary is populated by marinas with over 3\,000 slips. \nAll of these boat owners pay annual property taxes to Alameda county. The shoreline also has several new multimillion\, and in one case multibillion dollar residential developments. \nOne can only imagine the tax revenue that these produce. and yet what law enforcement services are provided to the estuary. \nCreston: The Alameda County sheriff’s department has disbanded \nthe county’s marine patrol unit. \nCreston: The Oakland Police Department has only one dedicated Marine Patrol officer. \nThe port of Oakland\, at the mouth of the estuary\, is the fourth largest port on the west coast. \nCreston: Is it reasonable that there was only one law enforcement officer to provide on the water protection \nfor this critical regional resource. \nCreston: It is unfortunate that has required international press coverage to generate a focus on this problem. \nI have asked Bcd. C. If there is any other issue that currently proposes poses a greater threat to San Francisco Bay. then what is occurring in the estuary. \nI was told. No. this is the top problem that Bcd faces. So my final question is \nCreston: given the current conditions that\, given that the current conditions did not occur overnight\, but rather have grown over many years. \nIs the BC. DC. Doing all that it can to protect this precious resource on San Francisco Bay. and my concern is is\, if we have another repeat Cleanup. \nwhich I am very optimistically hopeful that that will occur if there is no follow up with ongoing enforcement\, we’ll repeat this cycle endlessly. And II would also emphasize that housing unhoused people in derelict end of life vessels is a threat to them. \nIt’s a threat to the environment. and it’s a threat to the general public\, and it should not be allowed. Thank you very much. \nGood morning. My name is Cammy Richards. I’m with Alameda community sailing center\, and I have a couple of points. and I guess one of the things that I learned today is that a homeless encampment is apparently defined as just one person \nsleeping in a sleeping bag. \nCreston:  That seems like a a bad use of the term encampment\, and we were on a delightful late afternoon sail in the Oakland estuary yesterday on a little 20 foot sailboat\, and we sailed by \nEstuary Park\, Jack\, London Square\, where Jlac is. and I can’t imagine what would be required to remove \nall those people \nCreston: if one person is there. It’s a homeless encampment. \nOur business pineapple sales used to be at 1 23 s Street in Oakland. We would go down there for lunch in the shade of beautiful sycamore trees. Nice park. \nclean tables. \nCreston: I can’t imagine taking my granddaughter there. \nThe whole place is just invested. and I have great sadness for people who don’t have housing. But I have 0 respect for people who just make a complete mess of things. \nOkay\, Alameda\, community salient center is a organization for teaching young kids how to sale. We have \nCreston: a group of 8 safety boats which are required. We have one safety boat for every 6 sailboats that are on the water. \nso if we don’t have enough safety boats\, we can’t put enough kids on the water. We in one night we had 4 of those boats stolen out of the water over at Belina Isle. \nand that’s half of our fleet. We basically had an all hands on deck. Call to go and retrieve this stuff. We \nCreston: it took 36 h to get a police report \nnumber from the Alameda Police Department. called them right after the thing\, they said\, well\, wait. We’ll send an officer. Well\, okay\, it’s dinner time. Still\, no officer. Well\, maybe later tonight it was lunchtime the next day to get a report filed. \nand the police said\, You know we really can’t help you. Our best advice is\, if you find your boats don’t approach the perpetrators. The boats cost 25 to $35\,000 apiece. \nThey are rigid fiberglass holes with a tube around the outside\, so you can go up and connect to the little kids and talk to them face to face. And we cannot imagine a way where we can just be handing off $35\,000 boats to thieves and doing nothing about it. \nWe call the Oakland Police. Oakland police said. Well\, if the boats were stolen from Alameda. It’s Alameda problem\, the Alameda police say\, well\, if the boat is in Oakland we were at Union Point\, looking at our boats tied up to derelict boats \n  \nCreston: 200 yards away. \nCoast Guard Island. not their problem either. So it becomes our problem. And we we eventually just simply got out in other motor boats went around and we collected all 4 of our stolen boats. \nand we collect them by confronting the people who said\, well\, that is my boat\, because I found it adrift. Well\, yeah\, of course you did. We collected a boat that belonged to. Am I over? I’m sorry. \nThank you very much. \nNext. \nRamona Cota: sir. Could you identify yourself? Please? \nCreston: Sorry. My name is Cammie Richards. \nAlameda Community Sailing Center. \nRamona Cota: Thank you. \nGood morning. My name is Steven Norris. I’m harbor master over at Marina Bay Yacht Harbor in Richmond. My name is Steven Oris. I’m harbor master at Marita Bay Yacht Harbor\, in Richmond. so I’ve been following this situation with\, you know\, great concern. \nand I would like to emphasize that I think it would be critical\, when\, as the Commission works with their partners on solutions that they consider this on a region wide basis. And it’s not just an estuary problem. Just as it was not just to Richardson Bay problem that we don’t want. Situation where. \nyou know\, we just move it from one part of the bay to the other\, and so forth\, and then on industry wide\, that keep in mind that this has the potential to become a growing issue as \nboats get older. There could be one\, you know. one or 2 economic downturns away to be a flood of abandoned derelict boats. So the solution becomes a\, you know\, a greater issue of working with state and other partners in order to find appropriate disposal aspects for end of life vessels. \nThank you. \nCreston: Thank you very much. \nThank you\, Margie. Do we have any other public commenters? We have about 4 public comments online. \nCreston: First\, up\, we have \nTracy regalman. \nTracy Reigelman: Exactly. Hello! Can you hear me? \nCreston: Yes\, we can please state your name for the record\, and you have 3 min. \nTracy Reigelman: Thank you. My name is Tracy Regalman. I am a resident of Alameda\, specifically Marina Village. I work in Marina Village\, and I am the rear commodore at Oakland Yacht Club. \nTracy Reigelman: Before I get into my comments I would like to thank Officer Albino\, Officer Siebert and Miss Simonds for their work and efforts in a very challenging and difficult situation. \nTracy Reigelman: It’s it’s appreciated to hear your hear the efforts that you’re putting in. I would like to clarify some comments that I heard at the start of the meeting \nTracy Reigelman: the issue of the anchor outs and the boats is a very\, very large part of this issue. It’s probably about 50% of the problem \nTracy Reigelman: the encampments are a large part of the problem as well. \nTracy Reigelman: However\, there is also some work going on through the county of Alameda to provide support \nTracy Reigelman: for unhoused individuals in facilities that are not permitted for that use\, and that are not up to current building codes and compliance. And those \nTracy Reigelman: people in the situation that they’re in right now are at risk of losing their lives. And they are creating problems with the public. \nTracy Reigelman: so the fears are not just the live aboard. The fears are the residents\, businesses\, users of the Bay trail\, and the residents of Eddie’s place\, which people are put there to try to help. \nTracy Reigelman: There are encampments in Alameda. If you drive along Main Street and look along Main Street. There’s encampments along there. There’s encampments in the mainstream street Ferry terminal\, and there are also encampments in front of the Alameda Community sailing center at the end. \nTracy Reigelman: All of this needs to be addressed and looked at\, and it is unfathomable to me that that lack of maintenance and the destruction of the shore. Side facilities and infrastructure would be left to the point where a lawless and wild West environment could occur. \nTracy Reigelman: People are at risk of hurting themselves. \nTracy Reigelman: People are at risk of confrontation. \nTracy Reigelman: The police departments are unstaffed\, but we need more help and more support. \nTracy Reigelman: The overall Oakland and Alameda estuary is ignored. \nTracy Reigelman: and that ignorance is creating a a hazard to the public. And II do appreciate the efforts\, the limited efforts of Apd and Opd. It needs to be more. \nTracy Reigelman: Thank you very much. \nTracy Reigelman: Thank you. \nNext we have Anan \nCreston: and please state your name for the record\, and you have 3 min. \nAnon: I I’m sorry. I would like to testify anonymously\, because I live here at Union Point and the anchor outs know who I am. They know my name. They know my car. I have fear of retaliation. \nAnon: Can I do that? \nYes. \nAnon: okay. So \nAnon: I really appreciate the presentations. My Ms\, Simmons and Mr. Devaries. Today we all understand that the problem is enormous. \nAnon: II also say\, I live here on the estuary. I also row in the estuary daily\, and I gotta say I see them. I’ll meet a marine patrol unit out here often. I see it several times a week. \nAnon: but I never see the Opd. Ever see the Oakland Police \nAnon: Marine Patrol unit ever I have personally given up calling the Oakland police about harassment and fights on the water and \nAnon:  incursions into the Marina. I have filed at least 2 dozen reports\, and never had anything be done. If they come out here\, they say. Well\, it’s out on the water. There’s nothing we can do. \nAnon: I live with \nAnon: I live with generators going at all hours of the day of the night I live with a raw sewage floating past my vessel. Several times a month I have called around and tried to report the raw sewage. I remember one time I called \nAnon: the coastguard\, reported the Ross sewage. Sorry I called the Oakland Police Department. They told me to call the Coast Guard. The Coast Guard gave me 2 numbers. One of them I left a message and never heard back\, and the other one said\, Thank you very much for reporting this. We’re going to call the Coast Guard. \nAnon: I wanna tell you about an instance when late at night in the pitch black\, I hear faint calls coming from the estuary. If somebody’s yelling. \nAnon: you know\, help me\, please\, please. Anybody help me! And I go out there\, and Mike Kayak\, with a headlamp\, and there is a \nAnon: there’s a sailboat drifting down the estuary\, and with my kayak I towed it to shore. There was a panicked and terrified young man on that boat who told me \nAnon: that he’d had a \nAnon: horrible fight and been yelled at and abused by one of the other anchor outs\, who then cut his line? If there had been any wind at the time I wouldn’t have been able to go out there and rescue this young man who had no motor and no ability to sail that boat. \nAnon:  I have at least a dozen times had boats pull their anchors and crash into me. \nAnon: During storms. Winter is coming again. Last winter resulted in \nAnon: so many sunken and stranded vessels\, each one of which is an enormous cost\, and does enormous environmental damage. People’s lives are at risk\, who are living out there on the boats in these winter storms. I beg the city of Oakland to handle this completely before the winter storms return. \nAnon:  thank you very much. Your time is up. Thank you. \nCreston: Next we have Deborah Lun. \nCreston: Deborah\, please state your name for the record\, and you have 3 min. \ndeborah.lunn: Thank you. My name is Deborah Lun. I’m the property director here at Altastar Harbor\, which is is a new complex that opened up a re\, an adaptive reuse of the old Del Monte Canyon. \nDid we lose her. Deborah? \ndeborah.lunn: I’m sorry. Can you hear me now. There\, you are sorry. \ndeborah.lunn: Sorry. My name is Deborah Lun. I’m the property director here at Altestar Harbor\, which is the old Del Monte Canning Warehouse. \ndeborah.lunn: and I just wanted to state that the the issues are not just on the water. But now they’re on land and they’re impacting the businesses up and down the estuary. We opened our doors here on December nineteenth of 2\,022\, with our first move Ins. \ndeborah.lunn: And as of