BEGIN:VCALENDAR
VERSION:2.0
PRODID:-//SF Bay Conservation & Development - ECPv6.18.0//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:20210101T000000
END:STANDARD
END:VTIMEZONE
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20240314T093000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20240314T120000
DTSTAMP:20240610T214351Z
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:20240220T174418Z
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:20240130T041232Z
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:20240304T202738Z
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:20250320T191038Z
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:20240131T060022Z
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:20240131T072656Z
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:20240131T055858Z
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:20240206T225609Z
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:20240131T055618Z
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:20240131T055514Z
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:20240206T224955Z
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:20240131T052558Z
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:20231012T014123Z
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:20231017T050756Z
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:20231017T050829Z
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:20231013T053922Z
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:20231013T045705Z
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
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20230530T130000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20230530T150000
DTSTAMP:20231013T044200Z
CREATED:20230530T234345Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20231013T044200Z
UID:10000023-1685451600-1685458800@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:May 30\, 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/86521688509?pwd=QkU1TVQzaFFUUUJSVTdrYkF3eE5sUT09 \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers1 (866) 590-5055Conference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID865 2168 8509 \nPasscode378645 \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 April 13\, 2023 \, Enforcement Committee meeting (PDF)\nPublic Hearing and Vote on an Executive Director’s Recommended Enforcement Decision\, including Proposed Civil Penalty Order Number CCD2023.003.00 (BCDC Enforcement Case ER2019.063.00).The Committee will hold a public hearing and will vote on whether to recommend to the full Commission the adoption of a proposed Order for Civil Penalties to resolve three violations\, consisting of two violations of the terms and conditions of BCDC Permit No. 1973.014.04 as well as Section 66632(a) of the McAteer-Petris Act\, and one violation of a condition of Permit No. M1985.030.01 by the permittee Seaplane Investments\, Inc.\, operating at 240-242 Redwood Highway Frontage Road\, Mill Valley\, Marin County. If this recommendation is adopted\, Respondent will be liable to pay a total of $21\,170 in administrative civil penalties(Adrienne Klein) [415/352-3609; adrienne.klein@bcdc.ca.gov]Executive Director’s RED Exhibit A – Proposed Civil Penalty Order // Executive Director’s RED Exhibit B – Complaint for Administrative Civil Penalties // Executive Director’s RED Exhibit C – Statement of Defense // Public Comment // Late Submission 05/25/2023 (PDF) //  Respondent’s Presentation (PDF) // Staff Presentation (PDF)\nPublic Hearing and Vote on an Executive Director’s Recommended Enforcement Decision\, including Proposed Cease and Desist and Civil Penalty Order Number CCD2023.002.00 (BCDC Enforcement Case ER2019.063.00)  POSTPONEDThe Committee will hold a public hearing to address the permit violations and unauthorized development in the Bay and shoreline band at 240-242 Redwood Highway Frontage Road\, Mill Valley\, Marin County\, and vote whether to adopt a Recommended Enforcement Decision proposed by the Executive Director\, which includes a proposed Cease and Desist and Civil Penalty Order to require remedial actions at the site and payment of $180\,000 in administrative civil liability.(Adrienne Klein) [415/352-3609: adrienne.klein@bcdc.ca.gov]Executive Director’s RED Exhibit A – Proposed Cease and Desist Order with Exhibits //  Executive Director’s RED Exhibit B – Violation Report and Complaint with exhibits//  Executive Director’s RED Exhibits C to C9 – Statement of Defense with exhibits //  Late Submission 12/01/2022 (PDF)  //  Public Comment  //  Late Submission 05/25/2023 (PDF)\nAdjournment\n\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Meeting Minutes\n				Meeting Minutes (PDF) \n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Transcript\n				Audio Recording \nhttps://www.bcdc.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/354/2023/05/05-30-audio.mp3 \nAudio Transcript \nTranscript for items 5 and 7 \nAfternoon\, and \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: good afternoon. The time is by my watch\, 104\, \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and this is a meeting of the B Cdc. Enforcement committee is here by call to order. My name is Marie Gilmour\, and I am chair of this committee. So\, fellow committee members\, please ensure that your video cameras are always on\, and please mute yourselves when you are not speaking. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and our first order of business is to call the role. Matthew\, please call the role. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: Hey? Good afternoon. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: Let’s see Commissioner Eisen. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: Commissioner basket here. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: Chair Gilmore. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Here \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: we have a quorum present and are duly constituted to conduct business. That brings us to item number 3 on our agenda\, which is the public comment period. \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 don’t believe\, Margie\, we had any comments on items\, not on the agenda. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: we did not receive any. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay? So just in general for members of the public\, if you would like to speak either during this 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 attendees. Find the small palm icon on the left. If you click that palm icon. It will raise your hand. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: 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 to. In order to make a comment. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: The meeting host\, Margie Mailin\, will call on individuals who have raised their hands in the order that they were raised. After you are 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\, 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 in direct threats or abuse of language\, and we will mute anyone who fails to follow those guidelines. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So\, Margie\, do we have any hands raised by members of the public? \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: there’s no hands raised chat deal more\, but I want to. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST:  Say\, Hi to \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Commissioner Ranch has joined us. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Welcome\, Sanjay. \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: thank you. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, so no public comment. So we’re moving on to approving the draft minutes from the last me. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: We’ve all been furnished with our dra draft minutes and committee members. I would prove\, appreciate a motion and a second to approve those. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: This is \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: okay. Moved by Vasquez\, seconded by Eisen. all in favor. Say aye\, or raise your hand \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair:  carries the motion carries unanimously with all 4 commissioners voting in favor. Thank you. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, so we are on to item 5\, is a public hearing and a vote on a recommended enforcement decision to adopt \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: a proposed civil penalty. Order\, Ccd. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: 2\,023.0 0 3\, to impose a toll of $21\,170 in administrative civil penalties on sleet Se. Plane investment\, Llc. Operating out of Mill Valley and Rin County. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: following a hearing on the matters at issue\, this committee will vote on whether to adopt the Executive Director’s recommended Enforcement decision. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: The record for this matter includes the violation report and complaint. The respondents statement of defense\, the recommended Enforcement decision and proposed order and all other items identified by B. C DC. Regulation \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: 1\, 1\, 3\, 7\, 0. So at this time will the representative or representatives for the respondent? please identify yourself \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and your association with the respondent for the record? \nJillian Blanchard: Yes. Hello\, committee members and commissioners. This is Gillian Blanchard with rudder law group we represent se plane investments. Llc. The respondent for both agenda items 5 and 6. I also have here with me Mr. Lou Vasquez and Mallee Richlyn\, who are both managers at seaplane investments and manage the site for any questions. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you very much. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay. So before we get started\, a couple of ground rules  one is. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Well. let me let me back up \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: for the sake of \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Hopefully ease. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: I’m going to call this item for shorthand\, the paper violations \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and the item number 6\, the physical violations. Okay? \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: And let me ask respondents\, how much time do you think you need to present your case on the paper violations? \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: You’re muted \nJillian Blanchard: apologies. Thank you. the paper violations. We I can do it. I can squeeze it in\, although I’d like to have 15 min but I can squeeze it in a shorter period\, if necessary. But 15 min would be great. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, and\, Mr. Player\, how long do you think you need for your presentation on the paper violations? \nBrent Plater: thank you. Chair Gilmore. Actually\, Adriene is the lead on this case\, so she’ll be bringing the presenting today in the cases. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, Adrian. \nadrienne klein: we have a partially combined presentation\, and I will \nadrienne klein: endeavor to keep it to a total of 30 min. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair:  I would prefer to take them one at a time. Is it possible for you to split your presentation. because what I’m I’m considering is giving \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: presenters 15 min on this item\, and then we can talk about the timeframe for the next item when we get to it. \nadrienne klein: I have a combined timeline of events\, and I was planning to present \nadrienne klein: the 9 violations and then \nadrienne klein: do 2 separate \nadrienne klein: sections for the defenses and the recommendations. defenses\, rebuttals and staff recommendations. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, let’s let’s okay. So how about \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: I’m sorry? \nadrienne klein: Well\, I \nadrienne klein: I don’t think I can reorganize \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: You’re breaking up. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: You’re now frozen \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: sherry. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: I just wanted to note that and Hadrian \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: that for for sake of an administrative record. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: if Adrian had to. If if the \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: B Cdc. Side had to present the timeline twice\, I think that would be okay at the end of the day. These are separate matters\, so they need separate records. So to the extent the the staff can make an adjustment. I think that is going to be what is needed for clarity. The record Chair. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Yeah\, I I have no problem with you presenting a combined timeline\, and if you have to do it twice. That’s fine. But I would really prefer to keep the item separate in the to the paper. violations versus the physical violations\, because the record is so voluminous I’m afraid we’re going to get lost. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: so how about if we for this \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: first item and we’ll revisit it when we get to the second one\, everybody gets 15 min. Okay. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair:  So you’re going to get 15 min to make your presentations to the committee\, and presentations must be limited to responding to the evidence. That’s already part of the enforcement record and the policy implications of such evidence. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: And \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: so that that’s one thing. And then the second thing is\, I’m sure everybody received \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: in the middle of a holiday weekend a rather voluminous set of of new materials. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So at this point in time\, I want to ask Ms. Blanchard if there was \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: anything in that set of materials that was recently discovered\, or could not have recent reasonably been discovered and presented to the committee. ahead of May 20\, fifth. \nJillian Blanchard: Thank you very much. chair\, Gilmour\, and since your apologies. I myself did not want to have to file a a letter on Saturday of a Memorial Day weekend. I did so because there were some claims raised for the very first time from the statements of fact \nJillian Blanchard: in the record\, recommended enforcement decision related to the 6 Violations. It was also a public comment that was a showed to us for the very first time as part of the agenda package from Edgecom Law\, which was a letter which is set of 2 different letters received by Staff in January and March of this year\, but we never received a copy of it until receiving the agenda package. \nJillian Blanchard: both raising different claims. And so\, in order to clarify the record\, religious to the misstatements of fact in the recommended enforcement decision. And these new letters that we were just seeing. For the first time we felt it necessary to provide highly relevant evidence in the form of the permit application to middle package. It’s been some suggestion. I don’t want to get too much into the substance. Yeah\, please\, please don’t\, because because here’s the thing. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: just about all of that \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: could have been submitted ahead of time\, and I am not inclined to have that particular set of materials. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: become part of the record. one\, because it’s not timely and 2 because there is no way \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: that it was reasonable to expect members of this committee to not only read those documents\, but digest them. \nJillian Blanchard: And so I if I’m very sorry about that\, and I\, what I will do is I will highlight the most relevant pieces in my presentation what I I’m not letting. I’m not letting the information come in. If if it’s information \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: that was in your \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: state number of fence. Yes\, then you you may speak to that\, but nothing new. That was in the \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: May 25 letter. You may highlight things that were in your statement of defense\, and that’s fine. That’s perfectly acceptable. \nJillian Blanchard: If I could just add one piece\, the They. One critical piece is the permit application supplement that was filed on April of 2\,023\, so it could not have been filed with the statement of defense because it was filed in April of 2\,023 we copied Enforcement staff on it. We expected that they would include it in their recommended Enforcement decision as part of talking about levels of compliance on the part of seaplane investments. \nJillian Blanchard: but it was completely ignored. So it’s critical that this Commission understand what that permitting package includes. And that’s why we\, in addition to you. You’re getting. You’re getting too far into argument. I just wanted to set some ground rules. Okay\, And so let’s \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: let’s get on our way and get into the nuts and bolts. Because\, like I said\, the record is very voluminous. And \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: I I think you’re gonna have some questions from the committee. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Alright! so I’m going to invite our principal enforcement analyst Adrian\, client to give her presentation\, summarizing the violation report complaint and recommended enforcement decision. you have 15 min\, and Ms client\, please limit your presentation to \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: issues of controversy. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: All right. My screen should be visible. \nadrienne klein: Great \nadrienne klein: good afternoon\, chair\, Gilmore. Just one moment. Please \nadrienne klein: make sure I can drive. \nadrienne klein: Okay \nadrienne klein: for apologies \nadrienne klein: going forward. Not back. \nadrienne klein: Hmm. \nadrienne klein: not sure why I’m having that problem. \nOkay\, I’ve got it sorted. Thank you for your patience. \nadrienne klein: Okay. \nadrienne klein: good afternoon. Chair. Gilmore and committee members. Today’s public hearings will address 9 violations associated with B Cdc. Case enforcement number er \nadrienne klein: 2. 19063. Staff issued a violation. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, Adrian\, you’re frozen. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: You’re still \nadrienne klein:  Margie\, I am. If you want to promote me to a panelist. I joined on the phone. \nadrienne klein: I see that. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: okay\, Adrian\, you’re good to go \nadrienne klein: to get my microphone work. \nadrienne klein: I don’t think you can hear me on the computer \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: we can hear you. \nadrienne klein: Margie\, can you mute me on the laptop? So I’m not. \nadrienne klein: And surround sound? \nIs this connection better. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: I think so. I’m cautiously optimistic. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Yeah\, your phone is still muted. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: I can’t control it on my end. \nadrienne klein: I might have to\, you know. I’ll log out and come back here because I \nadrienne klein: won’t let me use my microphone \nadrienne klein: so. And \nadrienne klein: difficulties. \nadrienne klein: Say. \nadrienne klein: you\, can you hear me \nhere? \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Yes. \nadrienne klein: Can you see me. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Yes. \nokay\, let’s try that again. My apologies. \nadrienne klein: I can hear myself twice. \nadrienne klein: Margie\, can you? \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: We can’t hear you. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Agent \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Asian\, we can see and hear you. \nadrienne klein: Okay? \nadrienne klein: So\, continuing on. \nadrienne klein: we issued the second violation report and complaint in July 2\,022\, to resolve 6 unresolved violations. I’m sorry first\, to resolve 6 on violations. \nadrienne klein: and the second as a complaint for administrative penalties to resolve the penalty portion of 3 violations. \nadrienne klein: So we’ve got an outline that will consolidate the timeline of events\, and I’ll separate the rest as best as possible. \nadrienne klein: So this is a vicinity map to Orient you to the site. The address is 2 4\, 0 2\, 4\, 2 redwood highway frontage road in an unincorporated area of Marin County. \nadrienne klein: This image shows the site looking to the northeast. The site contains a number of businesses and operations that will be described during the presentation. While some of these ground level uses and the Associated still appear to have been ongoing in 1\,965 \nadrienne klein: versus seed plane flights which are not part of these hearings. Any changes to the ongoing use as an associated fill within B Cdc’s jurisdiction\, including maintenance \nadrienne klein: that occurred after an accident of enactment of the Macro chair. Petrus act here and after referred to as the Mpa. \nadrienne klein: Requires A\, B Cdc. Permit or permit amendment. \nadrienne klein: B Cdc. Permits run with the land\, and new owners are responsible for resolving inherited violations in addition to violations\, they undertake themselves. New owners should\, but in this case did not contact the Cdc. As part of a due diligence review to ascertain site status in relation to the law and existing B Cdc. Permits. \nadrienne klein: This aerial image has an overlay of the approximate locations of the 2 privately owned parcels number 164 to the right and 167 to the left\, with street rights of way surrounding them. The docking facility is located on Marin County property. \nadrienne klein: I’ve got 4 slides to review the timeline of events. Starting in August 73\, the 1\,973 permit was issued to Commodore Marina\, and not from it’s been amended. A total of 4 times \nadrienne klein: in 74 permit recorded the restriction to dedicate the public access required by the permit and Marine County \nadrienne klein: in 88 a permit was issued to Walter Landord for the helicopter operations\, whereas the 73 permit pertains primarily to the activities on parcel 167\, \nadrienne klein: and in the wire. \nadrienne klein: sometime before December Cove 3\, an unauthorized fuel tank was installed in the yellow street right of way. plus parking and seaplane storage and repairs and areas reserved for public access \nadrienne klein: some time before 2\,008\, and the unauthorized helicopter landing pad and fill for walkways was placed on parcel 164. \nadrienne klein: During 3 separate occasions between. In the 2 thousands unauthorized expansions and repairs were made to the seaplane\, doking facility. \nadrienne klein: In 2\,019 B. Cdc. Received the first of 2 reports of unauthorized activities at the site and conducted a site visit the following month just prior to the pandemic. \nadrienne klein: We also issued a notice of violation to Commodore Marina and C. Plane adventures\, notifying them of the report we’ve received\, and outlining our understanding of the allegations at that time. \nadrienne klein: After having conducted extensive file review between February and September\, we issued second letter outlining the permits requirements. Our understanding of the onsite violations \nadrienne klein: and providing recommendations\, and how to resolve them. \nadrienne klein: In 2\,020 and 2\,021 we received 3 letters from respondents form of Council\, which provided some useful information\, but none of which resolved any of the violations. \nadrienne klein: We held. A meeting initiated by us virtual due to the pandemic in July 2\,021\, \nadrienne klein: and selected the date of August thirtieth to receive \nadrienne klein: an amendment application which is still a way to resolve the majority of the violations \nadrienne klein: that same month ownership transferred of both privately owned parcels from Commodore to seaplane \nadrienne klein: and no application was received by August the thirtieth\, or even before October 2\,021\, on which date we issued a letter commencing a standardized fine clock\, having not felt that by that time sufficient progress on voluntary resolution had been made \nadrienne klein: our understanding of the violations in that at that time we we cited 5 violations in that letter. \nadrienne klein: at the end of 2\,021\, \nadrienne klein: we receive evidence that the houseboat remodeling project \nadrienne klein: had been completed \nadrienne klein: in January 2\,022\, we received 2 permit assignment violations. Also. That month we issued the Fourth Amendment to the 73 Permit. \nadrienne klein: which fully resolved the unauthorized work \nadrienne klein: occurring at the Marina between permanent expiration and issuance of a retroactive extension of time to complete the house but remodeling project. \nadrienne klein: we received a permit applications\, an abbreviated region-wide permit application\, not a permit amendment application in February 2\,028\, \nadrienne klein: and responded to that application at the end of March\, in the middle of March\, 2 weeks after receiving the permit. Application. \nadrienne klein: Response! We received a report of unauthorized activities occurring at the site I the construction of a new water access ramp. \nadrienne klein: This violation is considered very egregious\, and the day after Vcd. Issued its first executive Director of Order to halt that work \nadrienne klein: and require its removal and site restoration. That \nadrienne klein: Ed order last for 90 days. \nadrienne klein: and was there for re-issued twice. \nadrienne klein: We\, as I think I mentioned\, responded to the application. In February\, in March. \nadrienne klein: in August of 2\,022 3 paper violations had been resolved subject to\, and we’re subject to standardized fines. We issued a letter \nadrienne klein: asking for payment of the standardized fines. \nadrienne klein: In July we issued a violation report and complaint for the 6 unresolved violations. \nadrienne klein: We received a timely statement of defense and waiver of the requirement to have the hearing within 60 days. \nadrienne klein: In September we re-issued the Ud. Order for a second time. \nadrienne klein: and also a final notice requesting payment of the standardized fines to avoid commencement of a second formal enforcement proceeding. \nadrienne klein: we held a failed Settlement Conference on October seventh. \nadrienne klein: and issued a second complaint to resolve the 3 resolve violations in October. \nadrienne klein: We also received a timely filed statement of defense for that complaint we had scheduled to hold these public hearings in December of 2\,022\, \nadrienne klein: but postponed those hearings until today to request so to undertake some of the negotiations \nadrienne klein: which took place during this winter\, and unfortunately failed. That completes the timeline. \nadrienne klein: and now summarize the 2 permits \nadrienne klein: in the bay. The 1\,973 permit authorizes fill placement for a bulkhead. \nadrienne klein: This and that fill is shown in the smaller of the 2 hatched areas near the house. \nadrienne klein: Fill placement on block 167 \nadrienne klein: yellow and Prepa streets for landscape\, public access and landscaping to improve shoreline appearance. Construction of a berm around the Heliport landing pad on Block 164\, and reconstruction of an existing 11 houseboat Marina \nadrienne klein: in the shoreline band. The 73 permit authorizes placement of fill in the larger of the 2 hatched areas to raise the grade for project landscaping landscape\, public access and auto circulation. \nadrienne klein: And note that that filled area goes all the way back to the line of Bolina Street \nadrienne klein: here. \nadrienne klein: So these areas are to be used for public access. \nadrienne klein: not private uses. \nadrienne klein: The permit. Alpha also authorized office building\, renovation for continued office use\, construction of 17 parking places on parentheses. and much for all of the fill authorized to elevate the low-lying site has been washed away over time by frequent title inundation \nadrienne klein: within the stippled area on this image \nadrienne klein: the which is the dedicated public access area. The hermit requires an eighth foot wide\, all weather pathway suitable for pedestrian and bicycle use leading from the Marin County Bike path \nadrienne klein: along the site to the northeast edge of the property. The permit requires landscaping\, parking for the general public. \nadrienne klein: and\, as mentioned\, it should be used only for public access purposes and on the heliport pad for slight control purposes only. \nadrienne klein: The 2 photos on the left show extensive erosion of and title inundation on the required public access pathway on perpetrators\, and a failure to maintain the site to prevent or address these erosive conditions. The photo on the right shows the path near Yellow Street\, and decent condition\, but without any public sure signs. \nadrienne klein: This first photo on the left \nadrienne klein: is is looking from the bay back for the office building\, and you can see the path is eroded to the point of being gone\, and the tidal marsh vegetation is growing in as a result of the erosion of shoreline protection. Here that has not been maintained. The middle photo shows flooding \nadrienne klein: and tidal mud brought in along the pathway surface. \nadrienne klein: The 1\,985 permit authorizes repair of a title\, Flap gate. \nadrienne klein: and in the shoreline band placement of aggregate to protect the heliport landing pad from flooding installation of a fuel. Storage\, tank and fuel containment\, area paving and fill placement. \nadrienne klein: Both permits include commencement and completion. Dates\, and though permits run with the land. They also require preparation of a permit assignment form to transfer the rights and obligations of each permit from the seller to the purchaser. \nadrienne klein: I will now describe the 3 resolved violations relevant because they were subject to standardized fines that responded failed to pay. By October the 20 sixth\, 2\,022 for fitting its opportunity to resolve the penalties by paying 12\,300 in standardized fines\, and resulting in issuance of a complaint for penalties \nadrienne klein: of a larger amount. \nadrienne klein: Violations one and it one and 2\, occurred between August 22\,021\, which is 30 days following the July 20\, first 2\,021 property purchase date. \nadrienne klein: and January the sixth\, 2\,022. The date staff approved. The 2 permit assignment forms \nadrienne klein: the fully executed permit. Assignment. Forms resulted in resolution of the violations on January the sixth\, 2\,022\, but a crude standardized fines were not paid between August second \nadrienne klein: and October 20 sixth \nadrienne klein: violation\, 3 occurred between August 30\, first\, 2\,021\, the date of expiration of the 1\,973 permit. and January the 25\, 2\,022\, the date of issuance of the Fourth Amendment to that permit \nadrienne klein: that issue\, and that amendment resulted in resolution of the violation\, but a crude standardized fines were not paid also. Between August second and October the 20 sixth. \nadrienne klein: I had plan to describe the unresolved violations\, but I could now proceed to the defenses for these 3 resolve violations. That’s what you like me to do\, Chair Gilmore. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Yes\, please. \nadrienne klein: So the item 5 defenses for the 3 resolve violations. Our defense\, one. \nadrienne klein: The requirement to complete a permit assignment form at the time of property transfer is enforceable\, and needs to happen as soon as possible after transfer. Respondent argues that because the permit condition does not include a due date\, they never need to comply with it. \nadrienne klein: They’re incorrect\, and the complaint gives a 30 day grace period \nadrienne klein: for penalty\, assessment from the date of transfer to submittal and approval of the assignment form \nadrienne klein: defense to\, responded to\, not provide to completed assignment forms\, nor halt house\, foot\, remodeling work\, nor submit a filed request to extend the permit. Completion. Date within 35 days of receiving the October 2\,021 letter that initiated standardized fines \nadrienne klein: by the time respondent had filed the compliant documents in January\, the twentieth 2. They had a crude standardized fines. partial resolution of a violation within the 35 day. Grace period means that standardized fines will accrue and be owed \nadrienne klein: defense 3 for 147 days\, between August 30\, first 21\, the expiration date of the 1\,973 permit \nadrienne klein: in January 20 fifth\, 2\,022\, the date of issuance of the Fourth Amendment that retroactively extended the completion date of that 73 permit \nadrienne klein: responded conducted unauthorized hospital remodeling work. Responding clients at B. Cdc. Claims that the project was completed too late\, i. E. After permit expiration\, and too early before extending the completion date. \nadrienne klein: Both conditions are true and respondent conducted unauthorized work \nadrienne klein: defense for \nadrienne klein: the penalty portion in a formal enforcement proceeding is from the date. The violation began to the date of resolution. \nadrienne klein: whereas the penalty period in the standardized fine process commences upon issuance of the letter that starts a standardized fine clock to the date of resolution of the violation or violations. \nadrienne klein: The standardized find time period is less than the total duration of each violation. and also includes a 35 day\, great time\, grace\, time\, period. Pardon me. \nadrienne klein: therefore\, the number of days responded\, is subject to daily penalties\, has changed from 87 to 136 days for the assignment violations\, and from 109 to 147 days for the housebo. Remodeling and relocation project \nadrienne klein: respondent falsely argues that the find should be dismissed\, because staff lengthen the duration of each violation \nadrienne klein: as noted\, the actual duration of each\, but of the 2 by of each of the 3 violations has not changed. but the day subject to administrative penalties\, now covers the entire period of each violation \nadrienne klein: defense. 5 responded incorrectly\, argues that the issuance of the complaint 8 months after\, Staff notified\, responded that the violations had been resolved\, increased the penalty. \nadrienne klein: In fact\, the timing favored respondent\, giving them more time to resolve the penalty portion of the violations with standardized fines than if the complaint had been issued sooner. \nadrienne klein: Defense. 6 \nadrienne klein: B. Cdc. Staff issued 3 letters pertaining to the standardized funds. \nadrienne klein: first\, in October the 21 that commences the standardized fine clock\, second\, in August\, the 22 informing responded to pay the accrued $12\,300 in standardized fines within 30 days. \nadrienne klein: and third\, in September. \nadrienne klein: 2\,022\, a final warning letter to pay the standardized fines within 35 days of that September letter to avoid the commencement of a formal enforcement proceeding \nadrienne klein: on October first\, 2\,022\, the Cdc’s enforcement regulations were Updated \nadrienne klein: citing these newly adopted regulations that were in applicable to the communications issued and procedures applied prior to their adoption\, respondent falsely claims that it was improperly notice of its option to appeal standardized fines\, and or never afforded a proper opportunity to appeal. The fines\, and therefore that the complaint and associated find should be dismissed. \nadrienne klein: responded\, is incorrect\, it was properly noticed\, and penalties are appropriate. \nadrienne klein: Defense. 7. The complaint meets the legal standards of the law and regulations. It cites the actions that constitute the Macintosh Petris\, and permit violations\, responded incorrectly\, argues that the complaint fails to do so\, and should therefore be dismissed. \nadrienne klein: Defense 8. There is one owner of the property\, and that single owner is responsible for resolving the unresolved violations and paying administrative penalties for them. \nadrienne klein: Defense 9 \nadrienne klein: B Cdc. Permits run the land and respondent is responsible for the site conditions as they existed at time of transfer. Whether or not respond was aware of the inherited violations in Leslie Salt versus B. Cdc. The California Court of Appeals found that the Macintosh Petros Act holds landowners strictly liable for unauthorized fill\, placed by third persons on their property. \nadrienne klein: The court determined that strict liability and this is a quote is an appropriate and traditional consequence of the possession and controlled land\, and more than justified because of important public policy objectives. The Mpa. Is designed to achieve end quote. \nadrienne klein: therefore\, respondents defense. That it’s not responsible for inherited violations is not substantiated and responded\, has a legal obligation to resolve each of them. \nadrienne klein: Further. Aaron\, singer\, owner\, and operator of Se. Plane adventures\, has been a constant figure at this site\, formally as a tenant of Commodore Marina\, and now as an owning partner of Se. Plane investment\, Llc. As of July the 20 first\, as shown in this slide\, which lists his name in first position as a 21% interest owner. \nadrienne klein: and also \nadrienne klein: in this slide \nadrienne klein: where he has signed for their building\, and Lou Vasquez have at least one B. C. To see\, permit and have knowledge of the B Cdc. Regulatory requirements. \nadrienne klein: So the staff recommendation for these 3 resolved violations \nadrienne klein: is to pay a $21\,170 administrative civil penalty within 30 days of order issuance. \nadrienne klein: That would be 2 5\,440 penalties for 2 failures to provide a permit assignment form required by standard condition for C of the 73 permit\, and for E of the 85 permit\, between August 2\,021 and January 3\, 2\,022\, and a 10\,290 penalty for failure to complete a House\, but remodeling and relocation project \nadrienne klein: prior to permit expiration and continuing work with an expired permit between August 21 and January the 22. \nadrienne klein: And that concludes the item. 5. Presentation. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you\, Adrian. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Next\, I’m going to invite the respondents\, attorney\, Miss Blanchard\, to present your your side and I’m going to remind you of the time limit. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and please stick to the relevant violations or the proposed order and pay particular attention to where their items and controversy. \nJillian Blanchard: Absolutely. Thank you very much. Commissioner Gilmour. committee members. I’ve been trying to share my screen \nJillian Blanchard: here. \nWell. \nJillian Blanchard: and \nJillian Blanchard: there we go\, and everyone see that. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Yes. \nJillian Blanchard: okay\, great. \nJillian Blanchard: I will get started. Okay? So as mentioned\, I’m Jillian Blanchard with Rudder Law group\, and I’ll be talking to you in this agenda. Item about the 3 \nJillian Blanchard: resolved paper violations. \nJillian Blanchard: main points to keep in mind. I am going to try and focus on the areas of controversy. But there are a number of facts that we need clarified for the record that we believe the Commission would take into great consideration as would a reviewing court\, so we’ll make them as clear as we can as fast as we can. Here. \nJillian Blanchard: Seaplane investments is a wholly separate entity from seaplane adventures. First and foremost\, and they have been diligently trying to comply with what we view to be a moving ball of compliance since purchasing the property in July of 2\,021. I note that a good deal of the timeline that was referenced before took place in advance of July of 2\,021. I’ll cover that in the 6 violations\, as you call them\, professional Commissioner Gilmour\, the physical violations that’s how I refer to them as well. \nJillian Blanchard: So the 3 allegations here have had 0 impact on the bay. They’ve been fully resolved for over a year and a half\, and\, as you all know\, Commissioners Bcdc. Is not authorized to le levy either standardized fines or civil penalties for violations that did not take place. So it’s imperative at this\, the very first opportunity to have seaplane investments rights adjudicated\, that you commissioners look to determine whether any violations took place in the first instance. \nJillian Blanchard: I do not want to go into too much detail. Adrian provided a a lot of chronology. I’d like to highlight a few important dates that were missed in the timeline provided by B Cdc. Staff\, first and foremost\, on April sixteenth Vc. 2\,021\, before Se. Plane \nJillian Blanchard: investments took ownership B. Cdc. Issued its extension for the relocation of Houseboat Number 11 to Mr. Harold Huddleman\, who owns the houseboat that was expired on August thirty-first. \nJillian Blanchard: and then in July\, as as you’ve heard\, seaplane investments took ownership. On August ninth. \nJillian Blanchard: Harold Hedleman\, the same party who received the previous extension\, requested another extension 3 weeks in advance of that deadline of August 30\, first. Unfortunately\, B. Cdc. Staff did not respond to that request. \nJillian Blanchard: The only response they did provide was on October eighth\, 2\,021\, which this is a very important fact that can on the record. This is the first point of contact from BC. DC. 2 Se. Plane investments was on October the eighth\, 2\,021\, and in that letter they suggested that the Household extension request was not valid\, even though it had been submitted by the previous party who received the previous extension \nJillian Blanchard: from B Cdc. \nJillian Blanchard: On October. Here’s the most important date that staff may fail to mention in their presentation. On October 20\, eighth\, less than a month after receiving the very first notice from BC. DC. \nJillian Blanchard: So in 20 days seaplane investments ran around\, got the permit assignment form from Mr. Price the previous owner\, which was no mean feat. \nJillian Blanchard: and filed 2 permit assignment forms with BC. DC. One for the 1\,985\, permit one for the 1\,973 permit. Within 20 days. They also filed pictures showing the household relocation as complete\, and asked what additional retroactive authorization they might need\, because they had already filed an extension request. On August ninth \nJillian Blanchard: there was a request for additional information from Bcdc. Staff. Additional paperwork in the form of an operating agreement. And notably\, it’s it’s interesting just mentioning something that Staff just brought up. This idea that Mr. Singer has such a big role to play in se plane investments. In fact\, BC. DC. Did not accept Aaron Singer’s signature on the Permit assignment form and asked one of the things that went back and forth between October and December of 2\,022\, \nJillian Blanchard: was the request to have Mr. Vasquez Lou Vasquez signed the permit assignment form because Mr. Singer owns 4 of the Se. Plane investments. Llc. What you were looking at was an Llc. Operating agreement related to a management company that is partial owner. You don’t want to get into the weeds there\, but the point being that Lou Vasquez is the managing member. \nJillian Blanchard: and then it was all resolved on January sixth\, according to BC. DC. And then also importantly\, on January 20\, fifth B. C. DC. This is really critical. They issued the after the fact authorization for the household relocation\, and made it retroactive to the very valid August ninth. Heddleman request. \nJillian Blanchard: The rest of these chronology is in the statement of defense. \nJillian Blanchard: I just want to highlight here the august second letter Nowhere in that letter is the word appeal used\, which is a requirement for adequate notice. It is not. \nJillian Blanchard: They were not notified that they had the opportunity to appeal these underlying violations\, nor that an appeal period would be closed if they did not respond\, making an appeal request. \nJillian Blanchard: The remaining quota chronology is here as well\, but I want to just highlight a couple of things that become relevant\, not just for these 3 violations\, but for the 6 violations that we’ll be talking about in a minute\, which is the very\, very confusing communication between BC. DC. And C plain investments. During this time \nJillian Blanchard: they received this July violation report at the end of July \nJillian Blanchard: that did not include any of these 3 paper violations. 4 days later they got the august second letter\, saying\, now that standardized fines were due for 3 different violations\, they were under the same enforcement number\, without any reference to the July violation report. \nJillian Blanchard: and then\, while they’re busy filing their statement of defense\, their previous practitioner\, Mr. John Sharp\, filed the statement of defense\, but he was confused as to whether or not it was covering everything or not\, and he specifically reserved the right in that statement of defense to file additional evidence because he was getting conflicting messages from Staff. \nJillian Blanchard: Indeed\, on September sixth B. Cdc’s Enforcement manager\, Mr. Trashilo contacted Mr. Sharp\, and asked them to delay the hearing to reach a resolution for all 9 violations. So here se plane investments feels like they’re getting. They’re moving forward with some form of settlement\, recognizing that they maybe need to file additional evidence if things aren’t resolved. And in the midst of that they receive a final warning letter related to the 3 violations. \nJillian Blanchard: So it was highly confusing\, and I have to admit myself\, even working with B. C. DC. And over 20 years productively with your staff. I was highly confused by these communication between \nJillian Blanchard: Se. Plane and B Cdc. As to whether they were working with them on permitting whether they were issuing violations\, whether they were related to 6 violations or 3 violations\, whether they were delaying a hearing\, whether an appeal period was closing\, it was really really complicated\, and yet we tried it earnest to work with staff on a settlement\, because this \nJillian Blanchard: property owner is the first property owner that Pcdc. Has probably seen in decades that really wants compliance on this site. That is a primary objective for seaplane investments. As Miss Klein mentioned\, Lou Vasquez is a managing member\, and he is very familiar with what needs to be done. He’s helped to build a seventeen-eighter park on the waterfront in South San Francisco\, and he only wants to improve the public access here as well. \nJillian Blanchard: But we’re repeatedly being diverted to defend seaplane investments rights by these violations. So let’s look at the violations because\, rather than being able to reach a settlement that might have involved some fines here \nJillian Blanchard: we now are being forced to adjudicate the rights to say\, did a violation occur? And when you review\, as you know\, commissioners\, whether a permit condition was violated\, actual permit. Language is key. \nJillian Blanchard: Here is the 1\,985 actual permit language related to the assignment of permits. The very first sentence is what you need to read. The rights derived from this amended permit are assignable. \nJillian Blanchard: This is a permissive allowance only. It is not an affirmative duty on either Mr. Price\, the permitee or \nJillian Blanchard: se plain investments\, the permit\, the transferring. \nJillian Blanchard: however\, we recognize the value in need for permits to run with the land\, which is another one of the requirements\, and we also recognize as someone who works with you a lot that of course\, you’ve revised this language in the permits that you issue today. You’ve made it really clear that assignment is required with it a certain period of time\, and it’s because these conditions were permissive only\, and they were unclear. \nJillian Blanchard: So we are not\, as staff suggest\, saying that assignment is not necessary. We are only saying that the language in this permit does not justify an actual violation having occurred. \nJillian Blanchard: and the most important piece to understand is that \nJillian Blanchard: even if this had been required\, seaplane investments filed a permit assignment form within 20 days of receiving its very first notice from Bcdc. \nJillian Blanchard: They’re not saying it wasn’t required. They’re not even trying not to comply. They did their due diligence to try and comply. Within 20 days. Bcd. She asked for additional information they filed that if additional information and things were resolved on January the third\, but that cannot be levied as an actual violation based on this permit condition language\, but seaplane investments is being charged over for an act for no actual violation. \nJillian Blanchard: Very similarly\, when you look at the permit from 1\,973. Again. \nJillian Blanchard: the Commission\, as you know\, and a reviewing court\, will look directly at this permit. Condition. Language to see. Was there an actual violation. That’s what it is\, matters here in adjudicating these rights. \nJillian Blanchard: And here we will acknowledge this is a much more affirmative \nJillian Blanchard: condition\, in that it at least says that assignment is absolutely required. And again\, for the record\, I want to be clear. Se plane investments has never claimed that they are not going to accept\, permit assignment. In fact\, they worked quickly to make it happen. \nJillian Blanchard: All we are saying is that the language here does not justify an assessment of fines or penalties. \nJillian Blanchard: because what happened for the 73 permit. \nJillian Blanchard: While this is an affirmative requirement\, there is absolutely nowhere written that there is a 30 day deadline within which the permit assignment must be completed. \nJillian Blanchard: It just doesn’t exist. And\, as you know\, Commissioner Staff does not authorize to add in language into the perfect conditions themselves. \nJillian Blanchard: So \nJillian Blanchard: also\, importantly\, a permit assignment form was filed within 20 days of receiving the first notice. So permanent assignment is complete. There’s no violation there as soon as permit assignment was done. Actually. \nJillian Blanchard: seaplane investments as we’ll talk about in the next hearing immediately filed a permit application to address what they saw and understood to be any potential feature on the property that required after the fact authorization. So they are in no way suggesting that they don’t need to comply. In fact\, all they want to do is compliance. They’re just constantly being battered by unlawful violations. \nJillian Blanchard: Here they were being charged 5\,000. \nJillian Blanchard: I want to talk really quickly about the household violation\, although I mentioned it a bit. The chronology\, because we believe that the August ninth Household extension request that Bcd. She never responded to is a critical piece of missing information in their timeline. \nJillian Blanchard: It was a valid request\, said\, 3 weeks before the expiration date. They were in the middle of completing the House Bill construction\, and\, as you know\, it can cause additional impacts to the bay to stop a construction project like that that is pretty small. That can be done quickly\, that \nJillian Blanchard: waiting for Bcdc. Staff to respond. We understand that staff is extraordinarily busy\, which is why we give one another grace when I work with permitting Staff a lot on these things\, which is why we’re so surprised that there is such an aggressive stance being taken on this House boat violation\, and the the report says that there’s been a failure to request an extension that is patently false\, and it’s proven by Bcdc’s own correspondence\, in which they issued a household extension \nJillian Blanchard: retroactive back to this very valid August ninth request. and for this they’re being charged over $10\,000. \nJillian Blanchard: We also want to note the previous honor Mr. Price received. 3 different houseboat authorizations could not complete the project. In over 5 years. \nJillian Blanchard: Seaplane investments took charge of the property and completed the project within months\, and then asked\, had filed the valid extension request and work things out with Bcdc. Within months\, and then filed a very valid permit application for what it believed to be unauthorized features which we’ll talk about \nJillian Blanchard: in the next hearing. So 2 min remaining. Thank you. I will tell you that unlawful issuance of fines cannot be supported by the Commission or by a reviewing court\, and courts would look very harshly on the fact that there are unclean hands in this case and that B. C. DC. Delayed \nJillian Blanchard: the response to the houseboat extension request. \nJillian Blanchard: Due process concerns are key here. Nowhere in any of the correspondence is the word appeal used\, or being told that a window would be closing. Instead\, they were told that you can have your rights adjudicated in enforcement hearing\, and they asked. They were asked to delay that hearing\, and this is the first time they’re having the right to adjudicate the underlying violations. \nJillian Blanchard: These are some of the claims that are made in the recommended Enforcement decision that we want to have clarified for the record respondent was not slow to complete paperwork that’s false and provable in the record. On October eighth\, from the first notice they received from Bcdc. They responded in 20 days\, and then they repeatedly responded to an additional information request reaching resolution on January third. The nature and extent of the harm caused is minor. \nJillian Blanchard: I want to just say quickly\, we see a very clear solution here \nJillian Blanchard: fairly adjudicate seaplanes rights. \nJillian Blanchard: These permit conditions weren’t violated. So you must dismiss these. But work with us on compliance and improvements in the 6 Violations\, because that is all se plane investments is looking for here fair adjudication\, fairness\, and due process and a public policy of promoting compliance and protecting bay resources. Because you have a willing property owner who\, for the first time in decades can bring this site into compliance. \nJillian Blanchard: 20 s. \nJillian Blanchard: Thank you. The only thing I want to note in the timing is that Miss Klein was not cut off at a certain time she went farther than 15 min. However\, I am done. I’ll take any of your questions\, and I very much appreciate your time. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: All right committee members. I’m sure there are questions. Who wants to go first? \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Anybody. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Commissioner Eisen. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: So \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: I just want to understand\, \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: what Miss Blanchard just said about \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner:  that one and 2 \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: fines\, or. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: if I understand it\, our position is that \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: the owner should have 5. The new owner should have filed a permit assignment \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: and that because \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: the language of the permits did not specifically say that that must be done within 30 days\, it was permissible for the permit assignment to be filed after 30 days. Is that \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: is that a fair summary of what your defense is. \nJillian Blanchard: if I May Commissioner is in. Thank you for your question. it’s essentially a fair assessment. What it is. What we’re saying is that permit assignment is important and necessary\, and in the case of the 73 assignment it was required. But nowhere in either of the 2 permits does it say that it must be completed within 30 days\, and since purpose permit\, assignment was completed within months of transfer of ownership. There is no underlying violation here. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: Okay\, good. I think I did understand that. And so then my next question Adrian\, the what I think I just heard is that we did not respond at all to this. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: trying to keep on my day straight this August ninth  It’s a request for an extension that that was ignored\, but later acknowledged in the January 20 fifth \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: 2\,022 documents \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: where we retroactively allowed for the extension back to August ninth\, 2\,021. Can you just clarify whether or not. We did respond to that. August ninth\, 2\,021. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: Request for an extension. \nadrienne klein:  I don’t recall that was not work that I did. \nadrienne klein: I I don’t agree with. Miss Blanchard\, B. Cdc. Included \nadrienne klein: a copy of the Regulations \nadrienne klein: outlining the appeal process\, and it’s October eighth letter. So Miss Blanchard stated that she was not notified of the appeal procedures under the regulations that’s not accurate. She herself stated that the paperwork submitted within 35 days was incomplete\, and did not comply with the assignment requirements\, and was later submitted. \nadrienne klein: we take a different position. That the assignment there was more than 30 day granted. There was time prior to issuance of that October eighth\, 2\,021 letter\, and we didn’t receive a voluntarily submitted assignment form. We only started to receive that paperwork after we commence standardized fines. \nadrienne klein: I believe\, although I’m not a hundred percent sure that Miss Blanchard may be conflating the third amendment with the Fourth Amendment for the extension of time to complete the House Code project. It was very protracted. \nadrienne klein: but I believe that the fourth request was extended\, and staff \nadrienne klein: appears to have made a mistake and issued the Third Amendment to the House vote owner\, not the operator. But that was corrected with the fourth amendment. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: Okay? \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: I’m not sure. I’m not sure I understand yet. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: The \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: the position I think Miss Blanchard took was that there was a specific request for an extension on August ninth\, 2\,021 that we did not respond to until \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: much\, much later. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: That’s what I’m trying to learn. Did is that an accurate statement. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: I’m sorry I don’t know the answer. At this moment I would have to pull up the violation report and look at the record. Okay. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: anybody else have other questions. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: This is a John. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: This is a lot of stuff to go through. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Yeah. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: You know\, it’s almost like. who do we believe in fairness to to both sides. I would certainly like a little more opportunity to think about all this\, and at least \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: you know\, cause the questions are now coming up\, and I’m not even sure how to ask the question. \nYeah. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: fair enough. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: I I have a question for staff. somebody. I forget whether it was this Blanchard \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: said something about this goes back to the assignment. I think\, Adrian\, you said that there was an incomplete assignment. and then it didn’t get resolved until January. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, so can you walk me through the steps of the incomplete assignment? What was wrong with it? Because my recollection is that? \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: They attempted to file the paperwork \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: for the assignment within the same month that they got the letter. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So what can you found on the circumstances around the incomplete assignment. \nadrienne klein: Sure. \nadrienne klein: there is a form \nadrienne klein: that ideally seller and purchase are both complete. \nadrienne klein: and in addition to that\, that form was submitted within the 35 days of October eighth. But what we didn’t receive until sometime later was the operating agreement\, the ownership interest \nadrienne klein: that was necessary as part of the documentation to affirm \nadrienne klein: who was the new owner. \nadrienne klein: So that documentation is almost more important than the form itself. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Got it? Okay? So so you were missing. So they actually signed the assignment form\, and then later realized that they needed to submit or staff told them that they needed to submit an operating agreement\, and that was not submitted. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: until\, let’s say January or late December. \nadrienne klein: Correct. But we did inform respondent that both \nadrienne klein: piece\, both in in both pieces of information were necessary to fully comply with the permit requirement that was outlined in the October eighth letter. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay? All right. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: And then the houseboat. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So we’ve got\, I guess the owner of the house boat \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: asking for a permit extension before the permit expired. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Right? \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: There’s nothing in the record as to what happened to that request. the permit expires at the end of August. and \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: what the expectation was that the owners should have stopped work on the house boat. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: but they didn’t. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: They went on and completed the project\, and then\, some time later. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: asked for a permit extension. \nIt \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: is that correct? \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay. So so the question that I have is. if the permit was going to expire at the end of August \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and the new permit retroactively approve the work. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Why didn’t the new permit \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: go back to the date when the old permit would have expired\, but instead\, it goes back to the date \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: when there was a request for a permit extension. \nadrienne klein: I did not make that decision. \nadrienne klein:  I think the relevant point here not to get lost in the weeds is that \nadrienne klein: the permit? He failed to apply in advance a permit expiration for an extension of completion. Time continued work with an expired permit. \nadrienne klein: and completed the project with an expired permit. B. Cdc. Did respond in a favor by issuing a retroactive approval to grant an extension of completion time. \nadrienne klein: and the only reason that finds a crude is because that all took place more slowly than the 35 days after October eighth\, 2\,021. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Am I the only one here who has a problem with the fact that \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: the person doing the construction \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: attempted to apply for a permit before the permit expired. I mean I I I clearly they were in the wrong. For once the permit expired. Continuing the work\, I get that. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: But if they asked 3 weeks before the permit expired\, and there was. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: for whatever reason\, no response from BC. DC. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Am I the only one who has a problem? With that \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: you are not \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair:  Commissioner is in \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: I I have a question and I know we can’t get into details about it. But I gather there were settlement discussions. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: and were there separate discussions on the 3 resolved issues and a different settlement discussion on the 6 unresolved? Or was there one whole \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: discussion about all 9 of them which didn’t resolve all the issues. And therefore. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner:  we’re. We’re here at this hearing rather than back in settlement to discussions. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: because it seems to me that the issue of the 3 resolved violations should be easily settled. You know reasonable minds can come together on that. If \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: if\, in fact\, they were \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: maybe not on the 6 unresolved. We haven’t heard anything about that yet\, but at least as to those 3\, you would think that some resolution could be reached. I just don’t know if an effort was made \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: to separate them in that way. \nJillian Blanchard: Commissioner. Gilmore may respond to that. \nJillian Blanchard: please. Okay\, absolutely\, Commissioner Eisen. They were treated as one whole to try and resolve. The entire thing that is all se plane investments has been wanting to do is to reach a a settlement that won’t cause bankruptcy\, but will allow compliance on the site. So if\, without divulging a privilege settlement confront conversations\, of course I can tell you that we were. even though we believe these fines to be on unauthorized\, we were willing to agree to a certain amount of fines \nJillian Blanchard: in the whole\, to be able to resolve all of the violations and to move forward on on the focus of compliance. \nJillian Blanchard: Unfortunately\, staff it\, we don’t need to get into the details\, but we were unable to reach a number that that was sufficient for staff. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: and I can. I can speak to again. I don’t. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: I need to be very careful about getting into the details. But to I guess the second part of question is question.  well\, yes\, we. We did attempt to tackle the entire issue and resolve the entire case just being one case with 2 different components. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager:  Even within those discussions there was a discussion about how to address the standardized find issue. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: discretely. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, thank you. any other Commissioner comments. \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: It’s on a different aspect of the you know the issues here\, but in the and \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: Commissioner chair. Gomer\, you said earlier we weren’t going to consider \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: material that was submitted late. that there’s some numbers that they only received this morning. Actually. \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: but there was a reference in there to the financial standing of \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: yeah\, let’s let’s not get into that \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: information in the record \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: prior to any new new submittal by \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: by responding and there to counsel here about the financial standing of see planned investment policy. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: My recollection and somebody can correct me. Was that There was \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: not financial information other than the stated that they would not have an ability to pay the fines. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: It was a statement \nadrienne klein: that is correct. \nJillian Blanchard: May I address that point just to clarify\, see an effect? \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: yes\, be very careful about your \nJillian Blanchard: May 25 to middle\, because that’s not coming in. I. 100 acknowledged that We did submit the profit and law statement. 2 staff. \nJillian Blanchard: That was that again attached to the May 20\, fifth\, that we’re not talking about. But that profit and law statement should be in the record. \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: When do you believe that was something? \nJillian Blanchard: It was between December and March in discussions with Staff? \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Oh\, wait a minute. So that was part of the settlement negotiations. \nJillian Blanchard: but it was not confidential. It was made public. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, thank you for that. \nadrienne klein: But that would be late submitted evidence. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: This is true. All right \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Commissioner. Discussions. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: I oh\, sherry\, please. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: I’m not sure. I just want to remind you that about the public part of the hearing\, and I don’t know if you want to do deliberations or \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: thank you for that very timely reminder. Okay\, before we get to deliberations. Are there any public comments \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: here\, Gilmore. No public comments. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, actually sorry about that. There’s one \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Nick. It would. \nnikki wood: Hi\, My name is Nicky Wood\, and I’ve been 3 min. Okay. I’ve been a resident Marin for 20 years\, and I own a business here. \nnikki wood: If you enforce this order you’ll be in some sort of seed plane operations to rip out an essential safety feature and essentially close down. \nnikki wood: I mean\, see planes. It’s one of the only sea plane operations of its kind on the West coast\, and it’s been around since 1947. \nnikki wood: It promotes recreation over the bay and brings tourism down to the county. \nnikki wood: The property owners are going to comply so why would you charge them excess of fines that will prevent them from complying? That that’s like the opposite of your mission. \nnikki wood: It will hurt their resources and the public trust and recreation on the day \nnikki wood: the the the owner didn’t cause any violation\, so why are they being treated like they did? \nnikki wood: I support the dismissal of all violations\, and urge the Commission to work on permitting\, on a permitting approach\, the property owner\, who by all accounts\, wants to work with the B. C. DC. To comply. \nnikki wood: That’s it. Thank you. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Thank you very much. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, And Margie\, just for the record\, can you? I just want to state that we have received numerous written public comments. on this item as well as the next item\, and they have been posted to the BC\, DC website. So I’m just trying to make \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: our court reporter’s job a little easier. John. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: we have one more public comment. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Oh\, okay\, hang on\, John. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: go ahead \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: and your public wait. \nandrew wait: Yup! Hi! My name is Andrew. Wait I’ve been a marine resident for about 30 years in a barrier for 40 years\, and \nandrew wait: you know I do appreciate the Commission’s mission. I’m a happy\, grateful user of the bay\, and I’ve seen over the last 40 years huge improvements in the environmental state of the bay. \nandrew wait:  I’m trying to resolve 2 things in my mind. Number one is. \nandrew wait: the the bay isn’t being damaged by any of this huge amount of time\, energy\, and money is being spent \nandrew wait: on something. That sort of isn’t direct alignment with the mission of this of of of your organization. \nandrew wait: But what I also see and I’ve seen it for 30 years now is a pattern of harassment for this particular business. \nandrew wait: Usually there’s a kind of a dark organization in the background that I understand like Edge. Come law like I don’t know what who they are or what their goal is other than to get these guys shut down. So I appreciate what you’re trying to do. But listening to this process\, it feels to me like there’s everyone will be served by negotiating a good faith. \nandrew wait: by getting off of this weirdness of semantics\, replacing or repairing that that ramp\, and to some degree some recognition that all small businesses that we rely on for the quality of our community are fragile financially\, and throwing huge 6 figure fines at them \nandrew wait: is damaging to everything. For example\, they contribute about 170\,000 to local and and and state budgets\, and a productive employer or 15 people \nandrew wait: and our net plus for our community. So I think anything you guys can do to realign with your mission and with the support of an organization that’s been around in good faith\, providing a great service 45 years is is what everybody wants out of this. Thank you. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Thank you very much\, Tia Gomer\, that’s all we have. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, thank you\, Margie John. I think I saw you with your hand up. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: Yes. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: just a a question. There. I’m sorry to sherry \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: if we were to postpone the action and set another hearing date and ask everybody to go back and maybe put their thinking caps on. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: Could that information that was being requested to be part of the record? Could it come back to us at that time? \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: so I think there’s no way to. Actually\, if you’re asking me\, could you quote\, continue the hearing and leave it open? I don’t think you can. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: You could send it back to the staff to try and work things out. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: and if they can’t work things out\, come back in terms of \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: in terms of evidence. I do think it would still be considered late \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: evidence. Obviously\, it’s certainly that stuff that could be considered if there were settlement discussions which is a sort of different animal than the Enforcement hearing procedures. Did that make sense? Yes\, it does. Thank you. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair:  committee members. I I I have to tell you I am feeling \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: uncomfortable about some of this particularly the House vote issue. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair:  yeah. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Oh. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Ms\, Klein. \nadrienne klein: thank you. Chair Gilmore. I was \nadrienne klein: taking a moment to look at the record relating to that issue. So I have the \nadrienne klein: let me lower my hand. Here. I have the extensions of time fold up\, so \nadrienne klein: I I don’t understand the the the concern that’s being raised by Miss Blanchard. we issued 2. \nadrienne klein: Is there an allegation that there’s a gap in time? So each time extension states it. It’s issued on a certain date\, and it states the new completion date of the permit. \nadrienne klein: And \nadrienne klein: yeah\, I’m just unclear on what the issue is\, we extended the completion day\, \nadrienne klein: from August 30\, first\, 2021 \nadrienne klein:  to October 30\, first\, 2021. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, well\, so I I will talk about where my issue is. My issue with that is. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: if indeed\, the owner of the house boat had a plot\, had applied for a permit extension before the permit actually expired. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and had B. C. DC. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Either work well\, had worked on it and and extended the permit that the amount of timing for the fines would not have been as long\, or there may not have been any fines if the permit had been extended before the original permit expired that that that’s my problem. \nadrienne klein: Well\, my recollection is that that initial? \nadrienne klein: So we didn’t include that record as part of this complaint. We included the extensions of time. Looking forward. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: it would have been an incomplete complaint\, and we would have responded with the additional information that was required\, and we wouldn’t have received it\, and work would have continued past the expiration date with an unfiled application. Wait\, wait\, wait back up your you! You just confuse me. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Say that again and say it slowly \nadrienne klein: again. I’m going from memory. I’m not looking at the record\, but normally \nadrienne klein: applicants don’t submit a filed application on the first go round. They make the request\, and usually something is missing\, and we will let them know what that is. And once we get \nadrienne klein: the remainder of the information. We’re able to file and act on the request. So \nadrienne klein: perhaps we didn’t get a fee associated with that request for an extension of time. \nadrienne klein: I I again. I don’t have that information in front of me. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: so I think the conjecture here is \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: the request for the extension of time on August eighth or ninth or whatever it was\, was incomplete. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and then\, at some point in time in the future it became complete\, and Staff acted on it\, and then retroactively \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: extended the permit. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: But I think everybody agrees here that work should have stopped once the permit expired\, and it didn’t. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: this\, Blanchard. \nJillian Blanchard: Thank you. Chair Gilmour. I just want to correct for the record\, because I have the exhibits to the violation report handy in front of me. There was no request after the August ninth \nJillian Blanchard: extension request. There was no subsequent notification from Bcdc. To the either Mr. Hettleman or Se. Plane investments\, or Mr. Price the permit at the time to say that that was inaccurate. \nJillian Blanchard: it is not a B Cdc. Commission\, of course\, you know\, is not authorized to levy a violation for a conjecture as to whether or not we could have resolved that violation. We were not given the opportunity to resolve any concerns about that houseboat extension request\, and there was no additional information filed in October or November to further support that August ninth request that all that was filed were pictures to show that the construction had been completed. That’s all on the record \nJillian Blanchard: for folks to see\, and it was on only until January 20 fifth that staff then retroactively approved that authorization back to August ninth. But no additional corrections were made to that extension request. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Miss Klein. \nadrienne klein: Thank you. \nadrienne klein: You will recall that we did not receive the operating agreement until December or January\, and that operating agreement was a document that was necessary not only for the permit assignment\, but also to file this \nadrienne klein: fourth request for an extension of completion time \nadrienne klein: as complete. So until we receive that the application was incomplete\, and we did notify\, respondent that this documentation was necessary and missing to file the application is complete. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you. I don’t want to go back and forth\, but I’d love to clarify that. Wait! Hold on sherry\, Posner\, please. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: Thank you. Chair Gilmour. I just wanted to ask that whoever speaking particularly either the Staff\, Pcdc. Staff\, or the respondent to pre say the full date of whatever they’re talking about\, I mean month and year at least\, because this does cover arcs over numerous years\, and \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: for sake of the record it’s confusing if someone says December and January\, and you don’t know what what years are straddling. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you\, Commissioner Eisen. I thought I saw you with your hand up. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: Yeah\, I was gonna say\, I feel\, \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: similarly\, about this issue to Commissioner Vasquez. I I feel like I could ask more coherent and competent questions if I had. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: I I think timelines are extraordinarily helpful\, and I appreciate the 2 timelines that we’ve seen. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: but having an integrated timeline that the parties can indicate what they agree on and what they don’t agree on for us to study between now and maybe a continued hearing date. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: so that we can really hone in on the \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: as you put it. Originally the disputed issues as opposed to the undisputed issues. So\, for example\, I know that the ownership changed\, or I think I heard that the ownership changed on July 21\, \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: 21\, I think. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: July 21\, 2\,021 but that something else occurred on in July 2\,021\, I think Adrienne mentioned that that the Bcd. She asked for a meeting to discuss the Permit amendment\, so I’m not sure where those 2 dates fit visa v. Each other. So having some kind of a integrated timeline \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: that both sides could work on together and indicate their areas of dispute also might facilitate \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: conversation that could lead to a resolution a resolution or a more \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: coherent hearing either of which would be better than where we sit today. I think. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Yeah\, \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: sherry. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: I just want to remind the committee and the chair that I don’t think there’s a way to leave the hearing open. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: so the options are are the\, you know\, to \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: either. Send it back and see if there can come back if there’s no ability to resolve it. but I I’m not sure otherwise it comes back for a new hearing\, I guess\, is what I’m saying. I I I think that the the the options are basically what are listed at the end of the recommended enforcement decision \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: to accept or the recommended decision to decline the recommended decision or to accept it with some conditions. if they \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: Enforcement Committee decides that they feel like this is something that parties could try to work on to resolve. I know in the past that’s happened in other proceedings\, and that seems like that’s another. That’s another option. I just wanted to clarify that. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: No\, I I appreciate that actually. And \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: okay\, this is gonna sound. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So on this item. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and also on the next item which we haven’t even begun to discuss. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair:  I I think my preference would be one \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair:  to send the parties back \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: to see if they could work out some sort of a settlement on that. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: If the settlement negotiations fail. If I heard Sherry correctly\, then it comes back as a new hearing.  but \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: a. And if it does come back I think Rebecca’s suggestion of the timeline \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: that \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: the parties could work on with areas of agreement or actually just disagreement\, would be very helpful to this committee. The other question that I have for sherry is that if this\, if we send it back to staff \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and settlement\, negotiations fail\, and it comes back as a new hearing. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: The record is still the record that we have here today. Is that correct? That’s correct. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay. alright\, thank you. So that’s sort of what I’m thinking about. What? What do you committee members think \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: I like it. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: John. I see your hand up. I’m sorry. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: and we know if we’re not really clear. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: our recommendations will have concerns\, and we push it forward to the entire commission. The generally they’re going to be so confused. And we’ve seen a couple of them. They’ve come back 3 times. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: actually voted as a Commissioner not to send it back to us\, because I thought we done the work. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: I I would like to be very confident and clear about any decision I would. I want to move forward. So I I I think I agree with you in that if if we sent it back \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: and bring it back as a new a new hearing\, that would be the best. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, thank you. Sanjay. \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner:  yeah\, I was gonna say that \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: the record for this is pretty voluminous. \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner:  even for Somebody who’s an attorney. this is difficult to comprehend and piece together\, especially when there appear to still be disputed \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: aspects of the facts. \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: So I I think to the extent that \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner:  We asked the parties to resume discussions\, to try to resolve these. \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: these issues. It would be helpful if there can be agreement on a statement of facts and a comprehensive timeline\, so that everybody’s \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: clear about what occurred when \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: and try to narrow the issues in dispute and focus on \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: those allegations where they’re really has been demonstrable. \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: impact. \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: I I do want to say I I can tell that Staff has done a tremendous amount of work on these matters\, and it is confusing\, and the timeline dates back beyond when current folks were involved in many instances. So that makes it difficult. \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: And I appreciate all the time that’s gone into this and working this up for the committee’s consideration today. So I I \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: I know people have been working hard on this and \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: I appreciate the intent of both sides to try to reach an agreement here. So that’s not always the case. \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: When we have enforcement matters. sometimes it’s it’s not clear that \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner:  that the respondent is interested in \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: and ultimately remeding this situation in and doing right by \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: what we need for the bay\, so I I think I would support your direction. Share. Go more to \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: as the parties to continue to work on this\, and see if they can narrow the issues at least narrow the issues\, even if they’re not able to fully resolve them. So that \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: when it comes back to this committee. We can \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner:  be more clear about \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: what? What? We feel comfortable and confident in recommending to the full commission. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you\, Sanjay. I appreciate that. And and I don’t want Staff to think that \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: are sending it back means that you did not prepare an adequate record. because I think you guys did an incredible amount of work on it. And it shows. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: I think\, the problem that we’re having here is that staff works with this day in and day out\, and it’s like a second language to you. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: It’s not to us. and that makes it very\, very difficult. And I think \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: John was right when he made the comment about \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair:  If if \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: if we’re having this much trouble trying to piece together what’s going on. it’s gonna be twice as bad before the entire Commission. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and I would really want to be in the position that whatever this committee recommends to the full Commission we can stand behind it and explain why we did what we did. Because people are going to want to know. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Brent. \nBrent Plater: thank you for that. It’s very helpful advice on how we can present this and make it more clear for you\, and I’ll also for the Commission one possible additional way we can do that is perhaps narrow the areas for these 3 violations that we need to discuss with the respondent. I. What I am hearing so far is that the the committee members have concerns about violation 3 \nBrent Plater: which deals with the House vote remodeling\, and the possibility that there was some potentially some delay in B Cdc. Responding to a application for a extension of time for their permit. \nBrent Plater: but I have not heard the same concerns for the violation. One in violation. 2. That’s for the 2 violations where the permit assignment form for the 2 different permits that apply in this case. \nBrent Plater: did not\, were not submitted to us in a timely fashion. I thought that Adrian had addressed the concerns initially raised by explaining how we need both a signature and also some evidence to document that the person signing the form is\, in fact\, authorized to make that representation on behalf of the the new owners. \nBrent Plater: so if that if that’s the case\, then perhaps those 2 violations can be resolved today\, and the third one can can return for additional consideration. if that’s not the case\, if there’s some additional clarity that you need us to provide on those 2 violations\, that would be a welcome welcome instruction. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, Rebecca. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: yeah\, I I do have questions about one and 2. That’s why I asked the I asked the whether the argument \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: was that the permit language itself is not clear as to what exactly is needed when there is a transfer of ownership \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: and that it \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: it is certainly is not clear about how much time needs to elapse between when the ownership transfers and that new permit amendment is is filed. So I \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: I do have questions about that. Whether that can be \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: clarified. It doesn’t. It’s not so much a timeline question\, or as a interpretation of the Permit language. I think that what was pointed out to us is that the language in terms of the transfer is different in the 2 permits that are before us. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: and that the second one is clearer than the first\, but \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: or maybe it was the first one that was clear in the second. But but it neither of them say you have x number of days? \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: and if the staff said to the owner\, now that now that there’s a change in ownership\, you have X days to do this\, and they didn’t do it within that timeframe. That’s another. that’s another \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: matter. But if they were supposed to know from reading the permit that they had 30 days\, that the permit doesn’t\, in fact. have that language in it. So I do have some questions about those things that maybe could get \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: clarified or resolved or narrowed down. in a conversation between the parties. \nBrent Plater: That’s very helpful\, Commissioner is in\, and if I may just to let you know how we have been thinking about it\, so that we can further narrow down the next steps. to make sure that we\, you understand how we were thinking about it\, and you can give us some additional direction as needed. as we read these assignment requirements in these permits. \nBrent Plater: they do not have a date that says you must do it within X number of days after the transfer occurs\, and so that could be read in one of 2 ways\, it could be read to. Well\, it can. You can do it when you get around to it as the new owner\, which is more or less what we hear from the respondent at the moment. we did in a couple of months. That should be good enough. \nBrent Plater: or the other way you can read about it is that it applies immediately that as soon as the transfer occurs without the the assignment form being submitted\, it’s a violation immediately. Right? Those are the those are the boundaries of how you could think about it. \nBrent Plater: And so what we did in this case\, and trying to calculate those violations was split. That difference where we said\, All right\, if you count the permit assignment form as being that permit assignment term is being violated immediately upon transfer\, without submission of the form. but then give them 30 days for free. This is why\, in the calculation we subtracted 30 days from the totality \nBrent Plater: to give them a reasonable amount of time to come into compliance with that requirement\, then we calculate the penalty that way\, sort of to build in some some accommodation\, for the \nBrent Plater: you know. Most the most likely scenario is that people won’t do that immediately upon transfer it. Something that’s going to come out through subsequent disclosures or something like that. \nBrent Plater: So that’s how we’ve been thinking about. It is to\, you know\, essentially \nBrent Plater: approach the penalty. Calculation on a daily basis in that way. because the alternative\, which is\, you know\, is too amorphous that we’ll always have this debate where you know any subsequent \nBrent Plater: return of an assignment form will be arguably consistent with a provision that just has no date\, and therefore it can be whatever the respondent thinks is the appropriate time. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, Adrian. \nadrienne klein: thank you. Joe Gilmore. \nadrienne klein:  just wanted to remind you that \nadrienne klein: permits. Never submit an appeal of the standardized finds for these 3 resolved violations\, or responded\, never submitted an appeal. All of these arguments could have been made and considered by the Executive Director and the Commission chair. It’s part of an appeal of the standardized find. That process was completely unavailed of \nadrienne klein: property transfer took place on July 20\, first\, in the year of 2\,021. As everyone is aware\, Staff did not issue our letter starting standardized fines \nadrienne klein: July\, August\, September\, October\, until almost 3 months later October early October of the year 2\,021. \nadrienne klein: The burden\, I would say so. The no due diligence call was made to be Cdc. A time of transfer\, or prior to transfer to \nadrienne klein: ask for a a\, a compliance status on the permits\, although we were actively engaged in enforcing the violations. \nadrienne klein: so \nadrienne klein: when we issued the October letter starting the clock respondent. And and I’ve looked at that October letter today\, and we clearly outlined the documentation. And that’s in your record complaint exhibit\, I believe\, to D\, or E or F. \nadrienne klein: We. We specifically outline the documentation required to complete the assignment process in very clear details\, Commissioner\, is in that. Not all of the details are included in our permit conditions. But we. That’s why we’re here. This. That’s what we do. As the staff. We answer all those questions. \nadrienne klein: Miss Blanchard mentioned that\, you know Staff is here to serve the permitees and the public\, and that is what we do we? We don’t want to bring items before you. We do everything we can to prevent coming to this stage. \nadrienne klein: So I think those are the points I wanted to make. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, Miss Blanchard. \nJillian Blanchard: thank you very much\, Commissioner Chair. I just wanted to clarify a couple of quick points. if it’s helpful. The the notion of splitting the difference with respect to the 30 day requirement. It is requirement under the law that the language be in the permit condition staff is not authorized to write that in. \nJillian Blanchard: But\, more importantly\, it is very much the case that all of your permits coming out of your staff permitting analyst staff today does include a very clear 30 day requirement. In fact\, I’ll be coming before you next month with a permit. that will be reviewed that has a very clear permit assignment clause that has a 30 day requirement and is very clear about what needs to be filed and the \nJillian Blanchard: permit assignment form that was filed with staff. On October 20 eighth\, was signed by a member of the Llc. Who is authorized to sign on behalf of the Llc. Bcd. He asked for an operating agreement which we timely provided to establish that. But the permit assignment form \nJillian Blanchard: was filed within 20 days\, and the operating agreement was filed within a couple of weeks after that\, when we learned that they wanted additional information. And the only other point I want to make in consideration of this is that C. Plane is trying to comply. They might need\, as Miss Client said\, they need guidance from staff to figure out\, okay\, what exact documents are we looking for? Because it’s not in the condition. \nJillian Blanchard: But the other piece to keep in mind is that there are 2 parties they needed to get the signed form from Mr. Price. \nJillian Blanchard: and Mr. Price is not mentioned anywhere in any of these violations. \nJillian Blanchard: and he\, ostensibly\, according to Staff\, had the same affirmative duty to complete a permit assignment form. \nJillian Blanchard: that’s all. I wanted to add. Thank you. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay. Anybody else have anything that they want to say. Oh\, Sanjay. \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: Just following up on this point about the assignment forms\, so \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: Can somebody clarify for me? What was the incomplete aspect of the assignment forms \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: at the point that they were actually submitted for the first time. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Adrian. \nadrienne klein: the documentation showing \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: it it is that in so the operating agreement was not submitted with the \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: with the forms\, and then that was subsequently provided a couple of weeks later\, as \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: council is \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: just stated \nadrienne klein: weeks or more. I have to look at my timeline\, but it was provided subsequently\, and after standardized fines after the 35 day Grace period had run run. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: they\, they resolved their violation on January third\, 2\,022 2 executed permanent assignment forms and the executed operating agreement. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: and by then they had a crude \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: to standardize fines of \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: Well\, 3\,000 each for violations\, one and 2\, according to the the \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: the letter that we had sent asking for standardized fine\, stated October second\, 2\,022. I mean\, sorry. August second\, 2\,022. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, I have a question about permit amendments. So let’s say\, somebody had a permit in 1\,975 to build a dock. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and they come to us again\, and they want to amend the permit because they need to do repairs and enlarge the dock. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: the attorney. We want to know what what does that look like? Do you attach the original permit? And then the amendment is \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: specifically to \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: what it is they want to do\, I mean\, or does the amendment give you an opportunity to go back and clean up language \nadrienne klein: both. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So we just issue to permit. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: And what was it? \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: January? Well\, actually late 2\,022\, and I think in early 2\,023\, \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and we left in the same language \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: about timing and and of assignments and things. \nadrienne klein: okay\, I I’ve got it\, Commissioner Gilmore. \nadrienne klein: We haven’t issued an amendment in 2\,023\, just to be clear. So the fourth amendment\, extending the completion. Time for the houseboat project was early. \nadrienne klein: was in the month of January\, in the year of 2\,022. No amendments has been issue since then\, when we issue mostly\, as you all know\, when we issue amendments\, we update the Inline Body text of the amendment. However\, when we issue extensions of commencement and completion time\, we issue a separate document. So it is \nadrienne klein: a permit amendment\, but it’s not in one\, and therefore no changes to the existing permit language take place. We only change the start or completion date whatever has been requested\, and we make clear what that changes\, and then\, the next time we do a substantial update to the permit \nadrienne klein: we incorporate that I \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: that extension of completion time in this case to be specific. \nthis applies only to \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: this timeline\, and that’s it. There is no to answer your question\, no copy attached to the full permit. It is a simple statement. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you. That was that was very helpful. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: And see once again. This is you guys deal with this every day\, and you would never think to ask yourself that question. But \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: we don’t. And so I wanted to know what it looks like. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: okay\, so let’s move on. Anybody have anything else to \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: say. \nadrienne klein: May I just point you to exhibit \nadrienne klein: 2 B\, C\, d\, and E of the complaint\, and on my screen\, those are on pages \nadrienne klein: 40 through 44 about. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay. Why don’t you keep talking while we try to put them up? If that would be helpful? That would be very helpful. \nadrienne klein: Okay. \nadrienne klein: so I could go up and show you the back end of the 1\,973 permit. So I’m just showing you the back of it. Now you can see all this underlying text \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair:  struck through an underlying\, we’re in the standard condition section this would have been removed. \nadrienne klein: text newly added text the standing text would not have been outlined. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Got it? And then \nadrienne klein: here is the second extension of completion time. \nadrienne klein: So it’s a stand alone. Communication\, and the same is true for \nadrienne klein: the corrected Second Amendment. the Third Amendment and the First Amendment. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Great. Thank you. That was very helpful. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: And I thought I saw before you start sharing your screen that John had his hand up. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: Thank you. I’m still a little confused about not having a timeline. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: I mean. you said that we assume there’s the 30 day grace period. How does the applicant know that? \nBrent Plater: Oh\, so I I should. Maybe I misspoke on the assumption\, you know. So the \nBrent Plater: the the terms and conditions in the permit. for a variety of reasons often aren’t up to date the most standard version that we have in the in our permitting department. \nBrent Plater: but the the 30 days grace period\, essentially\, that we applied in this case for calculating penalties was to make it consonant with this process we have for this updated process we have for getting these assignment forms in. So we were making it consistent with Bcd’s existing practice. by eliminating those extra 30 days of penalties when we made this penalty calculation. So there’s a column in the violation report and complaint that \nBrent Plater: establishes that there are 136 days of violations\, which with and it spells out how it subtracts the 30 days following acquisition of the property to help explicate that for for you And the record that we’ve had in the communications with the respondents is also we’ve been. We’ve been reflecting that throughout the entire \nBrent Plater: process that this has been an ongoing concern\, including the the portion\, the time period\, that we were trying to resolve it uniformly through the standardized fine process. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Can I just jump in here for a second? I’m not sure I heard the answer to John’s question. I think he’s talking about in the original instance. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: right before the assignment is filed. Staff has this expectation that you’re going to complete the assignment within 30 days. \nBrent Plater: But how would the applicant know that\, or or the new\, the new purchaser of the property? How? How would they know that? Where would they find out that information? So I as I\, as I read our permits\, and you know I I would appreciate your direction on this\, but as I read these terms. \nBrent Plater: I read them as saying\, it’s required immediately. as you as you are selling the property to another person\, you need to be processing these \nBrent Plater: these forms along with the sale and submitting them to be Cdc\, right? We don’t read them as saying you have the permit gives you an extra 30 days to do this or anything like that. It’s it\, it it’s all it’s required immediately. Right now\, what we do provide when they come in to\, so to request the the forms\, or to find out how they actually do. This \nBrent Plater: is on those forms. We have a form that says\, you know\, submit the signature\, the documentation 30 days to do it on that form. And so\, when we were \nBrent Plater: none of that happened in this case\, like we are doing everything after the fact\, and so to ensure. We weren’t providing additional penalties beyond what would have been imposed had they actually complied with the existing procedures that have these built in timeframes in them. We just subtracted 30 days from the total number of violations\, so we wouldn’t have to argue about whether that was unduly pet unduly penalizing the respondents in this case to give them a a similar kind of \nprocess. \nBrent Plater: so yeah\, that’s that’s how we read it. We we read this term\, I think\, and I think that’s similar with how we re read most permit terms. If there is no date specified\, it’s due immediately\, not whenever they want to get to it. \nBrent Plater: Those are really the the 2 options. And if it’s the and I think that’s consistent with how we’ve read Bcd’s permits from from all kinds of terms and conditions that are that specify \nBrent Plater: requirements without deadlines attached to them. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: And I I would I would like to add something to that explanation\, if I may. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: it is a hundred percent correct\, but kind of moving on from that. When it comes to this idea around this specific \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: instance of violation. when it was determined that \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: this was a violation\, they didn’t comply with the the at least the spirit of the of the permit. We sent out the 35 day letter and the 35 day letter is just that it gives a respondents. Notice that within 35 days they need to take corrective action\, to correct a violation of a permit. The law\, what have you? \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: And if you can do that within 35 days. then you will not be charged a fine. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: So that letter was set. stating that very say thing. On October 8\, 2021 It went into great detail as to what they needed to do to resolve this violation\, to correct this problem\, those identified. And they had 35 days as they. You know\, it’s built into the regulations. It’s a grace period\, I call it \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: to provide us that before finds even kicked in \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: when they fail to do that within the 35 days They racked up a fine. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: a standard\, fine as outlined in in in the letter\, but also outlined in the regulations\, and when they were failed\, or when they refused to pay that standardized fine. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: Then we had to issue the violation report and complaint which essentially takes the the matter out of the 35 Day letter kind of territory takes it out of the standardized by and territories\, and now becomes part of \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: a violation that we\, like any other violation that that is part of the in order where we apply the standard of you know\, laid out in the back to your Petris act  but in terms of notice they had \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: plenty of notice to get this done. They had a period of not just 30\, but 35 days. To resolve this. They didn’t do it in the 35 days when they finally did do it. It wasn’t the fines hadn’t maxed out. They had not provided. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: and then they refused to pay the fine. Sorry they had racked up a fine of\, as I mentioned before\, $3\,000 per violation\, which is standard because of the date that the the the Re. The violation\, was ultimately resolved\, and they refused to pay that. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: And that’s why we’re here. Because when somebody refuses to pay a standardized fine. We have to collect through an order. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: That’s what this is. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay. Thank you. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Rebecca. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: Okay\, I just want to be \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: clear and understanding what Brent and Matthew just said. So. The ownership on this property changed on July 2120\, 21. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: So I think what you’re saying\, Brand\, is that what we would expect is that this assignment be filed? \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: Essentially\, then? July 2120\, 21 \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner:  and it wasn’t. And we ultimately sent a letter on October 8\, 2021\, saying\, you have 35 days to get this \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner:  permit assignment \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: completed\, and this is what you need to put in it to make sure it’s completed. And then\, in that 35 days following October eighth\, 2\,021\, those documents were not filed \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: correct\, since they were not filed within the 35 days we go back to where we could have filed that we could have started running the penalties\, and that made the start date on the penalties \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: 30 days after July 2120\, 21\, when the ownership changed. So on August 31 the penalties began to accrue because they were didn’t take advantage of the 35\, \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: you know. get out of jail free card that we gave them. Is that \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: up up to the point where? I believe\, said we go back to. So how the standardized fine work is? It’s it’s broken out into kind of spans of days. So at day 36\, because 35 days of the grace period at day 36 finds kick in between day 36\, and say\, day\, I think 60. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: There’s a set of fine\, and then between 60 and 90 or 95\, there’s another set\, 5\, and then\, after a hundred 25 days. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager:  then we are able to abandon the standardized fine process and take them forward. We did not do that. We gave them. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: In fact\, we didn’t have to\, because they were able to settle it all by January third\, which put them\, I believe\, in the 60 day range\, and that’s how we assess the fine of $3\,000\, because that’s what the regulation set. So we sent them a letter. Go ahead. \nadrienne klein: Just just tell me what the start date is they find that we’re assessing\, what is the yeah. 30 days after July 20\, first year\, 2\,021. So we one question or or adjustment I would make to how you phrase that last piece that you said Commissioner Eisen\, was that \nadrienne klein: it’s not that they accrued. It’s that we were following the provisions of the law that outlines that there should be penalties for each day. A violation occurs for persists\, and we knocked off 30 days. \nadrienne klein: and started and and calculated the duration of that violation at which we assessed\, I believe\, a daily penalty of $40\, which\, ironically\, is possibly less than at the \nadrienne klein: the per day. Penalty \nadrienne klein: for the standardized clients period. But the duration is longer\, so the total comes out higher. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: So 831\, 21 is the start date that we are calculating the penalties from. \nBrent Plater: I believe it’s ever take a day. \nBrent Plater: August 2020\, 21\, which is 30 days after\, by 2120\, 21\, \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: the date they acquired the property. Okay\, okay. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Miss Blanchard. \nJillian Blanchard: Yes\, I I appreciate the conversation and the attempts to to clarify the facts. I’d like to just make a couple things clear that I’ve just looked up in the record. And\, by the way\, I I commiserate with you\, Commissioners\, on how confusing the timeline is\, because it was very confusing to see plain investments in trying to comply. \nJillian Blanchard: one. There was issue with Mr. Player\, saying that these are implied requirements\, as I’m sure you know\, Commissioners\, it’s unlawful to Levy finds on implied requirements. But more importantly\, this suggestion that Se. Plane was not trying to comply in earnest or did not comply. An artist \nJillian Blanchard: is not correct. The October 20 Eighth Submittal included\, assigned permit assignment form to which I have in my records\, and can share this with you\, Miss Klein responded\, saying you needed to provide the operating agreement as well which Mr. Sharp\, their previous council provided on November first\, within the 35 day period. So if that was the big concern it was complied with. \nJillian Blanchard: So then? They asked. They reviewed the operating agreement\, took them some time to do that\, and then they asked to have someone else sign the permit assignment form\, which is B. Cdc’s prerogative. But it’s not something that should be levied against se plane investments who is trying to diligently comply. \nJillian Blanchard: In January we received emails to say everything was absolutely resolved\, and it was not until August\, after the concern about the Se. Plane ramp that we received a letter saying the standardized finds would now apply \nJillian Blanchard: when we thought they were completely resolved. The other piece I want to add in here is this question about whether or not the appeal period closed. even if they had been given adequate notice\, which they had not. The word appeal was never included in the notifications \nJillian Blanchard: they\, Mr. Truhilo\, had called Mr. Sharp\, and asked him the beginning of September during this appeal period. to wave the hearing requirement\, to work out resolutions. So if you’re a rational practitioner trying to defend your respondent. You might think\, okay\, great. We’ll work out settlement. There’s no reason to file some sort of reservation for an appeal here. \nJillian Blanchard: It’s very understandable that nothing additional what was filed because there was request to wave the enforcement hearing where such rights would be adjudicated. These are just important facts that I want to make sure are in your consideration as we work through these things. But we’re very happy to work out a statement of facts with B Cdc staff that you can review if that would be helpful. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: that would be very helpful. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: okay\, so I I get the sense we’re going to have to make a motion on this one is to \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair:  send the matter \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: to staff for settlement talks in. If that is not successful\, then it comes back to us with exactly the record that we have today. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and we have requested a a mutual timeline \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and we want \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: the issued issues. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: of disagreement narrowed down and and and specific. So we could. We could hone in on those specific issues. But I leave anything out. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: John. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: It is this one just for for 5. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: Yeah\, I’m I’m gonna make. I’m gonna make the same motion for 6. But I think I have to open the public hearing for that one. So \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: Rebecca. And I think it’s also important for us to have some discussion on 6\, because if we have the same motion for 6. I think it will be helpful to staff and respond\, and to know what our issues are on 6 \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: as well. Exactly\, exactly. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: All right. So I guess I’ll make that motion to somebody. Wanna second it. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, Rebecca\, second in that and we are going to have to take a a roll call vote so\, Margie. \nJohn Cota: can someone recite the motion? We’re getting on. \nJohn Cota: madam Chair. Could you try to be as concise as you can as to what \nJohn Cota: your motion actually is. I know it’s difficult\, but it it would help me out tremendously. Thank you. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay. Sending the matter back to staff and respondents to conduct \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: to see if they can resolve the issues. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: If that fails. it comes back to us \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: with exactly \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: the evidence before us today. No new evidence.  the parties are going to. I guess the word is negotiate or stipulate a timeline \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and they are going to narrow down issues of disagreement. \nJohn Cota: and that motion was seconded by Commissioner Eisen. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Yes\, yes\, thank you so much. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, Margie. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Information\, or is it? \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: Yes. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: Commissioner\, best guess \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Commissioner Rancho. \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: Yes. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Tia Gilmore. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Yes. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: okay\, thank you very much. That was\, item 5. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: All right. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: now\, we’re on to item number 6\, \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: which is a public hearing and a vote on a recommended enforcement decision to adopt a proposed cease and assist civil penalty. Order\, Ccd. 23.0 0 2.0 0 to address the permit violations and unauthorized development in the bay and 100 foot shoreline ban jurisdictions \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: at 24 sorry 242 redwood highway frontage road mill valley in Marin County\, and vote whether to adopt a recommended Enforcement decision proposed by the Executive Director. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: which includes a proposed season to this civil penalty. Order to require remedial actions at the site and payment of a hundred $80\,000 in administrative liability. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: The record for this matter includes the violation report and complaint responded statement of defense\, the recommended Enforcement decision and proposed order and all other items identified by BC. DC. Regulation \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: 1\, 1\, 3\, 7\, 0 \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and just for the record. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: will the representative for the respondent. Please identify yourself and your relationship to the respondent. Thank you. \nJillian Blanchard: Certainly. good afternoon\, Commissioner. Chair and committee members. This is Gillian Blanchard\, with rudder log group representing se plane investments\, Llc. For item Number 6. I also have with me Lou Vasquez and Valley Richland to managing members of the seaplane investment site. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay? do we think that we can do the presentations in 15 min\, Miss Blanchard. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: for this one \nJillian Blanchard: I would love to tell you. Yes\, but there is a lot here\, as you might imagine. I can do my level best. But there is a lot of contested issues to cover. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, let’s let’s start with 20. Miss Klein\, you get 20 also. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair:  and I’m going to ask you once again\, both sides to limit the presentations to the evidence that’s already made part of the Enforcement record and the policy implications of that evidence\, and I’m going to now invite principal enforcement analysts Adrian Klein to give her presentation\, which is going to summarize the violation Report. The complaint and recommended Enforcement decision. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair:  yes\, pardon me\, but Sherry has her hand up. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Oh\, I’m sorry I can’t see it. sherry. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: Hi\, chair\, Gomer\, I just wanted to make sure we’re now. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: The meeting was scheduled for one to 3 or 3 15\, and I’m just concerned about whether or not you’ll be able to have complete what you’re trying to complete \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: and not end up with a half of a hearing. I realized there could be a result that was similar to the in the first hearing\, but nonetheless I I don’t know what. If you know how long your corn will last. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: I guess\, is what I’m asking. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: That is a very good question. Does anybody have Commission members committee members? I’m sorry. Does anybody have time limits? \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: This is John. I do. I have to leave it for. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, anybody else. \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: I have a hard stop at 3\, 45. I’m sorry. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: That’s okay. So we will be losing forum. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: sherry. What do you suggest? We do? \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice:  I I again. I don’t believe there’s any really provision in the regulations for having half a hearing are continuing at open hearing. So \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: I guess \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: he did probably best to continue the hearing\, but I don’t see why you couldn’t do that with direction to \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice:  whatever direction the \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: the body would like to give to the parties on when this matter comes back. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: I it just seems to me that there’s be very unlikely. It sounds like there could be close to an hour of presentation. So and that does me include questions\, public comment\, deliberations. So sorry about that. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Oh\, good point! so we could continue this and have it come back \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: to do what we just did with with item 5. Because I I think it’s going to be helpful for Staff and see this. This is difficult\, though\, because if we continue this \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: staff. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: I I think it’ll be difficult for both sides to enter into robust discussions because they will not have had our input on this. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: But maybe I’m wrong. does the staff or the respondents. Attorney want to weigh in on that? \nadrienne klein: Oh\, apologies! More than 10 ish minutes. I just have to summarize the 6 violations\, the defenses\, and the rebuttals. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Miss Blanchard. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Oh\, she already said\, she’s okay. Never mind. Brent. \nBrent Plater: I just do want to note that we have tried to resolve this once before\, so we have some sense of where the difficulties will lie in trying a second time. \nBrent Plater: so you know\, I wouldn’t say that I’m particularly hopeful that the outcome would be any different. But perhaps there’ll be a way in between that we can at least put together some something that helps helps the committee members understand more precisely which issues are\, in fact\, contested and relevant to the arguments we’re presenting to you. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So I take that to mean that you are in favor of continuing this item to another date. \nBrent Plater: Is that what I’m hearing? \nBrent Plater: you know we could schedule the A follow up? \nBrent Plater: you know\, with some time built into try and build some some clarity between the \nBrent Plater: the the staff and the respondent on the specific facts that we agree upon and how to isolate the issues more concretely for you. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Well\, I I would suggest that you \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: that you follow the blueprint that we laid out in the last item. You know the Consolidated lot timeline and the greed state and agreed upon statement of facts. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair:  Miss Blanchard. \nJillian Blanchard: Yeah\, I just want to flag for the record. I want to make sure that se plane investments rights are fairly adjudicated. I definitely hear the time constraints and respect that significantly\, and I appreciate you taking the time already. \nJillian Blanchard: I don’t feel as pessimistic as Mr. Plater about the opportunity to discuss with particularly Mr. Sharp\, some for settlement. so I think if the Commissioners were able to give us some direction on certain things that might be helpful\, one in particular that we’d like some direction on because our complaint\, as you’ll you’d hear\, is really\, with respect to \nJillian Blanchard: unauthorized fines. We have absolutely no problem with permit compliance\, timelines for compliance\, and everything that is required to bring that site into compliance. I just want that to be very\, very clear. So if the direction from the Commission could be 2 staff\, that that is the focus\, instead of potentially bankrupting a small company with unauthorized finds when they didn’t commit any of these violations \nJillian Blanchard: that would absolutely move the needle. And let us work towards a very clear opportunity for compliance that would protect Bay resources. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: That is a very lawyer like statement. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: I commend you. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Matthew. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: yeah\, I just wanted to lend my support to. I guess Brett’s position\, and I think that the continuance is \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: Best? And and given the circumstances \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: okay share. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: I was. Gonna say\, I think tier Gil more. It’d be helpful that if because we’ve sort of introduced the item. So I think if you want to make a motion similar to the motion\, I mean\, I realize there may be more discussion when the time comes\, and saying\, Let’s there should be a motion. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Yeah\, yeah\, yeah. I I figured I’m just trying to \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: kind of get a sense of of what staff want some next steps before I make a motion. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: John. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: So this question is\, sh! So we’ve started to discuss. Item 6. But we haven’t opened the public hearing yet. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: I don’t think so. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: not yet. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: So can we continue this to \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: another date\, and maybe one before the whole group meets again over all this. Say\, maybe next week\, if we\, if we can find a time very quickly to hear it. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: so that we have an opportunity. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: You know they have a cup. Well\, the last one lasts a couple of hours to speak on this one. It’s just a single item itself. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: So I’m going to try and unpack that Commissioner basket. I think that we did introduce the item. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: but I don’t think that actual presentations have been made\, there has been some little back and forth that one would sit\, could say was argumentative by both sides\, but I don’t think that the presentations have been made. So I do think that if someone wanted to entertain a motion \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: of some kind that would be a continuance\, I think that we’re not in the middle of the hearing proper. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: and that really the public wouldn’t have much to comment on\, substantively speaking\, because there haven’t been presentations made \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: in terms of timing. I\, personally can’t obviously comment on. Speak to that\, but it sounds to me what you’re saying is\, you would like to have \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: the parties present before. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: and then provide some guidance and then have them. I’m trying to understand the process that you’re envisioning as opposed to \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice:  giving them more time than a week. There\, I and I guess that’s again up to the committee that I to me. I think that it’s up. However\, you guys fashion it. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: and whatever works for people schedules and make sense to get the productive kind of result you would like. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: I I’m saying that we bring this one back\, for you know\, scheduled meeting just the item itself. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: We can then give our input. They have plenty of time\, then\, to do the presentation\, we have plenty of time for discussion\, and then\, if it\, if \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: if the kind of things we’re looking for similar to item 5\, \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: we find that in item 6\, and then staff and and the applicant have\, or the have\, an opportunity to kind of work all that together rather than I\, I’d rather push it off a little farther\, but I want to have this hearing \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: as soon as possible\, so that \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: there is some guidance to item 6 itself like we do with 105. I I hope that makes sense. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: You’re asking me from a procedural standpoint. Would that be an option that would be an option. I think you. you just need to decide which option you’re going to go down as as a committee. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: Okay? \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay. \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner:  I believe we have the next Enforcement Committee hearing scheduled for June eighth. I don’t know if we can continue this to \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: that agenda\, or if there’s a procedural \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: pick up with that\, but that could be one option. It’s not too far out. \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: and I think it also would give the party some time \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: to reconsider their positions \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: on the open issues. \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: And if\, as it has been conferred. one of the big \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: it issues here to we to making further progress on resolving the items in this matter \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: is\, in fact\, the penalty amount in the context of confidential settlement discussions. \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: The parties can are the the responding can provide more information about their financial status. and I think Staff can take into account the sense of the committee here\, and the discussions we’ve had over the last 2 h. \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: but it can somebody clarify whether that’s an option procedurally to continue this. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager:  But. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: Mr. Eisen\, if you would prefer to speak before I. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: The only thing I have to say is that I’ve already let Margie know that June eighth is probably not going to work for me because of some surgery. so\, and as long as we have a quorum\, I guess you you could proceed without my input\, although I would. you know\, like it\, especially since I’ve heard everything so far to be able to participate\, if possible. So \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: that so that’s what I was going to say. June eighth. we’ve learned as of today\, we don’t have a quorum There is also the consideration of proper notice. Now\, the regulations do say that \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager:  Notice of a further hearing can be given at this hearing. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: but in order to do that we would need very specific date and time\, otherwise we would be\, we would have to send the the notice in writing 10 days prior to any hearing. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Since June eighth\, we do not have a quorum. What about June 20? First\, it’s our next regularly\, or the meeting after June eighth. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: We do have a quorum for that date\, and we have 2 items on the agenda both briefings. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: at least with tentatively. We we we have to coordinate because \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: sorry those items were originally meant to go on the eighth. Now we’re looking at putting them on the twenty-first. But we could probably push those off as maybe. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So let’s do this. Let us continue this item. This is item number 6 to June 20\, our June 20\, first meeting. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Add on your that. A motion yeah\, that’ll that’ll be a motion. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay. Motion by Gilmore. seconded by Vasquez. We will need a roll call. Vote for this. \nJohn Cota: madam. Chair. I have dates here. I heard the June 20\, fourth\, and then you just mentioned the June 20 first. I’m a little\, not clear on that. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: It’s June twenty-first. If I said the twenty-fourth\, I misspoke. That’s a Saturday\, and none of us are going to be here on set. And does that a 9\, 30\, or 10’clock meeting \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: that is a 9 30\, regularly scheduled meeting. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you for that. So so the motion is to continue this item to June 20\, first at our regularly scheduled time of 9 30. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: And that was my motion. And that was my second yeah\, and Commissioner to ask a second. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So\, Margie\, can you call the role\, please. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Commissioner Eisen. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: Yes. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: Commissioner\, best guess \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Commissioner. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Yes. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay. So we have officially. continue this item. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: just making see if I have any other. All right. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: so that is it for us today I want to. Just thank \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: staff and Respondents Council. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: the record on this is voluminous. I think everybody did their best to make it as coherent as possible. I just want to thank all of you for your efforts and We will see you on the 20 first. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: let’s see\, I need a motion in a second to adjourn the meeting \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: so moved \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: that I guess \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: that’s guest moves eisen seconds\, all in favor. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: Hey? \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Motion carries unanimously. Thank you\, everyone. We are 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/may-30-2023-enforcement-committee-meeting/
LOCATION:Webinar
CATEGORIES:Enforcement Committee
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20230413T093000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20230413T120000
DTSTAMP:20231013T043109Z
CREATED:20230414T062530Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20231013T043109Z