August sixth\, starting August sixth\, we have had stolen 3 trucks\, 3 cars\, one U-haul and 4 bicycles within our facility. \ndeborah.lunn: So one of these trucks actually was found at a chop house in the High Street encampment area in Oakland. \ndeborah.lunn: So I just wanna say a lot of our residents move here from Oakland and from San Francisco because of safety issues. They think\, you know\, it’s quiet here. It’s safe here\, and we want them to keep feeling that way. And we we don’t. Wanna. We don’t wanna be able. You know\, we we obviously pay a lot of tax dollars and just want our residents to feel safe here. \nThank you. Thanks. Thank you\, Deborah. \nNext we have Brad Gras \nCreston: Brad. \nBrad Gross: Yes\, thank you. I’m sorry I was looking for the unmute button. This is Brad Gross\, executive director with a regional agency. And I wanna commend everybody for their presentations today and their their comments. \nBrad Gross: What I have to say is\, is\, basically\, I guess it would be a stream of consciousness based on on what I heard\, and \nBrad Gross: oh. \nBrad Gross: and what I’ve heard from it\, especially from Mr. Dilap. I want to thank him for putting this out into the public and and actually into the industry\, so that we can address these issues \nBrad Gross: and as presentations indicate. It seems that all areas in the Oakland Alamo area seems to be suffering from the same homeless problems\, whether it be land\, side \nBrad Gross: or waterside. And \nBrad Gross: I want to encourage everybody that they they treat their illegal Liverpool same as error. I need to treat these landside encampment encampments heard comment about the save Grant. But I don’t believe\, save Grant is the panacea that you believe. It may be \nBrad Gross: because I haven’t heard anything as far as housing programs \nBrad Gross: working side by side with addressing these illegal out anchor outs. \nBrad Gross: The the Grant program is wonderful for removing abandoned vessels and debris you may find on the shore side\, but you still have people illegally living and anchoring on their vessels in the anchor in the estuary. I’m also concerned that the 90 day enforcement. \nBrad Gross: An abatement program that was discussed will simply shift the Oakland Alvina problems to other jurisdictions. Specifically\, Richardson Bay. \nBrad Gross:  Finally\, I do want to offer to those who are working on the best one to reabate men. If Rb. Assistants or they believe we may be help be helpful. We’re always willing to \nBrad Gross: land what we have learned over the years with programs like this. \nBrad Gross: And with that. Thank you very much. \nThank you\, Brad. Next we have Mary Spicer. \nmary spicer: Mary. Yeah. Hi\, you might want to reset the clock. \nmary spicer: I think. Anyways\, look Miss Simmons and our marine patrol. I really wanna say\, thank you. My name’s Mary Spicer. \nmary spicer: I am the one of the founders of. I heard Oakland Alameda estuary. We’ve been cleaning the Oakland Alameda estuary since 2\,017. We started on kayaks and stand up paddle boards going to the shorelines that are deeply impacted by extreme garbage and getting that garbage via partnerships with California canoe in kayaks \nmary spicer: and East Bay Row Club. We’re a large community. We have participants from both sides of Oakland and Alameda\, and people really come out to clean and really care about the estuary. \nmary spicer: Last year at Towel Coastal\, we and 2 and a half hours\, cleared 3\,000 pounds of garbage in 2 and a half hours with our community\, and that is only a fraction of the amount of garbage that’s along the estuary. We also clean Jack Linden\, aquatic center and Estuary Park\, and unfortunately canceled the cleanup this year because of safety concerns at one of the unhoused community. One of the encampment sites at Jlac. There’s been some violent incidences in there. \nmary spicer: and unfortunately I don’t feel comfortable bringing children to the site until those are addressed by the city of Oakland. I’m currently talking to people about that via the city. So that’s good. \nmary spicer: I’m asking for holistic solutions\, because besides just the crime and the the sun votes and the the \nmary spicer: the unhoused issues which mo usually during our clean ups\, the unhouse joiner clean ups we\, you know\, we we really wanna open up our space for that. \nmary spicer: but our shorelines are paying the price. Via the storms. Last February a lot of the boats the the boats got smashed into the shorelines. And then all of that debris literally ends up on the shore\, and I feel like everyone’s so busy worrying about the sun boats and the crime. Nobody’s really even paying attention to the amount of garbage and marine debris on the shores of the Oakland estuary. \nmary spicer: I’ve been working with some people at the port\, some people at the city to find out. Who do I call? If I can’t go and clean some of the shorelines. Who do I call to actually get this shoreline garbage enforced. I really would love to have an answer for that. And then there is the Noah marine debris grants just recently released. They’re huge. I took the \nmary spicer: the cal representative for Noah out\, and she said that she thinks Oakland is a great candidate for some of these huge 1 million dollar grants\, so I really hope that we would that the city might consider going for those. \nCreston: Thank you\, Mary. \nthat’s all we have here. Go more. \nCreston: Thank you. Do any other committee members have any comments. \nCreston: Anybody. \nCommissioner Rancho. \nI just wanted to thank the members of the public who came here today\, and you also took their time to submit public comments via zoom would appreciate you sharing your \nexperiences\, which are concerning and disturbing\, and clearly continue to reflect to to me at least an unacceptable situation that needs additional resources from \nlocal governments. And so to the extent that that our committee can support any of those efforts. II think we are. We are ready to \nappreciate suggestions for how we can do more within our jurisdiction. \nCheeky Gilmore\, we have Georgia. Vice would like to speak. Okay\, very quickly\, please. \nJoe DeVries\, City of Oakland: Thank you. Chair Gilmore. I just wanted to lift up the comments of that last public speaker and ask that she reach out to me directly via email about that grant opportunity\, because our sustainability team could look at it. You know this that team oversees our our climate change\, our climate mitigation work. And we have some great grant writers. And so II would love to have that. And I just wanna thank her for noting the importance of a holistic approach. \nJoe DeVries\, City of Oakland: I am meeting with a with a a club that’s looking at potentially using our old crier building site to try to create some positive activity there\, which is just way\, negative activity. And I do think that that’s part of this process\, not just an enforcement app opportunity\, but the more positive energy and activities we bring to the shoreline. The more we can push out that negative work. So I I’d like to pursue that from that last speaker. \nThank you. Any other commissioners. I thought I saw a hand up online. Maybe that was just Joe. I definitely wanna heartily concur with Commissioner Ranshod comments and sentiments\, and I do have a quick question for staff. \nWe’ve had complaints and incidences about sewage and other undesirable things being put into the bay. Is is that an issue for the Water Board? Who should people be calling when they see something like that? Do we know? \nYes\, the Water Board does have \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Manager: jurisdiction for that. I forget where\, in our law or policy or regulations that that specified. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Manager: but it is specified \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Manager: documents\, and I could follow up with you with the specific \ncitation. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Manager: We should\, of course\, be aware of \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Manager: any reports that they make\, so they should continue to submit reports to us. But definitely loop in the water port when it comes to water quality issues. \nOkay\, is there a way to? I don’t know. Publicize either an email or or a phone number\, some sort of contact information where members of the public\, if they see something\, they can say something to the relevant authority. I mean\, it’s great that they contact us. And you know we pass it on\, but \nyou know I think it would be just as effective\, if not more effective\, if they could contact the waterboard. Whoever’s responsible for this directly. \nCreston: So maybe that’s something that that we need to look into. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Manager: Yeah\, we can look into\, maybe putting if it’s not already\, there links on the website. We certainly do make those recommendations to reporters when they call in I take a look at every report. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Manager: and if it maybe implicates another jurisdiction overlapping jurisdiction\, or maybe is better suited towards. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Manager: say\, the locals\, Oakland\, Dd. Or Water Board. II will certainly mention that to the reporter\, and as well as make a report myself. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Manager: Oftentimes \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Manager: we can look at doing a better date. \nGreat! Thank you. Thank you so much. And if there are no other comments from members of the committee or the public\, I’m going to conclude this item. \nAnd so now\, committee members\, I will entertain a motion and a second to adjourn our meeting. \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: I’m going to adjourn that second. \nOh\, wow!  Did did I see a hand from a staff member. \nCreston: Adrian\, are you nodding your head? Yes. \nbefore we adjourn? Okay\, so we have a motion by Commissioner Bellin\, and a second by Commissioner Ranchod. But before we vote on it Miss Klein has a comment. \nAdrienne Klein: Well\, I just wanted to forecast what Staff had plan for next steps which was to come back \nAdrienne Klein: with come back to you. At your first December meeting\, which would be the fourteenth I believe that’s a Thursday. Assuming that we can obtain a quorum \nAdrienne Klein: to hear an update from the city status of the effort on the water and also to the cities both addressed to today\, but \nAdrienne Klein: plans for \nAdrienne Klein: long term management\, and prevention going forward as the cities are able to resolve these issues just wanted to conclude with that parting comment. Thank you\, and apologies to delay the conclusion of the meeting. \nCreston: No\, thank you. I actually should have asked when our next update was gonna be so thank you for providing that information. \nCreston: Okay\, so we have a motion\, and a second on the floor to adjourn. Do I hear any objections to that? \nCreston: Hearing? None. This meeting is adjourned at 1108. \nThank you. Everybody presenters and guests. And thank you very much for attending today. \n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Learn How to Participate\n				Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act\nAs 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 access Commission Meetings under the “Public Meetings” tab on the website and select the date of the meeting. \nHow to Provide Comments and Comment Time Limits\nPursuant to state law\, the Commission is currently conducting its public meetings in a “hybrid” fashion. Each meeting notice will specify (1) where the meeting is being primarily held physically\, (2) all teleconference locations\, which will be publicly-accessible\, and (3) 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 or a teleconference meeting location; (2) emailing comments in advance to public comment until 10 a.m. on the day of the meeting; and (3) participating via ZOOM during the meeting. \nIf 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. \nQuestions and Staff Reports\nIf 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. \nCampaign Contributions\nState 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. Other 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. \nAccess to Meetings\nMeetings 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.
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/september-27-2023-enforcement-committee-meeting/
CATEGORIES:Enforcement Committee
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20230914T080000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20230914T170000
DTSTAMP:20260429T234345
CREATED:20240131T052558Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240131T052558Z
UID:10000163-1694678400-1694710800@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:September 14\, 2023 Enforcement Committee Meeting (Cancelled)
DESCRIPTION:
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/september-14-2023-enforcement-committee-meeting-cancelled/
CATEGORIES:Enforcement Committee
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20230823T093000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20230823T120000
DTSTAMP:20260429T234345
CREATED:20230824T012352Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20231012T014123Z
UID:10000026-1692783000-1692792000@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:August 23\, 2023 Enforcement Committee Meeting
DESCRIPTION:This Commission meeting will be conducted in a hybrid format in accordance with SB 189 (2022). To maximize public safety while maintaining transparency and public access\, members of the public can choose to participate either virtually via Zoom\, by phone\, or in person at the location listed above. Physical attendance at Metro Center requires that all individuals adhere to the site’s health guidelines including\, if required\, wearing masks\, health screening\, and social distancing. \nBCDC strongly encourages participation virtually through the Zoom link below due to changing COVID conditions. \nPrimary Physical Location \nMetro Center375 Beale StreetSan Francisco\, 415-352-3600 \nTeleconference Locations \n\n\nSolano County Government Center675 Texas St.\, Ste. 6500Fairfield\, CA 94533\, 707-784-6129 \n197 Palmer AveFalmouth\, MA 02540 \n\n\nIf you have issues joining the meeting using the link\, please enter the Meeting ID and Password listed below into the ZOOM app to join the meeting. \nJoin the meeting via ZOOM \nhttps://bcdc-ca-gov.zoom.us/j/83719850693?pwd=MzNsRDhHcm5wSlpSQVZ5bXVVTmZ4QT09 \nLive Webcast \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers1 (866) 590-5055Conference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID837 1985 0693 \nPasscode123244 \nIf you call in by telephone: \nPress *6 to unmute or mute yourselfPress *9 to raise your hand or lower your hand to speak  \n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Tentative Agenda\n				\nCall to Order\nRoll Call\nPublic Comment (PDF)The Committee will hear public comments on matters that are not on the agenda. \nApproval of Draft Minutes from the June 21\, 2023 \, Enforcement Committee meeting (PDF)\nEnforcement ReportStaff will update the committee on the current status of the enforcement program’s activities(Matthew Trujillo) [415/352-3633; matthew.trujillo@bcdc.ca.gov]\nStaff Briefing on Actions to Address Shoreline Encampments\, Abandoned and Derelict Vessels and Anchor-outs in the Oakland-Alameda Estuary\, Alameda CountyBCDC staff will brief the Enforcement Committee on the actions taken between February 2023 and the present to address shoreline encampments\, abandoned and derelict vessels and anchor-outs in the Oakland-Alameda Estuary.(John Creech) [415/352-3619; john.creech@bcdc.ca.gov(Adrienne Klein) [415-352-3609; adrienne.klein@bcdc.ca.gov]Public Comment Letters (PDF)// Staff Presentation (PDF)\nBriefing by the City of Sausalito – First 2023 Update (Enforcement Case ER2018.018.00)The City of Sausalito staff will brief the Enforcement Committee on the City’s progress implementing the Sausalito-BCDC Settlement Agreement adopted by the Commission in December 2020 to address anchored out vessels and restoration of subtidal habitat impacts.(Adrienne Klein) [415-352-3609; adrienne.klein@bcdc.ca.gov]Settlement Agreement (PDF) // Staff Presentation (PDF)  // City of Sausalito Presentation (PDF)\nBriefing by the Richardson’s Bay Regional Agency – Second 2023 Update (Enforcement Case ER2010.038)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. As part of this briefing\, staff will seek the EC’s approval to extend the October 15\, 2023\, date to remove the post-2019 vessels to October 15\, 2024.(Adrienne Klein) [415/352-3609: adrienne.klein@bcdc.ca.gov]Extension Request Provisional Approval (PDF) // Settlement Agreement (PDF)// Staff Presentation (PDF) // Presentation (PDF)\nAdjournment\n\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Learn How to Participate\n				Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act\nAs 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 access Commission Meetings under the “Public Meetings” tab on the website and select the date of the meeting. \nHow to Provide Comments and Comment Time Limits\nPursuant to state law\, the Commission is currently conducting its public meetings in a “hybrid” fashion. Each meeting notice will specify (1) where the meeting is being primarily held physically\, (2) all teleconference locations\, which will be publicly-accessible\, and (3) 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 or a teleconference meeting location; (2) emailing comments in advance to public comment until 10 a.m. on the day of the meeting; and (3) participating via ZOOM during the meeting. \nIf 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. \nQuestions and Staff Reports\nIf 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. \nCampaign Contributions\nState 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. Other 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. \nAccess to Meetings\nMeetings 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.
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/august-23-2023-enforcement-committee-meeting/
LOCATION:Metro Center\, 375 Beale Street\, San Francisco\, CA\, 94105\, United States
CATEGORIES:Enforcement Committee
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20230810T080000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20230810T170000
DTSTAMP:20260429T234346
CREATED:20230811T054041Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20231017T050756Z
UID:10000035-1691654400-1691686800@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:August 10\, 2023 Enforcement Committee Meeting (Cancelled)
DESCRIPTION:
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/august-10-2023-enforcement-committee-meeting-cancelled/
CATEGORIES:Enforcement Committee
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20230726T080000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20230726T170000
DTSTAMP:20260429T234346
CREATED:20230727T053936Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20231017T050829Z
UID:10000034-1690358400-1690390800@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:July 26\, 2023 Enforcement Committee Meeting (Cancelled)
DESCRIPTION:
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/july-26-2023-enforcement-committee-meeting-cancelled/
CATEGORIES:Enforcement Committee
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20230713T080000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20230713T170000
DTSTAMP:20260429T234346
CREATED:20230714T053810Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20231013T053922Z
UID:10000033-1689235200-1689267600@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:July 13\, 2023 Enforcement Committee Meeting (Cancelled)
DESCRIPTION:
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/july-13-2023-enforcement-committee-meeting-cancelled/
CATEGORIES:Enforcement Committee
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20230621T093000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20230621T123000
DTSTAMP:20260429T234346
CREATED:20230622T001208Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20231013T045705Z
UID:10000024-1687339800-1687350600@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:June 21\, 2023 Enforcement Committee Meeting
DESCRIPTION:This Commission meeting will be conducted in a hybrid format in accordance with SB 189 (2022). To maximize public safety while maintaining transparency and public access\, members of the public can choose to participate either virtually via Zoom\, by phone\, or in person at the location listed above. Physical attendance at Metro Center requires that all individuals adhere to the site’s health guidelines including\, if required\, wearing masks\, health screening\, and social distancing. \nBCDC strongly encourages participation virtually through the Zoom link below due to changing COVID conditions. \nIf you have issues joining the meeting using the link\, please enter the Meeting ID and Password listed below into the ZOOM app to join the meeting. \nJoin the meeting via ZOOM \nhttps://bcdc-ca-gov.zoom.us/j/82592592736?pwd=cWZtV0Z3Tkw1aWtUWituc044WGpLUT09 \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers1 (866) 590-5055Conference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID825 9259 2736 \nPasscode679586 \nIf you call in by telephone: \nPress *6 to unmute or mute yourselfPress *9 to raise your hand or lower your hand to speak  \n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Tentative Agenda\n				\nCall to Order\nRoll Call\nPublic CommentThe Committee will hear public comments on matters that are not on the agenda. \nApproval of Draft Minutes from the May 30\, 2023 \, Enforcement Committee meeting (PDF)\nEnforcement ReportStaff will update the committee on the current status of the enforcement program’s activities.(Matthew Trujillo) [415/352-3633; matthew.trujillo@bcdc.ca.gov]\nUpdate to the Committee on the Simmons Island Habitat Restoration Project (Enforcement Case 1990.026.00).Representative(s) for the Port of Stockton\, San Joaquin County\, will update the committee on the project timeline\, including the expected completion date\, the progress to-date and the tasks remaining to complete this project and resolve the BCDC enforcement case. Last update: December 21\, 2022.(Adrienne Klein) [415/352-3609; adrienne.klein@bcdc.ca.gov]Presentation (PDF)\nBriefing to Committee on Regulations Addressing Late-Submitted EvidenceAssistant Attorney General Shari Posner will present to the committee the applicable regulations of Title 14\, Division 5\, Chapter 13 of the California Code of Regulations that address the handling and consideration of late-submitted evidence at enforcement hearings.(Matthew Trujillo) [415/352-3633; matthew.trujillo@bcdc.ca.gov]Presentation (PDF)\nAdjournment\n\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Transcript\n				Audio Recording \nhttps://www.bcdc.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/354/2023/06/06-21-audio.mp3 \nAudio Transcript \nIs 9 30\, \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: 933\, and this meeting of the BC. DC. Enforcement Committee is here by a call to order. My name is Marie Gilmour\, and I am the chair of this Committee \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: for Commissioners. Please ensure that the video camera is always on\, and please mute yourself when you are not speaking. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: The first order of business is to call the role Matthew. Please call the role commissioners. Please unmute yourself while he does this\, to respond\, and then mute yourselves after responding. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: good morning. Excuse me. Good morning\, Commissioner Eisen. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: Commissioner. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: Here. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: Commissioner\, rancho Commissioner\, or sorry chair\, Gilmore. \nhere. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So we have a quorum present\, and our duly constituted to conduct business\, and that brings us to item 3 on our agenda\, which is public comment period. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So\, in accordance with our usual practice\, and is indicated on the agenda. We will now have general public comment on items that are not on to on today’s agenda. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and thus far we have received no general comments. about anything \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So for members of the public\, if you would like to speak either during the general comment period\, or during the public comment period for an item on the agenda. \nMarie 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 attendee. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Find the small palm icon on the left. If you click on that palm\, icon\, it will raise your hand\, or if you are joining this meeting by phone\, you must style Star 9 to raise your hand\, then Dial Star 6 on your keypad to unmute your phone. When the host asks you in order to make a comment. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: the meeting host will call on individuals who have raised their hands in the order that they were raised. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: After you called on. 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 \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: commenters are limited to 3 min to speak. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Please keep your comments respectful and focus. We are here to listen to any individual who requests to speak. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: but each speaker has the responsibility to act in a civil and curious manner as determined by the chair. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: We will not tolerate hate\, speech\, direct threats\, indirect threats\, or abusive language. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: We will mute anyone who fails to follow these guidelines \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: once again\, this is a call for general public comment \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: on items that are not onto \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: on today’s agenda. So\, Margie\, do we have any hands raised by the public. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: We have no public comments here. Gilmour. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you. Okay\, so on to item number 4\, which is approval of the draft minutes from the last meeting. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: We have all been furnished draft minutes from our last meeting held on May thirtieth\, 2\,023 \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: committee members. I would have. I appreciate a motion in a second to approve these. \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: So moved \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: second. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: moved by Commissioner Ranchod\, and second by Commissioner Eisen. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: okay\, Everybody who’s in favor of this. Please raise your hand. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: notes ext extensions. Motion carries unanimously. Thank you. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Item 5 is the Enforcement report enforcement policy manager. Matthew Tre. Here will now provide the enforcement. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Matthew. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: thank you. Excuse me\, thank you. And good morning. Chair and committee members. There are 4 items to report out on today. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: The first item\, as usual\, is a case update. Since my last report on April thirteenth\, 2\,023. I did not give a report on May thirtieth \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: because it was a special meeting\, and we were trying to move things along. So in the past 2 months since April we received \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: 11 new cases\, and we would all 14 cases. And as of today\, there are 75 unresolved cases in the queue\, which is a difference of a minus 4 from the last report. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: That means we continue to make progress on drying down the backlog of cases. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: The second is an update on our efforts to fill this current. Cpa\, 2. Vacancy\, we still receive no applications for the position. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: rather no qualified applications. It was reposted this past week as an 18 month limited term position\, and I also attempted to make it easier to find in searches by candidates who are looking for jobs outside of San Francisco County exclusively by including the names of the other 8 Bay area counties in the working title. And the location fields. So hopefully\, \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: the idea is that when a potential job seeker is looking for something\, maybe a little closer to home in San Francisco\, maybe from Solano or San Mateo\, one of those areas. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: our job will start to show up in their searches if they do that. At that filtered search. The third item is an update on the se plain investments Llc. Matter that this committee requested that we bring back to them today. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: However\, after the May thirtieth special meeting of this committee Greg Sharp asked me to postpone further action on this matter until he returns with vacation at the end of this month. and so with the chairs support\, we have postponed the hearing until at least August\, and in the meantime\, \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: Throughout the course of a July we will once more reach. Try to reach a fair settlement of the case. This time \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: under Greg’s direct guidance and direction\, with the goal of being able to bring a stipulated order back to the for approval as opposed to a contested order\, which is what we brought. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: We’re we’re originally going to bring forward on the thirtieth\, but we didn’t get to the last item. they drink fine. Would like to provide a brief update of the staff’s ongoing work with the city of Sauce Toledo on their e grass. Restoration project. Adrian. \nHmm. \nadrienne klein: thanks\, Matthew. Good morning\, everybody. Happy summer solstice. \nadrienne klein: We. \nadrienne klein: The city of satellite settlement. Agreement requires tertiary briefings 3 per year and we just had a bit of a scheduling error. and we should have brought that forward to you today. We’ll bring it forward to you in August with on the same day that we bring the Rvr. A quarterly update. But I did want you to know that \nadrienne klein: we so this phase that we’re at is that the city has prepared a draft eel grass restoration plan. They submitted a draft in June which we’ve reported to you of last year we gave them a response requesting revisions. \nadrienne klein: We received that revised report on May Fourth\, and have provided comments to the city on the report. They’re getting much closer. The initial draft was not settlement agreement compliant\, and we have sent a copy of the letter to technical Experts and Resource agency colleagues. \nadrienne klein: in compliance with the settlement agreement which requires the city to consult with. those parties for their input \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: that’s all I wanted to share. Thank you very much. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you\, Marth Matthew\, Adrian. Rebecca Eisen. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: Thank you\, Matthew. I have 2 questions. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: could you explain to us again? And I’m sorry for asking this if it’s been asked before. But what does limited term mean in terms of the hiring position we have. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: and my second question has to do with the seaplane matter\, and hopefully\, yes\, it can be resolved. But if it’s not resolved. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner:  let us know as soon as possible prior to that august meeting\, because\, if I remember\, the materials\, for that matter are voluminous\, and we’ll all need the time to. Really\, you know\, do a deep dive on those materials before that meeting. If we need to resolve it ourselves without a settlement \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: understood. And I will definitely do that. Now\, with with regard to that matter\, and I’ll go in reverse order here. My! The ideal is that if we are able to come with with a stipulated agreement. Then we will bring it to you in August. However\, if not \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: it will probably have to be pushed off of that day\, so that we can dedicate an entire \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: meeting to to hearing these matters so that might push it. They’ll definitely would push it into September or beyond \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Can I just intercede here for just a second? \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: let’s hope that things work out and you are bringing it to us in August. but we should make a quorum check \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: well in advance of both of the potential August meetings. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: because I suspect that there are some commissioners who are going to have difficulty attending \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: understood? \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: and then the \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: a question about what does limited term mean? \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: So\, as I understand it\, not being an human resources. Expert. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: it is there. There’s \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: kind of 2 ways that we to 2 tracks to to be hired on at Bcd \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: a job opening could either be for a permanent position. Which means that \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: you\, you’re hired on your \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: You have a year of probation. Then\, after that you’re considered a permanent employee with all the rights and privileges thereup. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: Limited term means that it’s just. It’s a set term. So when you get hired\, you know that you have in this case\, for example\, 18 months worth of work. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: kind of guaranteed to you. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: A at at which time \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: after after it’s virus. Rather. We re-evaluate whether we will continue to offer you employment\, or we can at that time terminate your your employment. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: so I’m wondering. I know we’ve had a lot of difficulty filling this position\, or even getting any interest in this position. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: And I’m not sure how the decision is made whether to classify it as a \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: well\, I’ll tell you as an employment later. I never use the term permanent employment\, but I guess with the Civil service. It’s a different matter. But I don’t know how that decision is made\, whether it’s permanent or limited term. But is there any concern that calling it a limited term position discourages \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: interest. \nLarry Goldzband: I’ll let Larry feel that question. He’s popped up. Can his hand is raised\, Larry\, if you want to. fill in good thanks very much. The reason this is a limited term position is because B. C. DC. Is afforded by the department of finance. Only a certain number of permanent employee boxes in our organization charge. \nLarry Goldzband: and the and historically one of the one of the boxes in the organizational chart in enforcement is a limited term box \nLarry Goldzband: and that is because we don’t candidly have the authorization for another permanent box. \nLarry Goldzband: A permanent box costs money\, as you know\, over the life of the box\, and we simply don’t have that authority from the Department of Finance\, and we don’t plan. We don’t assume that we’re ever going to get it for enforcement. One of the things that has happened a lot during the past 3 to 5 years\, when we really strengthen the enforcement program \nLarry Goldzband: is that temporary employees or limited term employees move on in other parts of B. C. DC. To become permanent employees because we do have churn. \nLarry Goldzband: and so\, therefore\, we do have the ability to move people\, and for people to apply to be permanent employees. And then\, as Matthew totally correctly says they go through a year’s probation\, and then they become \nLarry Goldzband: what are called permanent employees by the State of California. \nLarry Goldzband: Yes\, the the answer to your question is\, yes\, it is more difficult\, probably\, to hire a limited term person than a permanent person. because people want to know that they’re going to have a job after a year or 18 months. but we can’t do that \nLarry Goldzband: because we don’t have the box to do it. \nLarry Goldzband: And so we we have this\, we basically have to hope for the best and be able to get somebody. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: Okay. \nLarry Goldzband: just keep trying. Then. \nLarry Goldzband: and \nLarry Goldzband: you know one of the things that that I think\, Matthew. \nLarry Goldzband: explain that I think he did really well\, and that I tried to. We we had a little talk about last Thursday is\, you know\, we do have 8\, 7\, or 8 open positions. It’s everybody in the State is having difficulty filling open positions\, whether they are primitive positions or limited term positions. and I know that that’s happening as well on the local and regional side as well. \nLarry Goldzband: and so I would argue. \nLarry Goldzband: based on no data whatsoever. \nLarry Goldzband: that the difficulty in hiring and filling that temporary box is more due to the pay \nLarry Goldzband: and the competitive nature of that kind of entry level position than it is to the 18 month position\, the 18 month. That’s just me. And I could well be wrong. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, thank you\, Larry. any other committee questions \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: seeing none. Do any members of the public have comments on the Enforcement report? Rg. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: I see. No. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: hey? Thank you. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So we will move on to the next agenda item\, which is a briefing on the Simmons Island Habitat Restoration project by anchor Qe. And they represent the port of Stockton \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: at this time with the representative or representatives for anchor. Qa. Please identify themselves for the record. \nLynn Turner\, Anchor QEA: Hello. \nLynn Turner\, Anchor QEA: I’m Lynn Turner. I’m an environmental planner at anchor\, Qa. And as mentioned\, we’re here on behalf of the port of Stockton today. I just want to note that their representatives\, Jeff Wingfield and Jason Cashman\, generally do join us as well on these reports\, but Due to vacations. We are giving the Update this time\, but they they send their apologies\, and then also with me as marine\, I mean. Go ahead. \nMarine Vie (Anchor QEA): Good morning. Everyone my name is Marine Va\, I’m also with anchor Qa. Representing the port. \nMarine Vie (Anchor QEA): and I will start sharing. Since I will be presenting I I’m just gonna share a screen \nMarine Vie (Anchor QEA): and walk you through the presentation. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, Atrian\, did you have a few words that you wanted to say before we jumped into their presentation? \nadrienne klein: Sure\, thanks\, Chair Gilmore. \nadrienne klein: Should I provide a background? A\, a one sentence. Summary of the project. And why this? Yeah. Okay\, great. So\, this is \nadrienne klein: one of B Cdc’s oldest cases. So you recall that we were providing you regular updates on the the ones that predated 2\,000 and \nadrienne klein: this is one of the most complicated ones that great progress has been made so essentially the location of the \nadrienne klein: well. I don’t want to take over \nadrienne klein: anchor to his presentation\, but it was dredge material from the port of Stockton. It wasn’t able\, it was. It was allowed and authorized to be placed on this duck club in Solano County\, and \nadrienne klein: was never used for beneficial reuse purposes. And we are now. We now have a proposal to beneficially reuse the remaining material to promote habitat services and benefits on site and we’re getting really close to question of crossing the finish line\, so I can provide more information afterwards. If it’s if it’s required \nLynn Turner\, Anchor QEA: so close. We have been working on this for several years now\, and it’s been very collaborative with the port of Stockton\, the Rich Island Club. a whole stakeholder group\, including so soon resource conservation district representatives from the core. B. C. DC. Adrian has been \nLynn Turner\, Anchor QEA: immensely helpful in our efforts to get to a solution on this. So I’m going to pass it off to marine to give you our update in a little more depth. \nMarine Vie (Anchor QEA): Sure. Are you able to see my screen\, or is it that just the is? Is it the Powerpoint? \nMarine Vie (Anchor QEA): Okay\, great\, perfect. So as as we said. the the purpose of this project is to \nMarine Vie (Anchor QEA): report to the Enforcement Committee about this Simmons Island Habitat Restoration project. \nMarine Vie (Anchor QEA): Oh. somehow I’m not able to move to the next slide. \nMarine Vie (Anchor QEA):  I’m sorry. \nMarine Vie (Anchor QEA): not sure what’s going on. \nLynn Turner\, Anchor QEA: No worries. Let me know if you can’t get unstuck\, and I can try \nMarine Vie (Anchor QEA): the presentation outline will go over brief project backgrounds summary\, and the construction schedule and then go over the requested permits and approval. Status \nMarine Vie (Anchor QEA): So first the project background summary and construction schedule. So the project is located in Sassoon Marsh \nMarine Vie (Anchor QEA): on Simmons Island. So basically dredge sediment from the Stockton Deepwater Ship channel. there’s regular dredging. It was placed on. So Simmons Island\, between 1986 and 1996. the Duck Club was not able to use all this dredge material for exterior levy maintenance as it \nMarine Vie (Anchor QEA): as the content of the the material was too sandy. \nMarine Vie (Anchor QEA): a B Cdc Enforcement Act case was open in 2\,007 \nMarine Vie (Anchor QEA): but parties were not able to reach an agreement on the design. there’s been renewed efforts for resolving this case in 2\,019 and develop a collaborative solution. And finally\, a design has been agreed upon. \nMarine Vie (Anchor QEA): so the the overall purpose of this project is just to regrade the previously placed material. It is to improve and it expand wetland capabilities and and improve water management capabilities. \nMarine Vie (Anchor QEA): So the applicant is the port of Stockton and the Rich Island Duck Club. \nMarine Vie (Anchor QEA): The project sizes about 30 acres\, and the volume of material to be moved 38\,200 cubic yards. grading activities are \nMarine Vie (Anchor QEA): and dissipated to take about 2 months \nMarine Vie (Anchor QEA): and would happen during summer 2024 in one construction season. So there’s been a small change on the construction schedule\, and this is because \nMarine Vie (Anchor QEA): all permits haven’t not been received to this point. So construction was slated to a cure in 2\,023. But it’s now moved to summer 2024. And this is because there’s just a small window during which the the project can be can be constructed. so it’s moved to a summer of next year. so \nMarine Vie (Anchor QEA): this is one construction season\, and it. It is anticipated to take during the drier months. As I was saying\, that the window is is quite small. \nMarine Vie (Anchor QEA): in terms of the requested permits and approval status. So we’ve we’ve gone over this table on the previous meeting a few\, probably 6 months ago. there’s updates on the status of approval from each of the agency. So I’ll go over those right now. So all applications were submitted to the agencies. In September of 2\,022 \nMarine Vie (Anchor QEA): for the core permit. It is a nationwide permit. 27 that is anticipated. we had. We’ve had the ongoing discussions with the core project manager\, and recently a side visit was conducted on June fifteenth. This side visit included the confirmation of the Wetland delineation that was prepared for this project. \nMarine Vie (Anchor QEA): and the core project manager. agreed with the delination. So we do anticipate. that was kind of the wrapping up item to be it to\, so that the permit would be issued. So we do anticipate that permit to be coming very soon. \nMarine Vie (Anchor QEA): The core also consulted with under Section 7 of the endangered species that it consulted with us fish and wildlife. we got a biological opinion that was issued it on a on May 24 \nMarine Vie (Anchor QEA): of this year. \nMarine Vie (Anchor QEA): and then in terms of section 106\, \nMarine Vie (Anchor QEA): the core had requested a cultural resources assessment assessment\, and this we submitted the the report on December 23. there’s also a sequel compliance. So California environmental quality at compliance. So the the port was the lead agency for sequel compliance\, and they’ve issued or they they have filed a notice of exemption. \nMarine Vie (Anchor QEA): On June fifteenth \nMarine Vie (Anchor QEA): for the water board. We anticipate a section 4\, one water quality started vacation to be issued very shortly. The Application was again submitted. In 22 there was a notice of incomplete application. received on December fifteenth\, we submitted a response letter. On January thirtieth. We also hailed a meeting with both the Water Board and the Cdc. \nMarine Vie (Anchor QEA): On that March first of this year to discuss additional questions they had. So The only out sending item was the notice of exemption filed \nMarine Vie (Anchor QEA): for the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board to issue their permits. that has been\, as I was saying\, in the previous slide that’s been submitted on June fifteenth. So we do anticipate that approval\, coming very soon\, too. \nMarine Vie (Anchor QEA): And this in terms of the B Cdc Mars development permit. similar timeframe as the Water Board so application was submitted in September of last year we submitted a response to B. Cdc’s notice of incomplete letter in December of last year\, and we held the same meeting with the Water Board and DC. DC. On March first \nMarine Vie (Anchor QEA): to discuss additional questions\, and the B. Cdc. Permit cannot be issued until the \nMarine Vie (Anchor QEA): they see the water board permit. \nMarine Vie (Anchor QEA): So once we have the water board permit\, we will send that on to the B Cdc. Reviewing team\, and they should issue their permits. not long after that\, we hope. \nand then the last approval is the Delta stewardship consistency\, determination. \nMarine Vie (Anchor QEA): and that was obtained in December 2022. So we’ve been making progress over over the years\, over the years of the month and and over the years\, too\, because there’s been a lot of collaboration to get to this point. so we we do anticipate permits. Come coming very soon. and We will keep \nMarine Vie (Anchor QEA): you posted as we receive them. \nMarine Vie (Anchor QEA): That concludes my presentation\, and if there are any questions we’d be happy to take them. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you very much. This was a a very informative and complete briefing. So do any enforcement committee members have any additional questions either for our our guests or for sa. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and can we stop sharing the screen\, please\, because I can’t see. \nMarine Vie (Anchor QEA): Yes. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: thank you\, Commissioner Eisen. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: Thank you. Thank you for the presentation. Could you just educate me as to what a cultural resources assessment is. \nLynn Turner\, Anchor QEA: Yeah\, absolutely. so a cultural resources assessment usually is is is under section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. And so there’s specific guidelines under which those are issued\, and they look at \nLynn Turner\, Anchor QEA: the potential for encountering any historic\, archaeological or tribal resources in a specific area. So an archaeologist\, and and sometimes other experts in those other areas depending on the risks assess whether there have been \nLynn Turner\, Anchor QEA: previous discovery in a specific area\, and then they’ll they’ll provide that information to the agencies that are asking for it\, and they assess the potential for discovery of any you know\, for an inadvertent discovery to happen during construction. This area is very low risk. Just so\, you know\, I think it’s just sort of a. \nLynn Turner\, Anchor QEA: you know. It’s a pretty standard. Check the box. exercise\, and if there is a higher potential\, then we also develop things like more detailed inadvertent discovery plans\, so that \nLynn Turner\, Anchor QEA: there’s a specific set of steps during construction. Were there to be any discoveries \nLynn Turner\, Anchor QEA: regardless\, we have set steps set out. you know\, a lot of the historic and cultural resources are not \nLynn Turner\, Anchor QEA: publicly available information about where they are found for me\, probably for obvious reasons\, so that people don’t go out hunting\, basically. So that information is kept on more \nLynn Turner\, Anchor QEA: professional sites that are accessed by archaeologists and agencies. And so those reports are not usually published. so that we don’t. And you know\, in differently release any information ourselves. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: So just so I understand when you’re talking about things that might be inadvertently located. Are you talking about things like burial grounds or artifacts\, or what? \nLynn Turner\, Anchor QEA: if it is an area that maybe had historically had other people’s living there. Then they assess the potential for \nLynn Turner\, Anchor QEA: discovering remains or cultural artifacts or or things like that. so it it’s\, you know\, location specific\, what’s included in that. But again\, this area very low risk\, all of the material that we’re going to be regrading is previously placed dredge material. We’re not going down into the native soils at all. \nLynn Turner\, Anchor QEA: All of this is just the dredge material that came out of the Sacramento over deep watership channel. So I’m sorry. The the the the previous judging. So \nLynn Turner\, Anchor QEA: yeah\, I think there’s a very low risk of any inadvertent discovery. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: A and one other question I have\, I know. at B. C. DC\, we have \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: started up a program. I think the acronym is Britt \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: to accelerate or to coordinate various efforts to get permits from multiple agencies to streamline the process. I don’t know if this project is eligible for that\, or whether it’s a participant in that program. I’m wondering if you know that. \nLynn Turner\, Anchor QEA: Oh\, go ahead\, Adrian \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Adrian. \nadrienne klein: Well\, I didn’t mean to pre empty. Lynn. If memory serves we. \nadrienne klein: This may have been under way before Britt existed. Commissioner Eisen and I do believe that we checked with Skylar Olson are Britt. \nadrienne klein: go to person\, and we determined that it wasn’t appropriate. \nadrienne klein: But if you have different information\, please feel free to share. \nLynn Turner\, Anchor QEA: Yeah\, no\, that that that sounds right\, and we were. \nLynn Turner\, Anchor QEA: We were hoping to construct this summer. So I think we just sort of went with the \nLynn Turner\, Anchor QEA: readily available past at that moment. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: Okay? And then I just have one last question on the construction window that you mentioned was very small. What are the constraints on when you can construct that. \nLynn Turner\, Anchor QEA: Yeah\, there are a few overlapping constraints. Some of them are species related\, and then also\, you know\, remote marine mentioned\, it needs to occur during the dryer months. the other piece of this is that because this is an active duck club\, and most of these adjacent areas in sustain. Marsh\, you know\, are these active duck clubs. So we need to complete before the start of waterfowl season. you know\, all these clubs kinda do \nLynn Turner\, Anchor QEA: construction around the same time\, so that there aren’t risks of people out there hunting at the same time. so I I think it’s it’s book ended by a few things. Some of them are our species windows\, species work windows\, and then some of them are \nLynn Turner\, Anchor QEA: you know\, the timing of when they all fled up to start waterfall season. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: Okay\, thank you. Thank you for all of that. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you. Do any other commissioners have questions. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, we can take public comments on this item\, which is item number 6 on the agenda. \nBut first\, Margie\, have we received any written public comments on this item. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: We did not check a little more. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, thank you. Okay. Once again\, if you would like to provide comments at this time\, you will need to raise your hand by clicking on the participants. Tab in zoom \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: or by phone\, by dialing. Star 9 to raise your hand and star 6 to unmute yourself. Margie will then announce you and invite you to comment. Comments are limited to 3 min\, and Margie will keep track of the time\, and this is a request for comments. Only on item 6. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Do we have any public comment? \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: there’s no hands raised. Chail. Gil\, more. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, well\, thank you and thank you to the anchor Qa. Team for presenting today and answering our questions. Oh\, I see a hand from Adrian before we end this item. \nadrienne klein: Oh\, thank you. Chair Gilmour. Just \nadrienne klein: since it’s you know\, best. Efforts were made to achieve get all the permits this year. But we were not. That wasn’t possible. \nadrienne klein: There’s one item left to file the BC. DC. Application. That’s the Regional board certification. So the permits will be in place. Well\, in advance of the 2024 summer construction schedule. \nadrienne klein: when would the committee like to hear? Back? maybe through Matthew we could let you know when the be DC. Permit is issued\, and then \nadrienne klein: just\, you know\, get back to\, if any \nadrienne klein: events occur that change the construction schedule and maybe report back through through Matthew when \nadrienne klein: constructions about to start\, and then maybe anchor Q. A. A. Could let you know when the project is completed and how it went. That’s just a proposal. \nadrienne klein: It can be flexible. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Well\, I I think that makes a lot of sense. what is other committee members think \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: it sounds like a good schedule to me. \nadrienne klein: Great. Thank you very much. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, so so that’s a go. Thank you. Everyone. \nLynn Turner\, Anchor QEA: Thank you for having us. Thank you. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So we are on our last item\, item 7\, which is a briefing to the Committee on Regulations. Addressing late submitted evidence \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and Assistant Attorney General Sherry Posner will now present to the Committee the applicable regulations of Title 14. Division 5\, \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: chapter 13\, of the California Code of Regulations that address the handling and consideration of late submitted evidence at Enforcement. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and I just want to say\, thank you. Sherry\, for putting this together and take it away. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: Thank you. Chair. Gilmore. Can everyone hear me? Okay. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: okay\, I assume we can. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: This is Sherry Posner from the Attorney General’s office. just minor correction. Not that it’s a big deal\, but maybe it’s a sounds a Tad\, like a promotion. I’m not an Assistant Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General\, of which there are many many of us. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: and I just want to thank Staff up front particular Matthew who helped put the slides together for me because I am My \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: powerpoint skills are primitive \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: and which really translates to non-existent \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice:  And I just want to say good morning to everyone who is in attendance. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: so \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice:  just do a little preface. I’m here today just to go over the the rules that apply to the Enforcement Committee’s determination to accept late evidence. Late submitted evidence when there’s an enforcement hearing. There are a lot of other \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: nuanced rules in the regulations regarding hearings that involve other kinds of evidence. I’m not going to be covering that today \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: I’m not going to focus on the timing of the submittal. There are an infinite number of situations that could probably come up \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: So we’re not really going to be talking about hypotheticals or actual cases that have been will be our before the Enforcement Committee. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: so I’m just going to be working from the general premise that that anything submitted \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: after the staff prepares its violation\, report and complaint. and the statement of defense forms which the respondent provides. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: completed and submitted\, and with the idea being that those could potentially be late unless some other rule applies. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: and then\, if they are untimely\, how they’re handled. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: So one of the things I think that kind of\, and I’ll ask Matthew to go to the next slide. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: I think the question may be in everyone’s mind. Why is this important? \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: Well\, because section 1\, 1\, 327 J. Which is up on the screen\, provides that is part of the hearing process. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: The Enforcement Committee shall rule on any objections to the admissibility of any evidence or the acceptance of late evidence. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: The Committee is also responsible to identify any evidence submitted\, but rejected because it was not filed in a timely manner. For example\, if someone’s statement of defense is late. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: or it otherwise violates the rule regarding the acceptance of late evidence. It doesn’t satisfy the criteria of being accepted as late evidence. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice:  there is also a requirement next slide \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: 1\, 1\, 3\, 2\, 4\, which is the provision that relates to the material being distributed before the enforcement. Hearing \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: that provides that if there is anything that is submitted with a statement\, a defense form that has been filed in an untimely fashion. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: It should be noted when the materials are distributed. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: So I. I just wanted to point that out as well. so let’s go to the next slide. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: This is the the\, the the croc city issue. So what should the Enforcement Committee consider in determining whether to accept light evidence? For that we look to Section 1\, 1\, 328 of the regulations? \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: This section provides that the Enforcement Committee shall not accept \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: any statement of the defense form or any written evidence not filed in a timely manner. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: unless one\, the person seeking to introduce the evidence\, made all reasonable efforts to obtain and submit the evidence in a timely manner. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: but was unable to do so\, and would be substantially prejudiced if the evidence were not admitted. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: and then to the second point\, no other party would suffer substantial prejudice by its admission. So\, when faced with evidence \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: that could be that is\, untimely and someone it wants it to be admitted into the record. And there is an objection. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: The committee needs to look at these factors. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: they might need to ask the individual or party submitting the evidence to provide some at least background information \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: to satisfy one\, and whoever is opposing the evidence to satisfy to or there \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: and it. But but basically it’s a pretty narrow set of criteria. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: And then the the the last component that I wanted to just go over is who has the final say on the acceptance of \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: material that is later on timely to determine whether or not\, it can be accepted under the criteria of 11328\, and that’s you. The Enforcement Committee\, under 11\,329 next slide\, please. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: As Section D says\, the chair of the Enforcement Committee or the Enforcement Committee here shall have the final authority to determine whether any evidence whose admissibility is challenged by objection\, shall be admitted into evidence and become part of the record. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: So \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: that’s why there\, we’ve had situations where this has come up and chair? Gilmour asks. You know there’s a there’s a discussion\, and after those deliberations there’s a motion \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: we need a clear record at the end of day\, of what evidence is or is not in the record. And if there is untimely evidence\, there needs to be the determination of whether or not whether or not it’s going to be accepted under 11\,328. So it’s clear for that record. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: now\, I will say \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: that kind of brings us back to the first section I was talking about. But but what I wanted to say is\, there are some\, and I don’t think exceptions is quite the right word\, but there are some situations in which \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: the regulations indicate that evidence\, for example\, would not be \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: considered like meeting. It wouldn’t fall under the rubric of your having to make a determination under 11 3 to 8\, and I’ll give you a couple examples under the rules. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: Let’s say\, in the statement of defense. So Staff has already submitted its violation\, reporting complaint\, and a statement of defense comes in with a declaration of a potential witness. If staff wants to cross-examine that person who submitted the declaration staff. Can that can be noted? And the fact that that’s happening after the staff violation reporting complaint is done is not a situation in which the the cross-examination that comes in is considered late in any way. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: Another example would be\, there is the executive director has the discretion under 1\, 1\, 3 to 2 F. To extend the time for someone to submit their statement of defense. So if they’ve gotten that kind of extension\, then the statement of defense is not late. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: Anything they submit with it is not like \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: Another example would be under 1\, 1\, 3\, 2 7 f. And I think\, Matthew\, we have that one if you want to turn to it. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: This actually relates to oral testimony. So it’s not written evidence\, but it is called out in the section on late evidence\, and that basically says that if in the hearing the committee decides\, it needs oral testimony \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: because it’s essential to resolve an unresolved factual issue\, that oral testimony would not be considered late evidence. And finally\, if \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: the if there’s any desire to cross-examine A declarant or a declaration provided by Staff as part of its violation report. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: If that’s indicated that the statement of defense\, that cross-examination at the hearing that would not be considered late evidence either. So those are some things that the rules sort of point out.  so I mean\, that’s that’s \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: pretty much my presentation. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: I’m happy to answer any questions. Obviously I can’t really respond to hypotheticals again\, like I said in the beginning\, I can’t respond to cases that have been before us or are before us. I have some limitations on what kind of advice I can obviously give \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: in terms of retaining privileges with the committee\, but that being said\, I’m happy to discuss any of the rules that we put up\, and I can have Matthew back on the slides. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you very much. Sherry for the presentation. And he one of the questions that I had I’m not going to speak for everybody else. Is that for those of us who come from a A A non BC\, DC world. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair:  if something is late\, it’s just late and it doesn’t get considered. So one of my big questions going into this was When we got the record from staff There were occasions when we saw exhibits marked as late submissions\, but we still saw them. So this explains why we saw them. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay? Because\, like\, I said\, I’m coming from a different \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair:  arena\, where\, if something is late\, it’s just late\, and and the body just doesn’t see it or it. It isn’t accepted. So I wanted an answer to that question. So I think maybe that kind of started the ball rolling. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: I see Commissioner Vasquez with his hand up. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: so that would mean that we’d have to at least hear it before we decide whether we can \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: accept it. Yeah\, how do? How do we? \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: If I think I’m sorry? Go ahead. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice:  and \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: I’m not. And when you say here it you mean the case\, or or here quote the evidence\, or or more often than not\, it’s actually written evidence\, and and yes\, I mean \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: to a certain extent you do have to \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: look at it to determine whether or not it might meet the criteria under 11\,328\, and I do believe that the committee could ask again questions like what we might call in courtroom and offer a proof like. Why was it submitted late. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: or\, you know\, doesn’t meet any of these criteria. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: Why wasn’t it submitted before? Were you unable to split it before?  Would it be substantially prejudicial? But I mean \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: in terms of \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: hearing it. I don’t believe that it needs to be the determination about whether or not it’s part of the record would be done before you deliberate. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: and and then you would be deliberating on what is in the record. But there’s no way to avoid \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: the the the need to at least assess it on a superficial level for lack of a better word. That’s probably not the right word\, but on an evidentiary level to determine whether or not it comes in under the the rule under the 11 3 to 8 rule\, and and that does happen in in regular court\, and and in what these are which are quasi judicial hearings where people are concerned about\, we call ringing the bell\, but it does happen where information is presented and someone objects\, or it has to be determined upfront whether or not it even comes in \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: because I think in this instance it’s not just about an objection. It’s late evidence. There needs to be a determination whether or not it’s part of the record regardless.  So I hope that answers your question. I I think that there’s just no way to to avoid that. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: it’s just part of the process. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Rebecca. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: Okay\, so\, Sherry\, I’m a little confused. I was trying to read those sections as fast as I could while you were presenting. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: but I thought I read that the determination as to whether the evidence is late. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: and therefore the determination as to whether or not they could have reasonably found it\, and whether it’s prejudicial \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: is made by the chair of the committee\, not by the committee itself\, and not necessarily in a public hearing. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: So that’s what I was wondering if. if you know there’s the complaint. There’s the response. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: and then the staff\, I assume\, quote objects \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: to the late filed evidence. and \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: I don’t know if the staff then asks for a \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: a statement as to why they couldn’t have presented it earlier\, and whether it’s whether why it’s not prejudicial. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: And then Marie could decide it before we ever hear that matter\, and then what would be posted \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: on the public? you know\, the materials that would be posted would simply be whatever. has been concluded by our chair. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: it would be the complaint\, the defense\, and if she decides that they’ve met the criteria\, the late evidence. But if she decides that they haven’t\, we’d never see that \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: as a body. so \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: I could be totally wrong\, and how I read that so quickly. But \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: But the impression I got is that that is exclusively the province of the chair to decide. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner:  So I’m I’m happy to respond. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: Yeah. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: I if you\, we and Matt\, you could put up the slides again if that helps \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice:  So the first slide I mean this is where I think it all starts is the is 1\, 1\, 3\, 2\, 7 j. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: And that is that part of the hearing procedure is that the committee or the Commission well\, in this case is the committee\, because we have a committee. She’ll rule on any objections to the admissibility or the acceptance of late evidence. And then\, Matthew\, I’m sorry to make you jump. But can you go to 11\, 3\, 2\, 9\, \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: and that’s where it says the chair or the Enforcement Committee? She’ll have the final authority\, determine whether any evidence \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: challenge. Now\, again. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: you know these regulations. You you have to kind of take them in as a whole.  that refers to a evidence that is objected to. But I still believe that when you read that in combination with 11327 J. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: It’s referring to any evidentiary issues\, and one of those could be \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: the submission of late evidence. Going back\, Matthew\, to 11328. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: I believe that if evidence is late. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: I’m not even sure there has to be an objection. It has to be determined whether or not it comes into the record. And that’s where these determinations are considered. This criteria is considered by the Enforcement Committee. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: and I do think again\, it may require\, it may be on the face of the information that it’s you’re able to tell that. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice:  it doesn’t meet these criteria\, or particularly the first criteria\, but it might require asking questions. I think every situation would be different. But it’s my reading of the regulations that this this all happens as part of the hearing\, because obviously any objections or \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: argument in favor or against the evidence being admitted as late evidence\, because it satisfies in the committee’s determination. The rule has to be part of the record. The official record. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: Okay\, can you go to the slide just immediately before this? Because I thought it said. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: I’m not sure. I mean\, I’ve been jumping around in the slides because I know where they are. But are you referring to \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: the one. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: the very first one Enforcement Committee chair? It? Says the the oh\, I’m sorry. That’s it\, says the chair or the Enforcement Committee chair. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: Right? Oh\, I see what you’re saying. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: The enforcement right here\, not the committee\, the chair of the committee \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: right? Right? The final authority. Well\, I guess that that would be. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: I care what you’re saying on that. I I guess I I was reading it in cut tandem with J\, \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: which talks about the Enforcement Committee. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: so that’s that’s why I was reading it as something that’s typically made as a decision by the Committee. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice:  Hmm. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: yeah\, that’s a that that seems kind of contradictory. So because I was sort of envisioning when I saw Enforcement committee chair \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: that the chair\, before we have a record or a hearing\, would have made that determination\, and then we would. It would either be part of the record that we would consider or wouldn’t depending on her\, her decision. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: Well\, I think I’m I’m pretty clear on the fact that that unfortunately that can’t happen because of the otherwise there’d be no record And and the person who ultimately\, if someone were to challenge the enforcement. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: the ultimate decision in the case\, because obviously it goes from the Enforcement Committee to the Commission. But if there’s any sort of legal challenge there’d be no record. And it’s and to me that \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: this is a public hearing process. So again\, looking at these rules in total in context\, that’s my understanding of the of the way it’s been done\, and and I believe it’s the way it should be done. you know\, kind of have to work with these regulations. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: like anything else. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: so I I was reading those 2\, 11\, 3\, 2\, 9 and 11\, 3\, 2\, 7 together. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: So I I also noticed that in this 11 \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: I mean\, all of this section of the code is applicable to public hearings right \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: to enforcement hearings \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: to enforcement here. And so I also notice that in 11\, 3\, 2\, 9\, e. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: It says\, in determining whether to admit testimony or exhibits over objection. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: the chair or the Enforcement Committee chair shall consult with you. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: Well\, I believe that again I the way I read the late evidence rule is\, I’m not sure it requires an objection. If the evidence is late or untimely. There needs to be determination about whether it comes in. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: In the broader context\, there could be objections to other evidence. But that being said\, \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: if there’s a need to consult with with the Attorney General during a live hearing\, obviously for legal advice that can’t be done. So there could be a hypothetical situation where the hearing would have to be continued. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: there would have to be a closed session. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: And then you know that hearing could continue after that closed session. obviously\, if the consultation is just saying. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: what should we do here? I can \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: always provide the advice that you can ask for that offer approved from the person who wants this late evidence in \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: ask some questions. Why is it being submitted now? Why wasn’t it submitted before \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: those kinds of things? I? I don’t think that would be advice in a public forum\, but \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: beyond that that kind of consultation\, I don’t think could happen at the open hearing. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: The enforcement chair shall consult with the deputy Attorney General. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: Right? But that’s into the over objection. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: So late. Evidence in itself is not. There’s not necessarily there’s there may not. It doesn’t have to. The objection isn’t the issue. The issue is\, it’s late. So we’re making that determination. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Yeah\, can I just jump in here for a minute. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Sure. so I I think the thing that we are forgetting\, and before we go too far down this rabbit hole \nis that \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: the decision\, whether or not to let in late evidence has got to be done on the record to provide the respondents the opportunity to challenge that at a later date\, if they so wish to right. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So if you read \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: all of these regulations together\, you come to the conclusion that you have to do this in public so that they can challenge it. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: You can’t. I can’t. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: in consultation with Sherry off the record\, come to a decision as to whether or not. This evidence is late. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: then come to an open public hearing and say\, Oh\, I’ve determined the evidence is late. Let’s move on\, because that gives the respondents \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: nothing to challenge. I mean\, there\, there’s there’s no record there as to why the the evidence was not submitted. I was not submitted into the right. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: And I think I think that’s the the overall thing that we need to keep in mind is is what’s on the record for going forward. And also\, the other thing is \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Whatever determination we make gets moved to the full commission. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: they need to have an understanding of why we came to the decision that we did as to whether or not to let in this late submitted evidence. And if it’s just me saying on the record\, no\, it’s it’s it’s not it. Move on. There’s no. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: there’s nothing there for them to to consider. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: I think Brent has \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: that that that that \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: I appreciate your Gilmore pointing that out. and that’s an excellent point. again\, you know\, it’s really about having the the full record. there again\, there are instances when the record is \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: pretty clear on its face\, and I I recall incidents in some instances where Chair Gilmore and in the past other chairs we’re able to upfront. Say. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: make a comment\, and obviously everyone had an opportunity to respond to that. So you know it. Sometimes it doesn’t take a lot to make that determination\, and there isn’t a lot of back and forth with the parties\, because it’s clear on the face of the information. But again\, everything has to be taken \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: on a case by case basis\, and we have to look at the regulations in total to make sure that we’re \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: following the the hearing procedures and providing fair hearing. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, Brent. \nBrent Plater: I’m wondering if it might be of benefit to try and not make this excuse me in either or So \nBrent Plater: we we\, I think we generally see a couple of kinds of late submitted evidence. There’s the kind of late submitted evidence that comes\, you know\, days\, or even weeks before the hearing. And there’s other kinds where it’s just presented the night before\, or even during a hearing\, perhaps for the instances where we have at least\, you know\, several days to consider the late submitted evidence. \nBrent Plater: There might be an opportunity for the Chair to consult with the Attorney General on those kinds of submissions\, and just get a sense\, if there’s any evidence along with the submission to determine if there is criteria worth the committee evaluating as a whole \nBrent Plater: about their admissibility of that late submitted evidence. while still retaining the vote on the public and not just making it solely during that consultation process that might happen at the end. That might also provide the Attorney General with the ability to have a closer look at the the submission as a whole so that \nBrent Plater: the committee doesn’t necessarily have to put itself in this bind where it has to read the evidence to understand if any of the criteria apply for admitting these late submissions. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: We have Larry\, Larry. I I’m I’m gonna noodle on that one rent\, Larry. \nLarry Goldzband: I I I I only want to ask one question really of sharing \nLarry Goldzband:  it goes to what \nLarry Goldzband: Commissioner Eisen was asking about? Essentially the ruling of the chair. \nLarry Goldzband: Is it the case that \nLarry Goldzband: the enforcement. A member of the Enforcement Committee could always appeal the ruling of the chair and ask that the committee vote on that issue. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: Yes\, I mean\, I think so. I mean I \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: yes\, I believe that’s true\, and I don’t think there’s any reason why the chair can’t ask for everybody’s opinion on it\, even if theoretically\, the chair could all could make it. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Well\, I \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: the answer to the question is\, yes\, and I think that’s what we have done in the past \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: right\, and we’ve come to some sort of a a consensus that yes\, this is coming in or no\, this isn’t coming in And have moved forward on on that basis. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Matthew. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: thank you. I I believe there’s a need to give a little more clarity to the committee here. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: kind of about\, you know\, since these questions are a bit about process\, I just want to clarify that when it comes to the regulations \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: 11\, 3\, 2\, 8 is really the only one that talks about actual late evidence and how it’s dealt with. However. because I I believe that what I’m hearing is this this idea that \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: maybe 11\, 3 to 9 applies only to late evidence. It actually doesn’t. This is admissibility of evidence\, generally speaking. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: and specifically to Commissioner Eisen\, D. And E are specifically to speaking to evidence whose admissibility is challenged. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: and then he is. If the chair decides over objection that. Well\, yes\, I heard it the objection of say\, staff\, or responded\, But I’m still gonna admit the evidence \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: before doing so. Sh! The chair would consult with the Deputy attorney\, deputy attorney General. But again\, admissibility of evidence. Generally speaking\, now\, we don’t usually follow this specific step. What we do is we. We generally tend to throughout the process. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: admit all evidence. We bring it. We we we invite\, you know\, evidence supported or brought in by the statement of defense evidence brought in or accompanying the notice of violation. Even stuff submitted late. We bring it in and we don’t generally object to it unless there’s a need \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: But if there was a need\, this is\, that’s when this these 2 I need to object that when these 2 provisions would apply. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: I hope that I will say Matthew again. Thank you for that clarification. I think that’s correct\, I mean\, and I I apologize if I created any confusion. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: in that I again\, 11329\, is about admissibility and objections. The determination about whether or not evidence that is late or is late submitted\, needs to whether it comes in. That’s an independent issue \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: without an objection having been made. There has to be a determination of whether or not it’s going to be part of the record. someone could make an objection if the determination is that it becomes part of the record and \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: or and doesn’t like that\, or vice versa. And then we get into 11329. So I apologize if I made that confusing because I really wanted to focus just on \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: late evidence. there might be a point of time where it might be good to have an overall presentation about. you know\, different aspects of the enforcement hearing process. this is just one little snapshot on one issue. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Yeah\, I I would agree with that\, especially since\, and and not just for us. But I think it would be useful for the entire Commission\, since we have so many new Commissioners. Sanjay. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: actually Commissioner as in first. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Oh\, I’m sorry that that’s fine. I I I’d like to hear from Sanjay\, because I’m still kind of \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: getting my thought. \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: thanks. \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: I appreciate it. You. You bring this to our attention and helping explain it for us. So so appreciate that. \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: The the rule is stated. There is that light submitted evidence is inadmissible \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: right? And then there is an exception to the rule\, which is what we’re talking about. \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner:  I hope that it it’s an opportunity to also make the parties the respondents aware of this rule. \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: Right? They they should have a very clear understanding that late submitted evidence is not going to be admitted. \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: So get your materials together and get it in on time. We’re serious about these deadlines. Yes\, this \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: code section provides for a limited exception. If these circumstances are met. that’s an exception. So \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: I feel like we could spend a fair amount of time continue to discuss this\, but as a practical matter. \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: I I wanna I I think it’s an opportunity to also\, in the process of educating respondents about our procedures\, and some are more sophisticated with\, you know\, more experience counsel than others \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: that especially if they’re not represented by Council\, who are experience practicing for us\, that we remind them of these rules so that they can do their best to to get their materials in and comply with the the rules that blind everybody. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Sanjay\, I think that’s a really good point\, because I’ve had some conversations where one of my biggest concerns is having the exception swallow the rule. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: And if that ends up happening. Then what’s the point of having the rule saying that you know you can’t submit late evidence. So that’s a yes\, I totally agree with you\, Rebecca. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: Okay\, so it’s coming into focus. Better for me. So what I was originally concerned about\, and my first question was going to be. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: how do the respondents \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: object or appeal from a decision by the chair that their late evidence can’t come in. And now you’re saying that that’s not the issue\, because it will. The decision about the late evidence will be on the record. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: the chair will have consulted with Council of Need be\, and that’s what they would respond to\, but at to Sanjay’s excellent point\, I think\, since we’re gonna see this late evidence. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: I I thought initially that maybe the rule was there so that we didn’t ever have to see this late evidence. Which could\, you know by us in our decision? but if we’re gonna see it. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: The respondents should know that the only thing we want to hear from them \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: is why they didn’t find it earlier. And \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: why isn’t there prejudice to bringing it in. Now\, that’s all. We don’t want to hear any argument about how important it is\, etc. We just want to know why they didn’t bring it to a sooner. And why isn’t it prejudicial? And \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: So then\, you know\, that’s the record that they can appeal from if they want to. So \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: well\, that’s exactly right. And I think that goes back to Sherry’s comment about that being the offer of proof. Yeah\, okay\, so I don’t know \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: sherry before John. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: John. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: Oh. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: Maria\, I I think you’re correct. I think we should have a presentation to the rest of the Commission\, so they understand the processes we’re going through. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: because I remember we had one that came back to us 3 times\, because \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: the the \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: the individual went and spoke to the entire commission\, and and got a little bit of sympathy from them. And so it came back and forth\, and \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: I I think if we can better state why it that we didn’t hear that evidence\, or that it wasn’t presented. And as \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: I was stated earlier\, you know\, this sophistication of some of the folks that are coming \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: may not be as good as others. So making that plea to the entire Commission \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: 10 following \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: years that are sympathetic towards that that particular individual. So I I think the better we can state our case. We are us being the Co. The Enforcement Committee to say\, Here’s the procedure that went through. Here’s the things. Here’s the determination. Yes\, sir. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: it was submitted late\, and we reviewed it\, but it didn’t. I shouldn’t say it wouldn’t change our minds\, but Certainly didn’t add any more to the case. But I I think the rest of the commissioners\, knowing that how this\, how this part of the \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: The Cdc works is important\, because \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: that one we heard 3 times ended up being the same decision 3 times \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: right? Right? and I think\, also the the corollary to that\, not not talking about evidence. But if there is a case presented before the Enforcement Committee\, and we\, as Enforcement Commissioners have a hard time following it. Then that means\, in my opinion\, that the Commission \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: is going to have an even greater difficulty following it. So I I think we’re kind of the you know the canary. I don’t want to say in the coal mine\, but yeah\, share it. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: I just wanted to make. I I’m not sure. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: that terrorizing that you you stated it wrong. I just want to make sure that it’s clear that the offer is on the side of prejudice. It’s sort of 2 sides. The person presenting the evidence who definitely has to explain \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: that they need all reasonable efforts to get it in before\, and we’re unable to do so. They get to make an argument as to why it would be substantially prejudicial if the evidence were not admitted. and and and then anyone\, the on any other party\, would have the opportunity to \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: explain why they would to stop\, suffer substantial prejudice. If it isn’t so it’s like a balancing\, basically on that on that particular issue. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: But and I. And again\, I wanna I wanna \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: say that the the that I think the way to look at this I was trying to use avoid using the word exceptions in large part\, just because sometimes it’s they’re baked into statues\, but I think\, describing this as saying that yes\, this evidence is late\, and the exception is bringing in is a really tapped and perfect way of sort of describing it. and then baked within this are provisions that I explained before that say\, okay. If it’s\, for example\, a situation where you all need oral testimony. Then that’s \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: baked into 11328. That’s not considered late because you’d made the determination based on the issues before you\, that there’s unresolved facts\, and you need that. So there’s a lot of layers to it. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice:  I think generally. Again\, you know\, a presentation may be on in general about the enforcement here \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: process the formal \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: process\, and and how the you know hearings go to the full Commission would be helpful\, because again\, they’d have some more appreciation for all the nuances that the committee is dealing with and the 2 terminations it makes\, because technically\, when it goes to the full Commission. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: they’re not supposed to reway any of these things. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: and there are a lot of new. I believe. I I can’t keep track a lot of new commissioners. \nYeah\, yeah. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair:  going back to a point that I think Sanjay made about \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: you know\, respondents filing their statement of defense. And and whether or not. They have experienced attorneys used to deal with BC. DC. Question for staff. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: When we send out the violation report and we send out the the form that they’re supposed to fill out with the statement of defense. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Do we send out with that? any of these regulations dealing with evidence? \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: I mean is that part of the package? \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: all the regulations\, or just \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: the part dealing with evidence\, because the Chapter Chapter 13\, which is the enforcement \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: Po. regulations. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: so that the evidentiary or the evidence and late evidence regulations are included in that \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: that both \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: excellent Larry. \nLarry Goldzband: Thank you. Chair Gilmour. 2 things. Number one. \nLarry Goldzband: Happy to put on the commission agenda a review of what I will call the enforcement process\, the lack of a better term \nLarry Goldzband: and We’ll work with Greg and Matthew to figure out when the best time for that is. \nLarry Goldzband: I think that will depend to some extent on number one. \nLarry Goldzband: What cases the Enforcement Committee for sees coming to it\, and when. \nLarry Goldzband: and number 2\, \nLarry Goldzband: knowing that July and August is vacation time for many folks\, you know. Perhaps September would be the best time. But I I want to make sure that we don’t. \nLarry Goldzband: that that that we don’t put ourselves in a bind by doing it too late. So we’ll need to work with Matthew and Greg on that timing. \nLarry Goldzband: My recommendation. And this is the second thing for that that presentation \nLarry Goldzband: is to. And I know you don’t like hypothetical cases. \nLarry Goldzband: not to use a hypothetical case as a case. but simply go chronologically about how the enforcement process works \nLarry Goldzband: and literally starting\, probably Matthew with\, You know the the the call that I get on Saturday afternoon that something is wrong that I then send to Matthew on. You know it. It’s literally starting\, then\, going through the process that you all use to develop case \nLarry Goldzband: going through the process that you use to determine \nLarry Goldzband: the validity of a case. And then what the Commission’s role is \nLarry Goldzband: I I I think\, doing it chronologically\, is probably the best way to do it. \nLarry Goldzband: And I don’t think that you have to get into this kind of discussion that you just had today. I think what you can do is say with regard to evidence. Here is how the Enforcement Committee looks at evidence\, and here is what the Commission can and cannot do with it. I don’t think you want to necessarily get in the weeds\, but I think you want to simply be able to say\, You know\, here’s the process we use. \nLarry Goldzband: So this is literally off \nLarry Goldzband: the top of my head. and and as you all know\, there’s nothing else on the top of my head\, so there’s nothing filtering it whatsoever. \nLarry Goldzband: But it is something that we’re happy to do\, and that I think that Matthew\, you and Greg\, as you develop it\, probably need to make sure that you develop it with members of the Enforcement Committee\, so that you all have a chance to discuss it and see it and make your comments and edit to your heart’s content before it goes to the Commission. \nLarry Goldzband: Happy to talk about this at any time\, of course. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you\, Larry Sherry. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: I just wanted to also point out\, and staff. If I get this wrong\, please correct me. But going back to the question that Sanjay raise\, and \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: Rebecca raised about the other side. Knowing what these rules are and what’s provided to them. appendix\, I is the statement of defense form in the regulations. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: and there is a lot of stuff in capital letters at the top of that. I believe that form in that format is provided to \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: the respondent \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: and in the very first big block capital of paragraph at the bottom\, it says that fairly. It talks about me providing the materials \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: to the commission and staff\, and doing it in a timely way\, unless\, of course\, they have some extension\, and it says that \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: you will wave the opportunity to raise any defense or mitigating factors\, or to introduce any evidence that the Enforcement Committee\, your Commission can refuse to consider it\, and and any statements and evidence that you submit at a later date. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: So there is that preface at the beginning of Appendix. I mean again it. You know we know from experience. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: People do\, anyway\, submit light evidence. And and as a result. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: the committee has to \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: make the determination about whether or not it comes in. But that being said I always thought that was a a powerful statement to that\, said Appendix. I \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Rebecca. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: you’re muted \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: hopefully. for all of your sakes. This is my last question. But so\, assuming as that has happened a couple of times in the past\, where this late evidence is \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: is part of the record that we’re looking at\, and the fact that it is late evidence is part of the record that we’re looking at once we get to the hearing \nthat what \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: are we going to take that up at the very first of the hearing? You know they have tried to present late evidence\, and then \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: have them try to demonstrate to us in the hearing that they did everything they could to get it in earlier\, etc. And then we have \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: what? A motion or something to rule on that question\, and then we go forward. After that. Ha! How to? Exactly will that work? Or maybe it will be different case by case. But \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: well\, you want me to take that sherry. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: I I was\, I would say yes\, I mean I feel like that. Ha! That has been how you chair Gil More\, have handled it. trying to decide upfront what is before us? \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Yeah. Because I remember we had \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: a while ago. A very long discussion about late submitted evidence\, and I think it was one of the first times that it had been submitted to this committee so generally\, that’s the first thing that we would make a determination on And typically. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: I haven’t asked for a motion because we’ve been able to come to consensus on it. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: But if for the record to be clear\, I need to do that\, then I’m happy to do that but I I I am very clear. I try to be very clear as to whether or not it’s coming in or not. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: any other questions from Commissioners. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Oh\, correct \nBrent Plater: not a question. Just wanted to summarize some of the instruction that I’m hearing to make this process a little easier on the committee members. If that’s okay. \nBrent Plater: So the the first thing I think I’m understanding is that you are not expecting us to raise an objection to late submitted evidence\, because the default rule is that anything that is late will not be included\, and instead that we’ll be moving on to evaluating the object. The the evidence\, the respond is submitting to demonstrate why an exception should be provided. \nBrent Plater: Just wanted to make sure. That’s clear. You’re not expecting to do that for \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: that’s my understanding. \nBrent Plater: I that’s what I’m hearing as well. \nBrent Plater: The the other question I will. The other question I have is about how you’d like us to proceed is that sometimes there are late submissions\, or even\, you know\, arguments that are being presented for the first time at the hearing. And I wanted to know\, and I did. That would essentially fall on me to provide some objection on the record to those statements or arguments that have been heard. I just wanted to kind of how you’d like me to do that if you’d like me to do that like \nBrent Plater: as the as arguments being presented. Do you want me to \nBrent Plater: wait until you calling us to? Then object? \nBrent Plater: If you have a you don’t have to answer this right now\, but just to consider how you might like that to to occur if it were to help \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: right off the top of my head \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: is that if the respondent starts making some sort of oral argument\, or gets into an oral discussion about evidence that Staff has not seen or heard before. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: I would like to know that sooner rather than later \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: because I would prefer to stop the respondent and have a discussion as to why this was not presented earlier\, and and \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and then have the committee make a determination as to whether or not this \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: new verbal evidence can come in \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and then we kind of proceed\, based on \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: whatever happens at that point in time. I just. I just don’t want to get so far down the road. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: The respondent has been speaking for 10 min. It’s now part of the record. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and then we go back and say\, Oh\, no! Disregard all of this\, for whatever reason. So that’s kind of my preference\, and you know we’ll find tune it because every case is different. \nDoes that? Does that help? \nBrent Plater: Yes\, yes\, that’s helpful. So I I can raise my hand\, or something at the very least\, and give you the opportunity to interrupt and call on me\, or\, you know\, take it as a case by case in that way. \nBrent Plater: Okay\, that makes sense to me. And then the last thing just wanted to get some clarification on is this idea of prejudice? because there’s a couple of ways that we could be thinking about it over here. So\, for example\, if we get a late submission that demonstrates that there is not a violation whatsoever. \nBrent Plater: It was just a fact that was overlooked until the last moment. you know\, I I think we have some obligation to to end the prosecution once we have that evidence in front of us. \nBrent Plater: the thing that might be difficult is that if we get that information. You know the day of the hearing. and often\, you know\, sometimes\, especially in the heat of the moment\, some fact that you did not know about before had not been presented before\, seems more damning than it is. If you have to look at it in the in that instant. \nBrent Plater: rather than have some time to reflect on it\, so you know I would almost\, you know. One way I think about the prejudice is that if it would require us to delay the proceeding in order to evaluate it. \nBrent Plater: Well\, that’s almost a type of prejudice in and of itself\, and that what should happen perhaps at that moment is that the committee continues through its deliberations\, and then staff then has some obligation to review before it goes to the full committee a full commission to determine if that you know \nBrent Plater: this positive evidence. it means the prosecution needs to be ended. \nBrent Plater: Something like that. I’m just trying to sort of imagine the you know how we just functionally address these cases where some\, you know\, there’s \nBrent Plater: some amount of prejudice is really just about not having a chance to evaluate. There’s another form of prejudice\, whereas\, like you’re going to lose your case\, and you should lose your case if this comes in and trying to make sure we have\, like different ways to address those 2 different kinds of of evidence. \nI \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: I don’t have a response for you on that right now I think you bring up valid points. But once again\, everything is sort of a case by case \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: basis. And I think this is something that we are going to have to work through committee on and staff \non a case by case basis\, because right now\, I don’t think \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: we’ve had something like that happen frequently enough that we have enough data to be able to determine\, you know. Let’s do this. Let’s do that. so I I think we should all keep it in the back of our minds\, and then just \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: kind of see how it plays out. That’s\, you know. \nBrent Plater: that makes sense to me\, and I think Sherry will tell you. I just tend to worry about these things endlessly\, for not a lot of reason\, even though they never come up so I take that with a it’s a good reinforcement of the message. I appreciate it. Well\, you’re a lawyer\, that’s what we do. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, any other committee comments. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: alright. So we are going to take public comments on this item\, which is Number 7 on the agenda. And Margie\, have we received any written comments on this? \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: We did not. Ch\, though more \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: okay. And are there any hands raised by the public? \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: No hands raised? \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair:  so do any enforcement committee members have any final comments or questions. \nOkay\, I just want to. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: thanks\, sherry for this presentation. And I want to thank staff. I thought this and committee members. I thought this was a really good and a very productive discussion. and hopefully it has provided some guidance for us as as we move forward. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: And answered the questions that you have as of the moment. But I thought it was a job really well done\, and I thought it was a really great example of working collaboratively. So thank you\, everybody. your thoughts and comments were very much appreciated. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay? And so with that I’m looking for a motion and a second to adjourn the meeting. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Everybody\, I was. Gonna say\, don’t everybody talk at once? \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay. Moved by Eisen\, seconded by Vasquez. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Alright. Thank you\, everybody. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: We are adjourned. \n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Learn How to Participate\n				Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act\nAs 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 access Commission Meetings under the “Public Meetings” tab on the website and select the date of the meeting. \nHow to Provide Comments and Comment Time Limits\nPursuant to state law\, the Commission is currently conducting its public meetings in a “hybrid” fashion. Each meeting notice will specify (1) where the meeting is being primarily held physically\, (2) all teleconference locations\, which will be publicly-accessible\, and (3) 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 or a teleconference meeting location; (2) emailing comments in advance to public comment until 10 a.m. on the day of the meeting; and (3) participating via ZOOM during the meeting. \nIf 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. \nQuestions and Staff Reports\nIf 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. \nCampaign Contributions\nState 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. Other 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. \nAccess to Meetings\nMeetings 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.
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/june-21-2023-enforcement/
LOCATION:Webinar
CATEGORIES:Enforcement Committee
END:VEVENT
END:VCALENDAR