UID:10000021-1681378200-1681387200@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:April 13\, 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. \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/86161823905?pwd=RkYrdnVYWmo2eENnMEl3aHZhMllMUT09 \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers1 (866) 590-5055Conference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID861 6182 3905 \nPasscode550762 \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 Comments (PDF)The Committee will hear public comments on matters that are not on the agenda. \nApproval of Draft Minutes from the February 22\, 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]\nRichardson’s Bay Regional Agency Quarterly UpdateRichardson’s Bay Regional Agency (RBRA) representatives will present a quarterly report to the Committee as required by the RBRA-BCDC Settlement Agreement adopted by the Commission in 2021. BCDC staff will be available to provide input and answer questions.(Adrienne Klein) [415/352-3609: adrienne.klein@bcdc.ca.gov]RBRA Presentation (PDF) // Staff Presentation (PDF)\nAdjournment\n\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Meeting Minutes\n				Meeting Minutes (PDF) \n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Audio Recording and Trascript\n				Audio Recording \nhttps://www.bcdc.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/354/2023/04/04-13-audio.mp3 \nAudio Transcript \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Morning\, everyone at \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Good morning. Everyone. As Margie stated\, the time is 9 30\, and this meeting of the Bcdc. Enforcement Committee is here by 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: So our first order of the business of business is to call role. Matthew. Please call the role \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Commissioners. Please unmute yourselves while he does this to respond\, and then mute yourselves after response. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: Okay\, here we go. Commissioner Eisen. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: Here. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: Commissioner Chair Gilmour. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Here \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: we have a core and present\, and are duly constituted to conduct business. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and 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 not on today’s agenda. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: We have received 2 general comments\, and a copy of which has been linked to this agenda item on our website \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: for members of the public. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: 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 \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: where your name is listed under attendees. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Find the small palm icon on the left. \nIf you click on the 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\, Unmute your phone. When the host asks you. In order to make a comment. \nthe meeting host will call on individuals who have raised their hands in the order in which they were raised. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: After you are 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. Commenters are limited to 3 min to speak. \nPlease keep your comments respectful and focused. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: We are here to listen to any individual who request 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 abuse of language. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: We will mute anyone who fails to follow those guidelines. Once again. This is a call for general public comments on topics that are not on today’s agenda. \nMargie\, do we have any raised hands by the public \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: chair. Deal more. I don’t see any race hence\, but I want to comment \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: attending today for sherry poster is a Geo. Patrick Chuck. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Welcome. Thank you. \nPatrick Tuck\, AGO: Oh\, yes\, thank you for having me. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, Since there are no public comments\, we are on to item number 4\, which is approval of the draft minutes. For the last meeting \nwe have all been furnished with draft minutes from the last meeting\, which was held on February 20 s\, 2\,023 \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: committee members. I’d appreciate a motion motion and a second to approve These \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: so moved \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: I second \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: moved by Commissioner Eisen\, seconded by Commissioner Vasquez. Are there any comments\, extensions\, or \nanything else? \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: This Commissioner ranch? I just wanted to know that I’ve joined. Sorry for arriving late? \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Oh\, thank you\, welcome. We’re just about to approve the minutes. \nSo \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: are there any objections \nto approving the minutes from February? 20 s 2\,023? \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay. Then the motion to approve. The minutes passes unanimously. Thank you all. \nOkay. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Item 5 on the agenda is the Enforcement report and enforcement policy manager. Matthew Trio will now provide the Enforcement report. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Take it away\, Matthew. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: Thank you. Good morning\, chair. Good morning\, Committee. Members Welcome\, Patrick. Just 2 items on today. Very short. The first item is a case update Since our last meeting on February 20\, s\, 2023. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: So in the last 2 months we’ve received 15 new cases. We’ve result 19 new cases. and as of today there are 79 unresolved cases in the queue. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: and then the second is an update on our efforts to fill the Cpa to vacancy\, the sorry\, the coastal program panelists to vacancy. We still have received no applications for this position. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: We are working on looking at the posting and see if there’s an issue there. One thing I plan to do is this week i’m going to repost the the position under a more general name\, in hopes that it will help the job to pop up and search is more more frequently right now. It’s called something to be effective \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: journey\, person\, enforcement analyst\, which \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: doesn’t really roll off the song. It probably doesn’t show up in in too many searches when you think about it. So i’m thinking\, scale that back. Call it a program analyst to \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: get some eyes on it. But of course\, any \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: help that you can give in terms of spreading the word to your various contacts is welcome. and that concludes my report. I’ll be happy to entertain any. Follow up questions about the status\, the Enforcement program at this time. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you\, Matthew\, do any committee? Members have questions for Matthew. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Commissioner Eisen. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: Hi\, Matthew\, do you have a goal for 2023. As to how many cases you hope to be down to. I know. Where would you say 79 now? And do you have a goal? Or is it Just let’s just do the best we can between now and then. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: Well\, that’s an a good question. So short answer is\, No\, there’s no specific goal. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: However. I’ve been spending the first quarter. We’re really working on clearing out kind of the doing a lot of housekeeping\, clearing out the the \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: The cases that are still kind of lingering open that don’t really have a purpose anymore. Changing the staticism we’ve trying to client clarifying to still what we’re really looking at the 79 cases that I \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: showed you and those are actually those are cases where \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: you know\, as far as we know\, for you know\, at this\, at this stage \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: we actually have work that needs to do on those cases at various stages\, whether it be\, you know\, starting the case from scratch or collecting fines. My strategy on trying to pair that down even further. And i’m hoping to do\, I I would say\, in terms of like a goal. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: maybe get that down into the fifties \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: through various methods\, such as you know\, trying to catch capture the low hanging fruit. If something has been kind of lingering because \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: we got to a certain stage\, and then we had to turn over and in in employees going back and getting those things wrapped up at the same time for the new cases coming in. We’re trying to continue to push the process that we’ve been developing over the past\, you know\, since 2\,019\, which is putting them on a milestone process\, and keeping that going very robustly. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: And so i’m hoping that in in that vein i’ll be able to get get the cases down. But I Don’t anticipate being able to clear out the case. Load at the backlog this year. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: Oh\, no\, I wouldn’t think all of them. But and then my second question about the about the position\, the analysts position. and I don’t know if this is okay to do. But maybe if we could be sent. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: really all the Commissioners sent a job\, a description of the position that we could forward on \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: satisfactorily\, because i’m not sure all the Commissioners are really aware of the need. I mean\, maybe they are. But \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: I let it slip off my that mindset after a while\, so \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: keeping it right there where we could. Oh\, gosh! Now I I’ve thought of somebody I can forward this to. Maybe that would help \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: a little bit. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: Sure\, I could definitely try and do that. I’m gonna have to consult with human resource and make sure it’s all up and up. But if that’s possible\, we’ll\, we’ll definitely put that in motion. Thank you for the offer\, Of course. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: Thank you\, Bye. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Actually\, I think that was a great suggestion. I I think\, even if we can’t forward it on\, it would be nice to have a distinct \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: copy of the job description\, because I can say to somebody we have an Alice position to \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: open\, and then they would ask me. Well\, what does that entail? And I go? Not sure. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So I think that would be very helpful if if nothing else just a description. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: And then I had a question\, Matthew\, When is our next update to the State auditors? Do I keep losing track of that? \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: I believe it’s an annual process\, and it’s due\, probably in October. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Alright. Thank you. Any other committee questions for Matthew. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, seeing none. \nDo any members of the public have comments on the Enforcement report. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: I don’t see any hands raised. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, Thank you\, Margie. \nSo our next agenda item is item 6\, \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: which is a briefing on the anchor out abatement and Eel Grass Restoration Effort in Richardson Bay\, by the Richardson Bay Regional Agency\, also known as Rbra. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So at this time will the representative or representatives from the rbra. Please identify themselves for the record. \nJim Malcolm: I’ll go ahead and start. \nI see a hand. \nBrad Gross: Good morning\, chair\, girl. More I’m. Brad Gross. I’m. The executive director of Richardson\, a regional agency\, and \nBrad Gross: with us today I have a Rebecca Shorts\, Lesberg\, our environmental expert\, and Jim Malcolm\, our Harbour master. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Great Thank you and welcome. Thank you for being here today and welcome. So now i’m going to invite Adrian Klein\, of B. Cdc. Staff to give her introduction. Adrian. \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: good morning. Thank you. Chair Gilmore. Good morning to the committee members. our our colleagues\, and the members of the public who have joined us. \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: So I’m Adrian Klein. This settlement agreement that requires monthly reporting to Staff. \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: It requires quarterly reports to the Enforcement Committee and an annual report to the Commission\, which just occurred on February sixteenth \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: this year. \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: today the Richard\, since they\, Richard Sunday Regional Agency\, or Rvra staff will review its accomplishments during the first quarter of 2023 and I’ll provide a brief introduction which will be familiar to most of you\, as it is a condensed version of the staff introduction provided to the mission on February sixteenth. \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: just 1 s. \nLet me see. \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: Yeah. We \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: So in September 2\,021 you authorize the executive director to enter into a settlement agreement with the Rna to promote the management of the waters of Richard and Dan in manner that is consistent with the public trust and with the Macro to Petr Sack\, the San Francisco Bay plan and the Richard since based special area plan. \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: and this is just a quick map to orient everyone. \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: So the settlement agreement \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: is between B. Cdc. And the Rvra\, which is a joint Powers agreement\, whose members are\, as you know\, we’re in county\, the town of Tiburon\, and the cities of the Mill Valley\, and \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: the settlement agreement lays out the steps that will result in the end of an era of allowing long term anchoring of unseat oops\, sorry\, unseaworthy vessels occupied as residences\, and for storage \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: the ground tackle\, from which is believed to have resulted in between 50 and 85 acres of damage to the 300 to 650 acres of subtitle\, you know\, breast habitat. In Richardson Bay there is believed to be 2\,400 acres day wide. \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: and photographs is well known to support herring\, spawn\, and many bird species. \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: So\, just to quickly summarize the terms of the agreement\, it requires the arbitrary to return the marine County waters and waters of the cities of Tiber on Belvedere and Mill Valley to a public trust. Compliant condition by removing waters. \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: Excuse me. Vessels occupied as residences\, stored vessels and houseboats\, all anchored offshore\, and not in a Marina. and to cause this removal from richards a day by 2\,020\, \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: to prevent the reoccupation of Richards of Bay waters by future anchor out\, by enforcing local ordinances that limit the duration of stay of new influx vessels \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: to prevent future adverse impacts\, to subtitle habitats\, including eel grass\, such as by establishing and enforcing no inquiry \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: in the ill grass protection zone \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: for to restore ill-grass habitat that has been damaged by the anchor scour \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: by creating and implementing an ill grass restoration plan that is consistent with the California illness mitigation policy. \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: and that includes a 10 year adoptive management plan\, and you will be hearing about that progress today to cooperate in regional efforts to identify alternate housing and other supportive resources for the occupants of the vessels anchored on the public trust lands\, and finally to coordinate \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: waterfront management efforts with the city of S. Toledo\, in recognition of the fact that the anchor out on counting waters come ashore through city waters and on to city of S. Toledo \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: lands. \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: So this slide\, which I hope is legible\, was presented by the our barrier to the commission on February sixteenth\, and it’s a good summary of the actions taken and planned by the AR area to achieve the settlement agreement milestones. And so you can see the due dates \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: in the third column and the status in the fourth column \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: can give you a chance to digest that. \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: so I can go to the next slide now. \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: and this final slide before I turn the floor over\, just raises a few questions that you may wish to consider\, among others. \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: to discuss with the Ri area following their presentations. \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: And with that I will now turn the floor over to Brad Gross\, our our executive director. \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: to commence the Ri staff presentation. Thank you. \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: and i’ll be running their slides. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you\, Adrian. \nBrad Gross: Thank you\, Andrian. \nBrad Gross: Thank you. Thank you\, Adrian. I appreciate it. Shared Girl. More members of the committee and staff. Thank you for the opportunity to for us to update this committee on our latest activities and our successes. \nBrad Gross: as you all know\, and i’m not gonna \nBrad Gross: gonna give you any history. You’ve heard all the history we’re going to talk about up to date issues\, but we did give our annual presentation with a. Full B Cdc. Committee just 8 weeks ago. So again we’re just gonna cover what has happened very recently and update you on some of our more important initiatives. \nBrad Gross: I’ll provide a few comments\, and then our contract with environmental expert\, Rebecca Schwartz Lesb will give the eel grass update\, followed by our harbor. Master Jim Malcolm\, who will give an update on activities at the anchorage. \nBrad Gross: One of the most exciting updates I get to provide is that we have finally received the funding from the state\, thanks to Senator Gilmour\, so that we can kick off our temporary housing voucher program for those in the anchorage seeking housing assistance. \nBrad Gross: We’ve already contracted with marine housing authority to find the actual housing. \nBrad Gross: and next week\, on the eighteenth\, the county of Marin Board of Supervisors will consider an agreement between our Bra and that red health and human services to provide wraparound services for those in the program. \nBrad Gross: We’ve already had logistics meetings between our Bra Mha. Hhs and the participation of this program\, Starting on May first \nBrad Gross: dovetailing with the temporary housing about your program is a vessel by back program. \nBrad Gross: This program expired on December 30 first 2\,022\, but at tonight’s Rbr. A board of directors meeting\, we will be requesting reinstatement to the vessel by that program to provide additional support for those. Taking advantage of the temporary housing voucher program \nBrad Gross: basically what not border turns in their vessels to our bra\, we have the funding available to pay them up to $150 per foot\, as you’re at the water line of their vessel. \nBrad Gross: and we’re also contracting with the local nonprofit. We’re in link to provide immediate payment. So once the paperwork is completed and the vessel is signed over to Rbr. For disposal. \nBrad Gross: the participant will immediately get a check. We will provide updates on the anticipated success of these programs. The very next time we meet \nBrad Gross: that’s really all I have for updates. And now i’d like to turn it over to this\, for it’s less for to go over the next slides. So the next slide\, please. Adrian \nBrad Gross: Rebecca\, Thank you. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: Thank you\, Rad. Good morning. She’ll go More Commissioners Enforcement staff. Good to see you all. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: My name is Rebecca Schwartz Lesberg. I’m. The president of coastal policy\, solutions\, and I’ve been working with our bra to implement their ill grass\, protection and management efforts for the past several years. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: As a note. My neighbors are having construction down to their house\, and my dogs have some opinions on that. They’ve been quiet all morning\, but with my luck now will be the time when they express those opinions. So I apologize. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: These are just. These are some updates on what has been going on since the February sixteenth presentation to the full commission \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: similar to that that presentation. We are continuing implementation of the ill grass\, protection and management plan. So when you see epip\, that’s what that stands for \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: In the past couple of months we received the results from our 2022 side scan sonar survey of richardson bay eel grass. I’ll go over some of the results from that scan in the next couple of slides. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: We’ve also concluded our 2\,000 and 22\,023 waterbird monitoring season so that goes from November or October\, through March. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: and the report on that we should be getting by the end of June. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: We are still waiting to hear from the Coast Guard about a decision on our petition for rule\, Making \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: again that petition for rule making describes Rbras authority to implement the ill grass\, protection zone and other limitations on anchoring in Richardson Bay \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: As a reminder\, Local Coast Guard staff felt that the existing code of Federal relate regulations provided adequate coverage for our Bra to implement those actions. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: But we did submit a petition for rule\, making to clarify that even further. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: the Coast Guard confirmed that they received our petition\, and we are waiting to hear what their decision will be. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: and then ongoing this whole time our community presentations and social media\, and earned media about the importance of ill grass\, and what our bri is doing to protect it and Richards and Bay. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: So\, outside of the epmp implementation as we let the Commission know. In February to me our Bra and its partners were selected for a competitive \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: grant from the Us. EPA. From their San Francisco Bay Water Quality Improvement fund program. That’s a 2.8 million dollars for a 4 year\, 15 acre yield grass Restoration program in Richardson Bay. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: the first task of which is to develop the restoration and adaptive management plan that Ms. Climb. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: Ms. Glenn referred to earlier in the presentation. So right now we are working with EPA staff. We’ve been selected for the grant. But there’s all of the I’ to to cross developing the work plan the budget. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: and all of the required Federal forms. So EPA Staff has everything\, and we should be getting our \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: grad agreement in the next couple of weeks\, depending on how the wheels of Federal Government \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: next slide. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: Okay\, so the the sides can Sonar survey that I mentioned \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: about every 3 years in Richston Bay. Since 2\,003 \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: various partners have conducted a survey to map all of the eel grass in Richards and Bay. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: Now this differs from the Flyover survey that I shared earlier\, which just focuses on \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: damage to the ill graph from anchor scour. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: In contrast\, this report actually documents the entire extent of your grass and its density throughout Richardson Bay. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: This is done by having a research vessel in the water. It basically runs transact back and forth\, shooting a sonar beam at the bay floor that generates these images of where eel grass is\, and how dense it is \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: in the image. On the right of your screen \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: the green shows where eel grass is present in Richardson Bay. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: This report did not really have any surprises. We have the same general pattern of ill grass cover\, and interest in bay as previous years. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: where we have the densest portion of the bed just off the shore of\, and then it gets \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: less dense as you reach into the shallows. Let’s see. Can you. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: You can’t see my mouse\, can you? No. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: So that area right along the edge of this L. You know you can see some of the crop circles\, or those anchor scour evidence of anchor scour just off saus alino\, so that’s able to be captured there in the sidescan sonar Survey\, which is what we expected to find\, because. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: while we do see some evidence of recovery in anchor scars where boats have been removed\, as you know\, that’s an ongoing process. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: We also have ill West present in those shallow we reaches. So up in that northern and northeastern exactly yeah\, that area of Richardson Bay that’s much shallower than in where the your grass bed is denser. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: The reasons for that kind of more patchy distribution is that it’s much warmer in the much warmer by your grass standards in in that area. So there’s some thermal stress going on. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: and we’ve seen some evidence of you Grass wasting disease. Now your grass wasting disease. It’s a \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: it’s a pathogen that is present throughout California. It has been observed in San Francisco Bay for many years. usually is a very low line pathogen. We don’t see large impacts from it. In some years it does spread more than others. We don’t exactly\, we being the scientific community\, don’t exactly know Why\, some years you’ll grass waste\, and disease is worse than others. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: There are thoughts that it that it can be affected by temperature\, salinity. And so you know what \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: the past summer was\, the you know\, before we got all of this \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: cold weather and rain. So it was saltier. It was warmer\, so we could see that change after this winter with our very \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: high rainfall that we’ve seen. \nYeah. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: And then\, as expected\, there’s a pretty sharp line below which we really don’t see any ill grass that’s in that lower right hand corner. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: That line effectively matches the 5 feet\, I mean lower low water contour\, and that’s very consistent with the depth limits of your grass\, and it’s mostly light limited. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: So \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: in total across all cover classes it’s about 956 acres\, of ill grass identified in Richardson Bay this year. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: but only about 400 of those acres are in the 40 to 100 cover class\, and i’ll talk about that a little bit more on the next slide. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: And as a note this survey was completed by Merkel and Associates \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: next slide. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: So one of the things that we’re able to do with these data is to look at how eel grass distribution has changed through time. In Richardson Bay. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: We have survey data from if we look at this chart on the right from 200309131419\, and 22 \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: 13 and 14. We have very depressed eel grass cover. It was much lower than the other years and and overall we’ve seen it generally increasing trend in a the thing to look at\, though\, so it’s it’s sort of a mixed bag. It’s good news that we’re have that we have more ill grass than we did before. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: There are some concerns\, though\, because this 100\, this so this dashed line \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: is basically tracking a 100% cover equivalency. And so when we talk about cover class \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: that 40 to 100\, that darkest green \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: That’s where the ill grass is dentist\, which is a good proxy for how healthy it is\, and how much ecosystem function. We’re getting from it \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: in those lighter categories. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: It’s sparser\, it’s not providing as good of habitat for fish and invertebrates not able to provide the other ecosystem services\, such as you know\, shoreline stabilization\, sediment\, stabilization\, carbon sequestration. Really\, you know where we’re getting our most bank for our buck with eel grass is in that 40 to 100% \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: cover class. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: So that darkest green bar\, as we can see\, is still highly variable through the years that dashed line is\, basically if you take \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: it’s basically a weight of a weighted average and collapsing down. You know\, if you\, if we have \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: about 200 acres in the less than 5% cover class. It’s basically multiplying that 200 acres by point\, 0 5 to getting the 100% equivalency\, I guess \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: I could go more into the the math and the science behind that. But basically to see that dashed line is basically where is our really what? What is our really healthy\, dense eel grass trend\, and that’s the dashed line. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: So overall this. Serve this side scans on our survey told us a lot of what we expected to see. There’s some good stuff going on out there. There’s you know it’s a in other ways. It’s a bit of a mixed bag and highlights the importance of continuing to track your grass. Transfer time. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: Do I have another slide\, Adrian? \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: Nope. Okay. If you go back\, one slide\, go back to my side. So that’s all that that I have to share about you grass. And then at the end\, happy to take any questions\, so i’ll hand it back to Brad to introduce harbor master. Not them. \nBrad Gross: Thank you\, Rebecca. I appreciate your effort on this. The next we have a harbor\, Master Malcolm\, who’s got some some very exciting news about our vessels floating home update. Thank you\, Jim. \nJim Malcolm: Thank you very much\, Brad. Good morning\, Chair. Gilmour. Enforcement Committee Commissioners and Enforcement staff. As mentioned\, I’m. Jim Malcolm\, the harbor master for the Richard Bay Regional Agency\, providing this update to update your committee \nJim Malcolm: about the status of the vessels and floating homes on the anchorage. Since the full commission was updated in February\, our current total \nJim Malcolm: vessel floating home count is 52. \nJim Malcolm: That’s reduction in investment counts by 5 since the February update \nJim Malcolm: of those 5\, with this included one floating home\, which\, during the last large March storm\, when adrift and subsequently sunk. \nJim Malcolm: That floating home is actually just been just been recovered from its location\, and is waiting final recovery from the water and disposal \nJim Malcolm: otherwise for vessels. Other incidents. As a result of the brutal winter we’ve been having 2 vessels sunk\, or we’re completely lost due to weather. One vessel\, the the one floating home when it drifting grounded. \nJim Malcolm: Of the of the vessels that were soccer completely lost\, or or of\, as of all vessels that were removed from the anchorage\, there were no personal injuries\, and several vessels broke loose or drug anchor off of the anchorage. \nJim Malcolm: and we’re recovered by the anchor out and brought back to their position on the anchorage. \nJim Malcolm: As mentioned\, our current metrics. \nJim Malcolm: we have a 52 total and 0 new arrivals since the update in February. \nJim Malcolm: and with that that is the short and sweet update on the anchorage. \nJim Malcolm: Now i’ll turn it back over to Director Gross. \nJim Malcolm: Oh\, sorry! One more slide as far as vessels in the eel grass\, protection zone. \nJim Malcolm: the bulk of the storms\, the bulk of the major storms that came through the area were from the south\, so vessels that we’re outside the yogurt Protection zone got pushed to the north\, so hence the the dip to 46 and then back up to 48 for vessels in the you know brass protection zone. \nJim Malcolm: and active active efforts continue to get those vessels removed from the Yogurt Protection zone and back to the southern reaches of the anchorage and out of the \nBrad Gross: Thank you\, Jim. I appreciate the information chair\, Gilbert. Where are all 3 of us are available? If there are any questions that we can answer. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you very much for the briefing. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So do any Enforcement Committee. Members have any additional questions either for staff or \nthe R. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: I don’t see any I actually have. \nOh\, sorry! I actually have one question \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: given how severe the storms were in the first quarter. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and the difficulties in the anchor out vessels remaining in place. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Have you noticed any. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: I guess\, softening of some of the positions of the anchor out \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: to be more receptive to \nsolutions on land? \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Because I would imagine that riding out some of those storms must have been terrifying. \nBrad Gross: Thank you for the question chair\, Gil\, more definitely\, definitely a lot of what we’re saying. \nBrad Gross: people it it’s it’s not an easy lifestyle to live on those vessels\, those types of vessels in those conditions. And this was a severe winter\, and I think it opened up a lot of eyes on some of those folks about there. There’s some that are\, you know\, hardy barriers that want to stick it out\, and they’ll stick it out for as long as they can. But I think what’s more important right now is that we have \nBrad Gross: programs that we’ve been talking about for years that are all coming \nBrad Gross: to a starting point. Specifically\, the temporary housing voucher program and reinstating the vessel\, buy back program \nBrad Gross: in combination with the severe storms that we had over the winter we’re going to see. We’ve already been told by the case workers that have been waiting\, that we have people waiting in line to take advantage of some of these opportunities\, and it’s really going to be \nBrad Gross: more of a \nBrad Gross: issue with how many that we can service at one time. I I believe I believe there’s there’s more people willing to step into these programs that we can handle at one time\, so I think it’s good news. And then our next our next meeting. I think we’ll have some good information for you regarding that. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Well\, I thank you for that update. I mean that seems like a big change\, because I feel like for years we’ve been hearing that the anchor outs were very resistant to considering land based solutions so hopefully. This marks a real turning point. \nBrad Gross: I I believe\, and I think so. A lot of people will tell you. They believe not everybody. I mean i’m not going to. I’ve got that. I imagine\, by any stake in the may increase. It means that we are going to get everybody as we approach deadlines. We’re going to have push back. We’ll probably have some litigation. We have some litigation now\, but I think we’re going to see some good good move in that direction\, and as we again\, as we approach the deadlines\, it’ll be easier to tell you what we envision the future efforts. You’re going to need. \nThank you. Any committee members have any questions or comments at this time. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So we’re going to take public comments on this item\, which is item number 6 \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: on the agenda. But first\, Margie\, have we received any written public comments on this item? \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: No. Can’t deal more. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: And do we do you see any members of the public waiting to speak? \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: None. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay. Well\, then\, we will not be having public comment. \nAll right\, so thank you very much to Staff and and the Rbr. For presenting. Do any Enforcement Committee members have any final thoughts or comments on this? \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, seeing none\, we are ready for item 7\, \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: which is adjournment\, and I would like to entertain a motion in a second to adjourn our meeting. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: I’ll comment on that. I’ll move that we adjourn. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: Second. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay. A motion to adjourn\, made by Commissioner Vasquez. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: second by Commissioner Eisen. All in favor. Just raise your hands \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and thank you very much everyone for your time\, your attention\, and the excellent presentations that we received today have a great rest of your day. Goodbye\, Everyone. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: bye. \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-13-2023-enforcement-committee-meeting/
LOCATION:Webinar
CATEGORIES:Enforcement Committee
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20230322T080000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20230322T170000
DTSTAMP:20231017T050925Z
CREATED:20230323T042641Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20231017T050925Z
UID:10000032-1679472000-1679504400@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:March 22\, 2023 Enforcement Committee Meeting (Cancelled)
DESCRIPTION:
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/march-22-2023-enforcement-committee-meeting-cancelled/
CATEGORIES:Enforcement Committee
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20230309T080000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20230309T170000
DTSTAMP:20231017T051000Z
CREATED:20230310T052405Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20231017T051000Z
UID:10000031-1678348800-1678381200@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:March 9\, 2023 Enforcement Committee Meeting (Cancelled)
DESCRIPTION:
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/march-9-2023-enforcement-committee-meeting/
CATEGORIES:Enforcement Committee
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20230222T093000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20230222T120000
DTSTAMP:20231017T051023Z
CREATED:20230223T042117Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20231017T051023Z
UID:10000030-1677058200-1677067200@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:February 22\, 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/89830813202?pwd=SW5lUENkVG13Mnkrb3VobWw3eG5IUT09 \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers1 (866) 590-5055Conference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID898 3081 3202 \nPasscode881486 \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 CommentsThe Committee will hear public comments on matters that are not on the agenda. \nApproval of Draft Minutes from the January 25\, 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]\nOne-year Update on Actions to Address Shoreline Encampments\, Abandoned and Derelict Vessels and Anchor-outs in the Oakland-Alameda Estuary\, Alameda County.The Committee will receive a briefing on the actions 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 as a follow-up to the discussion and direction provided by the Enforcement Committee during its meetings on February 23\, and March 23\, 2022.(Adrienne Klein) [415/352-3609: adrienne.klein@bcdc.ca.gov]Staff PresentationPublic Comment\nAdjournment\n\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Listing of Pending Administrative Matters\n				\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Supplemental Materials\n				\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Meeting Minutes\n				Meeting Minutes (PDF) \n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Audio Recording & Transcript\n				Audio Recording \nhttps://www.bcdc.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/354/2023/02/02-22-audio.mp3 \nAudio Transcript \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: My name is Marie Gilmour\, and I am the chair of this committee. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So\, Commissioners\, please ensure that your 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. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Matthew. Please call the role Commissioners. Please unmute yourselves while he does this to respond\, and then mute yourselves After responding. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: I can’t hear you\, Matthew. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: can you hear me now? Yes\, okay. I don’t see Commissioner Eisen on my screen\, is she dropped off. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: I don’t see her\, either. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: Okay\, i’m calling the old now starting with Commissioner Eisen \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: and Sherry Gilmore \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Here \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: we have a quote quorum present\, and are duly constituted to conduct business\, and that brings us to item 3 0n 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: Excuse me for members of the public if you would like to speak either during the check\, 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 \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and look in the box where your name is listed under attendees. Find the small palm icon on the left. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: 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 and then dial star 6 0n 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 in which they were raised. After you are called on\, you will be unmuted\, so that you can share your comments. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Please announce yourself by first and last name for the record before making your comment. Commenters are limited t0 3Â min to speak. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Please keep your comments respectful and focused. We are here to listen to any individual who request 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 abuse of language. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: We will mute anyone who fails to follow those guidelines. So\, Margie\, do we have any hands raised by the public. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: We do. Tanya\, boys. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Miss Voice\, you have 3Â min to speak. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you. Good morning. Can you hear me? Yes\, yes. \nTanya Boyce: great. Thank you so much. \nTanya Boyce: or allow me to speak. My name is Tony Boyce. I am a long time resident here in East Oakland. and I also am \na coach \nTanya Boyce: at Brooklyn strokes. \nTanya Boyce: I learned to row when I went to college at St. Mary’s College in Moraga\, over the hill\, from where I grew up\, and I developed a great love of rowing. \nTanya Boyce: and after the upheaval of \nthe George Floyd incident and many other things that were happening in our country. \nTanya Boyce: Bookman strokes made the very bold move of opening up \nTanya Boyce: their club to \nTanya Boyce: black and brown\, and disenfranchised people from around \nTanya Boyce: Oakland and throughout the greater bay area. So we’ve made great efforts to bring young people \nTanya Boyce: to the estuary \nTanya Boyce: as a safe place to be\, and to engage them in a sport that can \nTanya Boyce: change their lives as it did my own. Unfortunately\, the estuary has become a horribly \nTanya Boyce: dirty and contaminated place where our students are put in a lot of danger when they’re on the water and on the way to the water. \nTanya Boyce: Some of the students\, in fact\, i’ll be coaching this afternoon are coming to us from a rise High School\, and they actually take the bus\, and they have to walk \nTanya Boyce: down \nTanya Boyce: edge water to get t0 0r i’m Sorry tide what taiway. I’m sorry whatever that’s trees call. You know what I’m talking about to get t0 0ur boat house. \nTanya Boyce: but unfortunately\, the lack of \nTanya Boyce: any kind of enforcement of any kind on the city’s behalf has made this \nan incredibly \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: dangerous walk with this voice. I just want to ask a question. We are discussing the efforts to clean up the estuary on Item 6\, You’re discussing encampments. I’m discussing something a little different right now at open. \nTanya Boyce: I’m: i’m actually talking about the uses that are there that are doing aggregate and trucking\, and the other things other than that I was going to speak on the count. But right now i’m speaking to a different matter. Is it not the appropriate time to speak to something? Not on the agenda? \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: No\, it is I. I thank you for clarifying your your intent. And\, Margie\, could you give her a little bit more time because of my my interruption? Thank you \nTanya Boyce: right. \nTanya Boyce: Not operating in accordance with the ordinances we have \nTanya Boyce: trucks that are parked on the public street\, that I’ve broken the the \nTanya Boyce: the sewer lines\, and when I left there last night there was a river of running water from \nTanya Boyce: the sewer that’s just broken and just running into the street. We have trucks that are backed up to take aggregate off that make it impossible for the kids to even approach the waterfront\, much less the things that they’re going to see in the water and on the water edge when they get in the boats\, which is \nTanya Boyce: part of what you’ll be talking about on your other item. But i’m telling you is that the city of Oakland is failing on multiple fronts\, not just the encampment enforcement that makes the estuary a dangerous place to approach. \nTanya Boyce: and an unsafe place to recreate it. And we have to change that as soon as possible\, and I’m here to encourage that\, and I will be bringing my students next time\, so that they can speak for themselves. Thank you very much. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Thank you very much\, Miss Boyce. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, thank you\, Margie. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Oh\, sorry about that. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Next we have Benjamin. \nBenjamin: Hello! Can you hear me. \nBenjamin: Yes\, you can. You have 3. \nBenjamin: My name is Benjamin Yamanaka. I’m. The manager of the Oakland Yacht Club. \nBenjamin: and I’m speaking today because I want the B. Cdc. Support and encourage him to take action to the derelict and abandoned boats that have become a substantial problem to the estuary. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: I think you want to talk about. Item 6\, because that is our our item that relates to abandoned and damage vessels on the estuary. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So can I ask you to hold your comments until we get to that point. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, Thank you so much. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, do we have any other public speakers? \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: None. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, thank you. Then we are on to item Number 4 approval of the draft minutes from our last meeting. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Commissioners. We have all been furnished with draft minutes from our last meeting\, and I would appreciate a motion and a second to approve these minutes. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: So moved. Second. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, moved by Commissioner Eisen\, second by Commissioner Vasquez and all in favor. Just raise your hands. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: And i’m going to note for the recorder that the Volt was unanimous to approve the me\, the meeting minutes. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay. So item 5\, which is the Enforcement report \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and Enforcement policy manager. Matthew Trio will now provide the Enforcement report. Matthew. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: Thank you. Chair Gilmour. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: Today I have a very brief report only 2 items. \nBut first good morning to yourself. Chair Gil Warren. Good morning to the the committee. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: The first item is a case update since our last meeting on January 20\, fifth\, 2\,023. I’m happy to report that in the past month we’ve received 5 new cases\, and the good news is that we’ve resolved 11 cases. So\, as of today there are 85 cases in the queue. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: The second is an update on our efforts to fill the current Cpa to vacancy. This has been open for some time. We have been able to upgrade the position to from a 6 month\, as originally \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: advertised to it’s now a 12 month limited term position. \nand so I hope this change will attract more applicants very soon. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: and that concludes my report\, and i’d be happy to entertain any follow up questions or comments about the status of the Enforcement program from the committee. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you\, Matthew. Do any committee members have any questions for Matthew. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: seeing none. Margie\, do we have any members of the public who would like to comment on this item? \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Yes\, I see. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Tanya voice. \nTanya Boyce: I understand that you have 85. You can’t g0 0ver all of them\, but we’d be anxious to know what you’ve been successful in getting rectified. So thank you very much for your work. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Thank you very much. That’s all we have to gamble. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you. \nWe will now move on to item number 6 \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: which is a one-year update on actions to address shoreline encampments abandoned and derelict vessels. Yes. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: yes\, i’m sorry about that. We have a couple of more hands raised \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: 0 0n on the and for the Enforcement report. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: I I believe. So \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Actually\, no. They lowered it down. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay. Okay. So now we are on Item Number 6\, which is the one year update on actions to address shoreline and campus encampments abandoned and derelict vessels\, and anchor out in the Oakland Alameda estuary located in Alameda County. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and we are going to be briefed \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: on this topic regarding abatement efforts by the cities\, representatives from the cities of Alameda and Oakland. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: And at this point in time I would like the representatives or representatives from the cities of Oakland and Alameda to please\, identify themselves for the record. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: And Margie\, I can’t see any hands on my screen\, so have they raised their hands. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: We have \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: okay\, promoting them now. Sorry about that. \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: It should be Deputy City administrator\, Jim Debris\, representing Alameda and Lieutenant\, their class representing. \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: i’m sorry\, representing Oakland. And \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: okay\, could those individuals\, Margie\, could you please unmute them? And they can introduce themselves for the record\, please. \nif they’re here. \nJoe DeVries\, City of Oakland: Good afternoon\, Chair\, person. Gilmore. This is Joe de Rees\, a deputy city administrator with the city of Oakland. Can you hear me? \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Yes\, I can. Thank you. Okay\, Good to see you again. Hope you’re well. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: you\, too. Do you have anybody else with you today? Or is it just going to be you doing the presentation? \nJoe DeVries\, City of Oakland: I do have others that can answer questions. If if\, if if I can’t\, we have outside Council. Actually\, I can’t see your attendee column\, so I don’t know who else from my staff is here. Let me take a quick look\, but I believe I’ve got staff from Opd. And the City Attorney’s office as well. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, Great. That’s good to know. Thank you. And the representative from the city of Alameda. \nLt. Erik Klaus: Good morning\, Lieutenant Eric costs in the city. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you. And and I thank both of you for coming and providing the briefing. Okay. So at this moment\, in time. I’m going to invite Adrian Klein to give her introduction to this item. Adrian. \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: Good morning\, everyone. Thank you very much. \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: Let’s see. Just get myself situated here. \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: Okay. \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: right? \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: Alright\, so my introduction is is brief. I’m merely providing some contacts today \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: by reviewing what happened at the initial briefing on this matter last year\, which also took place in February. \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: and\, as mentioned\, the floor will then be turned over to the cities of Alameda and Oakland. \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: who are doing the hard work to to sell the commitments that they made to \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: that they made last year\, and to implement the direction that you\, the Enforcement Committee provided to them at that February briefing. \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: following each of the city’s presentations. As we are all aware\, we have a number of public commenters. \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: and then\, of course\, there’ll be time for the committee\, discussion and possible direction to the landowners and staff. \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: So in 2\,021 the Commission received a steady stream of complaints from members of the public regarding the number of vessels\, many being occupied as residences that were anchored on public property in the Oakland. Alam to estuary \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: and also Complaints regarding the number of encampments located along the shoreline of the Estuary in B. Cdc’s\, 100 foot shoreline band jurisdiction\, including in b Cdc. Required public access areas. \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: These issues were occurring on this\, on the property belonging to the cities of Oakland and Alameda\, and als0 0n property owned by the port of Oakland and the East Bay Regional Park district. \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: as well as on privately owned properties. \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: Those are just a few slides from last year’s presentations identifying locations of the issues last year. \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: In response to these public concerns\, Staff scheduled an Enforcement committee briefing. \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: and the city’s presentations describe the the conditions they were facing at the time \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: the resources that were available\, and lacking to enable them to address the encampment and Ankara issues on their properties. \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: their plans t0 0vercome the constraints and the timeline to resolve the issues. At that time. You also heard from a number of State agencies\, and one Federal agency listed \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: on the slide about the authority and resources they have to support resolution of these issues. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Excuse me\, Adrian. Just so. You know the only slide that I see is your title page I don’t know. \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: Thank you. \nWell\, thank you. Sorry about that. Let me unshare and reshare. \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: So. Are you still seeing only the title slide? \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: No\, no\, you’re fine now. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, we’re on. We’re on the slide. Now that I okay. \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: thank you. \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: This was the showing who presented last year from the local agencies\, and then also from the State and Federal Government. \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: and I was just reviewing the \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: information that you received from the cities. \nSo these were the city of Oakland commitments which I think I was just about to review for you. So \nlet’s see here \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: so essentially \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: right. Both agencies have had some constraints\, and and the the the the report from the our sister State agencies\, the prior slide\, were \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: included to ensure that we were all aware of the resources available to support the local governments in managing these these challenging issues. \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: So the city of Oakland. \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: at at the time of the presentation a year ago\, had approximately 15 vessels in their waters and shoreline encampments along the bay trail. During that meeting they made a number of commitments \nwhich was to clear the the most significant encampment between Dennis and Livingston streets. \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: That is a typo\, it should say\, by March fifteenth 2023. My apologies \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: to develop and implement a comprehensive policy for dealing with the ankles both occupied and unoccupied\, and both floating and sunken vessels. \nand to include support from the district attorney to fall through on marine patrol citations. \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: They were going to look into secure vessel storage to get both off the water\, because oftentimes there is a lag between\, let’s say\, funding to destroy the boats\, and there is obviously less impact if they can be taken off the water \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: as soon as possible\, and held in a safe place until there is funding available. \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: and the city was going to explore additional funding for additional marine controls on the water through the port. \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: So now the city of Alameda commitments were to establish an alternate location for unsheltered people\, so that the shoreline encampments could be cleared \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: or relocated away from the water. They were going to use the division of voting and waterways. \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: save funds\, surrendered and abandoned vessel\, exchange program funds to remove the \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: abandoned and derelict vessels in their waters at the time they were going to work with the local marinas to remove abandoned vessels \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: to prevent them from becoming anchor outs\, and there was a vessel on private property\, and they were going to work with that landowner to help remove it. \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: At the time of the briefing last year in Alameda there were a few recurring vessel issues at Crowd Cove and incidental beach. and following the meeting\, we received the report that there was a short encampment at the north end of Main Street. \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: So the direction provided by the Enforcement Committee following the city’s presentations were to cause removal of the ancraft and accountants within a year. So by this or next month. \nadopt the necessary policies to \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: promote prevention and legislate to address gaps. and then to provide ongoing direction to staff and the Enforcement Committee. \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: It was a long meeting staff provided you with an update the following month in March to summarize some of the best practices that had been suggested during the presentations. \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: and we stated that we would urge the cities to consider adoption of some of these best practices. and also Chair Gilmore requested\, in addition to these\, that \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: the Alameda County Sheriff’s marine patrol be involved in these coordination meetings. \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: So \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: we have met faithfully every month since last year\, and I can attest that the local agencies are working hard to address these issues. \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: The meetings have included the cities of Alameda and Oakland\, as well as representatives from the East Bay Regional Park District\, and the Court of Oakland. However\, unfortunately\, we are not able to \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: indicate that all the issues have been fully addressed. Conditions are improved\, but but issues are not fully resolved. \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: We. I believe we only provided you with one briefing during the year that was in September. \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: and so we will go ahead. If you would like us to continue with present with briefings this year\, we we will go ahead and schedule those ahead of time. \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: These questions on the slide are for your consideration\, following the public comments. And so with that I will now turn the \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: floor over. As this concludes my presentation\, so up next would be Joe Debris\, the Deputy City administrator\, followed by Lieutenant Eric Klaus from Alameda’s Police department. Thank you\, Thank you\, Adrian. \nJoe DeVries\, City of Oakland: Thank you. Adrian. I I appreciate the the introduction and Shareperson Gilmore. First. I want to apologize\, and that I I don’t have a powerpoint. You may have heard the city was hit with a a pretty significant ransomware attack \nJoe DeVries\, City of Oakland: a week ago\, and many of us are still working from home trying to piece together our old documents. I think I might be back at City Hall tomorrow\, so i’m a little compromised. But I am going to run through what we’ve done\, what we’ve accomplished\, and what’s about to take place. And actually\, I want to also just state \nJoe DeVries\, City of Oakland: from some of the comments I heard earlier from the public. We we recognize that this is not an acceptable circumstance. We do believe the estuary deserves the protection the debate plan offers. We do. We are not happy with the environmental degradation and the impact on people who are using the the \nJoe DeVries\, City of Oakland: the estuary legitimately\, like like our rolling clubs. And so all this is to is to to meet that. \nJoe DeVries\, City of Oakland: In short\, when we met that we began drafting an opd policy regarding the removal of abandoned vessels last year\, and I just want to remind people. Historically\, this was brought on by a legal claim filed against the city for the removal of an abandoned both that ended \nJoe DeVries\, City of Oakland: with a pretty significant settlement\, and so for abandoned vessels\, and I want to distinguish between abandoned \nJoe DeVries\, City of Oakland: and illegal liver boards for abandoned vessels. The city has the authority to remove those those vessels\, but felt strongly after that lawsuit that we needed to develop a more specific \nJoe DeVries\, City of Oakland: opd policy regarding noticing time limits and and just basically a standard operating procedure before we could remove those vessels. Also\, in in the summer we we brought on outside council \nJoe DeVries\, City of Oakland: to help us develop our our our policy end up up upcoming ordinance because of their experience in Richardson Bay\, and it’s also a little \nbegan to post notices on these vessels. \nJoe DeVries\, City of Oakland: We actually began. I I know\, Adrian had said\, 15 vegetables\, but we actually estimate closer t0 25 vessels in 2\,022. They were out there. We’ve recently accounted for 18 it. It appears that the initial noticing that Opd. Did\, allowed for 5 Vessels to leave to unknown destinations. So we had voluntary compliance from 5 0f those vessels. 2 vessels were toad or or removed from the water this winter\, more would have been removed. \nJoe DeVries\, City of Oakland: but as as the Enforcement staff know\, our boat sucked up to breed during one of those removals\, and was put out a commission for a while. \nJoe DeVries\, City of Oakland: otherwise we would have been able to move more of the abandoned vessels \nJoe DeVries\, City of Oakland: we have. We’ve been working with outside Council\, and I think this is the most significant development to is to draft an Ordinance to give opd the authority to address nuisance vessels with people living aboard. And and again we working with outside council. Who’s here today? Gabriel Ross can can speak to this if necessary. \nJoe DeVries\, City of Oakland: Our municipal code did not give us the authority to enforce on on liva boards\, and so we’ve drafted an ordinance that will give opd that authority that ordinance is scheduled to go before the Public Safety Committee this coming Monday at 1 30. I I encourage anyone who’s interested in this topic to come to that meeting and to speak on on on the issue. \nJoe DeVries\, City of Oakland: If it does pass committee successfully\, it will go to the full Council on March seventh. \nJoe DeVries\, City of Oakland: Once it’s adopted in in regard to what implementation will look like. You know our our marine patrol will will train current auxiliary officers\, and they’ll conduct targeted enforcement operations. First educate those living a board of the new policy\, and to give them time to come up with a plan to leave \nJoe DeVries\, City of Oakland: those who refuse to move the city will implement the new policy and relocate them\, or remove their vegetables from the estuary following the new policy guidelines\, and I I just \nJoe DeVries\, City of Oakland: pause here to comment that this runs very close to the very controversial issues of of of around homelessness in Oakland. And so we’re. We’re very sensitive to how this could play out\, and we’re familiar with what happened in in Richardson Bay and in Sals Alito\, so I I don’t think it’ll be an easy lift\, but it certainly will have the mechanism mechanism in place to do it. \nJoe DeVries\, City of Oakland: Regarding the storage as as Adrian mentioned\, we we were looking at a at a place to store \nJoe DeVries\, City of Oakland: vessels that are removed from the water. We consider the former crier building site next to Union Plane Park\, but instead have continued to use the Jack London Square Co. Aquatic Center Parking Lot\, which works for Opd. The prior building site is now being considered to be used as a community garden operated by a women’s Recovery group as part of our efforts to bring more positive energy back to Union Plant Park\, and \nJoe DeVries\, City of Oakland: as this committee knows\, Union Point Park is an issue that we’ve worked on together quite a bit. Today’s meeting is not about Union Point part\, but we’ve made a lot of progress there in bringing we have a a a middle school that’s adopted the park. They’re doing regular clean ups. We’ve put in a lot of physical barriers to to prevent some of the unwanted activity\, and so \nJoe DeVries\, City of Oakland: creating a a community garden at the choir building\, felt better as a plan than storing derelict boats. I also want to touch on another issue that Adrian didn’t spend a lot of time while but we really did focus on \nJoe DeVries\, City of Oakland: encampments all along the waterfront. We do have a an encampment at lead drive. It’s primarily our V’s. And I. I want to note that while we’ve done regular cleanings\, and we’ve tried to coordinate with the \nWe are opening a new safe\, Rv. Parking facility at 66 Avenue right now. It’s actually already functioning with 29 parking spaces for rvs that number will grow t0 104\, when we fully open the the facility by about mid-march \nJoe DeVries\, City of Oakland: that will give the city rv parking spaces t0 0ffer people that are illegally encamped\, and the waterfront\, of course\, being up a priority location\, because it’s proximity to the water\, we could see that that encampment actually being closed in the coming months. \nOne thing is\, you know it with the removal of the boats. Now that we’re at the point where we can both remove\, abandoned\, and then\, with the adoption of the ordinance\, remove \nJoe DeVries\, City of Oakland: live awards. We will be seeking about a $150\,000\, and grant money from the State to to to cover the cost. This is triple\, the normal amount that the city asks for\, and it will be a big lift. But I feel like our policy policies will be in place to really make a difference over the coming months. Now that we’ve done our our internal homework. \nJoe DeVries\, City of Oakland: and that’s that’s my report\, and i’m happy to take questions or invite other staff to speak as you see fit. Thank you. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: Your muted chair. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: I’m sorry. Thank you very much. I think i’m inclined right now to hear from the city of Alameda before we get into the the question and comment period\, unless there’s \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: a committee member who has a burning question right now. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: I don’t see that. So let’s go to the city of Alameda. Thank you. \nLt. Erik Klaus: Good morning. I appreciate the time today kind of a brief overall what the city of Alameda has been doing the last course of last year\, and now \nLt. Erik Klaus: our marked 20 has been working diligently for the through. The \nLt. Erik Klaus: Our retail units usually out there twice a week \nLt. Erik Klaus: since very early 2021. It’s been approximately 12 0ver 200Â h on the on the both. \nSince \nLt. Erik Klaus: late October early of February\, 2020 0r January 2021 0ur rainfall is removed just over 17 vessels that were derelict. \nLt. Erik Klaus: and for that work through the tip we work with OP. The Us. Coast Guard and Parker dive to remove these vessels. \nLt. Erik Klaus: We currently have 8 vessels on our \nwaiting list in detail. \nLt. Erik Klaus: and and the list continues to grow daily. I get calls \nLt. Erik Klaus: almost daily on\, You know\, vessels throughout\, not only out or through Oakland\, but across the Bay San Francisco. \nLt. Erik Klaus: Some are from our marinas \nLt. Erik Klaus: as of today. We have spent about 50 $45000 of the $100\,000 for this year’s Grant. \nLt. Erik Klaus: We’ll continue to move forward with that funding. \nLt. Erik Klaus: We continue to work with our communicate\, communicate with our local marine as an Alimeda. We’ve established a communication list for all the Harvard masters. They can stay in on top of any complaints they may have. \nLt. Erik Klaus: You know\, such as v-tip vessels that are in their marines that need to be taken care of. \nLt. Erik Klaus: We’ve also encouraged those harvard masters to communicate with one another. so they can work together to resolve the significant issues that they have \nLt. Erik Klaus: as we progress through the years. I’ve directed my memory full unit to work with our local harbor masters on a monthly basis\, just to make sure things are progressing well in arenas. \nLt. Erik Klaus: They don’t have any vessels that are hazard to the the waterways\, etc.\, or that they need to get rid of \nLt. Erik Klaus: as of yesterday. Only one Marina requested assistance with the V tech vessel they wanted to get rid of throughout all of our morning is in Alameda. \nLt. Erik Klaus: Our\, As you all may know\, our main street quarter\, right across from the port of open was significantly impacted\, or with you on house \nLt. Erik Klaus: individuals that had set up our these makeshift tents\, etc.\, and it was completely packed. It didn’t even park in that parking lot. \nLt. Erik Klaus: Since then\, through our efforts\, using\, you know\, outreach programs such as building features see. \nLt. Erik Klaus: and our newly designed care team to the the fire department. \nWe’ve assisted the on housed population over there to build a path to their own self service. \nLt. Erik Klaus: We currently have 6 best vehicles that are parked there on the main street. They none of them are on the waterways. They are a long \nLt. Erik Klaus: roadway on Main Street\, a away from the waterway. The parking lot is completely out. \nLt. Erik Klaus: and \nLt. Erik Klaus: I really \nLt. Erik Klaus: I I I think it’s important to know that. You know we’ve been working diligently to try to keep. You know the waterways \nLt. Erik Klaus: clear from hazards\, etc.\, but we also want to. I know opd’s got a lot on their hands on their side\, and anything that we can do the system out to to progress. \nwe will certainly welcome to do so. \nLt. Erik Klaus: It’s really all I have. You have any questions on? \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you very much\, both of you for taking the time to to be here this morning. Are there any questions from committee members? \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Commissioner Eisen. \nThank you. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: Thank you to Mr. Debris and Lieutenant Klaus. I’m wondering\, You know\, Adrian put up that very nice slide that said what the commitments were of the 2 cities \nback a year ago. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: and I imagine that in your reports you’ve addressed those. But i’m wondering if we could go back to those slides and just get sort of a quick. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: quick summary of where we stand on the various items that we’re not to repeat anything you’ve said\, but just to be sure that we’ve covered all the things that we’re in that slide. That’s one thing I would request\, and the second is\, I don’t have a good sense \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: of how many abandoned vessels and level boards we had a year ago\, and how many we have now. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: So I I don’t know if that’s easily summarized numerically\, but it would help me to see how much progress \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: has been made\, because I I know from the Richardson Bay situation that it’s often a 2 steps forward\, one step back. \nkind of scenario. So those are the 2 questions I have of the of the cities \nLt. Erik Klaus: i’d be happy to to try to address as far as the advantage or derelict vessels we currently have none. \nLt. Erik Klaus: I don’t know the exact number that we had when we first began\, but I want to say it was 4 0r 5. \nNo \nLt. Erik Klaus: little bit off on that number\, but it was close to that. But I have since got rid of all of them. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: Okay\, and and liverboards. \nLt. Erik Klaus: None that were the the ones that we do have. Little boards are within the marine isn’t there\, following those guidelines of the marines. \nLt. Erik Klaus: but they can \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: all right. Well\, we have a Adrian city of Oakland commitment slide up. I’m wondering\, Mr. Debris\, if you would mine just running through those very quickly. \nJoe DeVries\, City of Oakland: Sure\, thank you through the chair. So the first one\, the candidate between Dennison and Livingston\, was cleared\, and\, I believe\, is remained in pretty good shape. In fact\, the community. There were some K. Rails put down on the street\, and I think the community did a beautiful job painting them. So they actually had a lot of charm today \nJoe DeVries\, City of Oakland: to the area as far as the comprehensive policy. Again\, we now have a a policy for Opd. For abandoned boats. \nJoe DeVries\, City of Oakland: and our policy for illegal liver boards requires a new municipal code ordinance which is coming next week. I will be candid that on the the commitment to include support from the district attorney. I have not engaged the district attorney on. I don’t know if Officer Albino\, who’s in the Attendee column has\, if he if he wants to speak to that he could certainly raise his hand. We’ve certainly had a change in the administration there\, and so \nJoe DeVries\, City of Oakland: I doubt the new city. The new district attorney has gotten this on their radar yet\, but certainly that’s something we need to work on. Still\, again on the storage area. We we are using the jack on an aquatic square\, parking a aquatic center\, parking lot. \nJoe DeVries\, City of Oakland: not the prior building. And then this option of funding additional marine patrols\, you know. This came up through some meetings\, and I I\, to be honest\, I don’t. \nJoe DeVries\, City of Oakland: I think we’ve been able to quantify what \nJoe DeVries\, City of Oakland: any additional marine patrol needs are\, and I think that’s we’ve had a candid conversation with the port. You know the ports been clear that they they’re funding what they’re funding\, and that if we feel that there’s\, you know\, a need for increased patrol. We we need to have a a separate meeting on that\, as you probably know\, Opd struggled desperately with some of the lowest staffing levels ever in 2000 22021We are making a rebound which is exciting. We\, you know we’re over $700\, \nJoe DeVries\, City of Oakland: officers and and more academies on the way\, but we’ve not fully vetted. The what the need for additional marine patrol is in regard to the number of boats. We actually identified 25 in 2\,022 \nJoe DeVries\, City of Oakland: 18 0f which are left again we we removed 2 and 5 left voluntarily\, but I think the bigger work we did in 2\,022 was to prepare ourselves to have the pro policies and procedures in place\, so that we can do a lot more removals in 2\,023 now. But now that we’re at that point \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: and that’s the that’s the abandoned vessels right\, not the liberal works that it’s a combination. Actually. \nJoe DeVries\, City of Oakland: thank you. And and i’ll be\, and i’ll be frank. Yeah\, there was one situation where 3 boats were moored together near Union Plane Park\, my understanding Just recently one of them sunk\, one of them half sunk\, and as an anecdotal note. \nJoe DeVries\, City of Oakland: a lot of the one of the problems we were experiencing. Union Plant Park in the southern parking lot was \nJoe DeVries\, City of Oakland: stolen\, vehicles being dumped and stripped there\, and I think it’s notable that those vehicles being dumped in strip\, that the incidence of that has gone down to almost 0 since those boats that were moored out there sunk. \nJoe DeVries\, City of Oakland: and one of the people involved seems to have moved on to go somewhere else. And I think that’s a just a a cause and effect example of why this work is so important both on the water and on the land \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: and the 18 that remained. Do you have even a guesstimate? As to when that number will be down t0 0. \nJoe DeVries\, City of Oakland: We are seeking additional save grant funds that typically the funding cycle is in April. So we are not in a position to remove Vessels \nJoe DeVries\, City of Oakland: likely until then\, unless opd were to maybe partner with Alameda. If they have money left over\, we could use some of that to remove some really really tricky ones\, and I do want to give Officer Albino the opportunity to speak if you’d like him to\, because he’s really the one on the water doing the heavy lifting. I’m just a guy that gets to show up at meetings and talk. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: and I don’t know if the city of Alameda commitments had any issues on it. That lieutenant class was yet to address. But can you pull that up quickly\, Adrian? \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: Hello. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: Adrian. \nLt. Erik Klaus: I can. I’ve got the list in front. I can’t pull it up on the screen. But \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: oh\, that would be great. Yeah. Established an alternate location for unsheltered people. So City\, can you relocate \nLt. Erik Klaus: our main in camp? It was there\, off of Main Street. \nLt. Erik Klaus: I said. There was 6 vehicles left. All of the other ones have been moved\, and the UN sheltered individuals have been relocated or provided assistance. \nusing safe funds for move. 7 existing abandoned vessels\, like I said\, we have none left at this time \nLt. Erik Klaus: perfect marine is to take abandoned vessels if they are left. If there’s left over safe funding. \nLt. Erik Klaus: you are working with Marinas\, there is one Marina that has one that’s a and then work with private landlords. Remove the sunken vessel. There was a vessel that was stuck sunken in the inner basin \nthat was handled a while back. \nLt. Erik Klaus: and there’s no longer there. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: Great! That’s great. And and thank you for going through that exercise. And I just want to add\, before \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: I stopped talking\, that I really appreciate the the public and his voices. comments\, and I am enormously \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: concerned and sympathetic with the situation she’s described. I mean. I live in Oakland. I also am a rower\, and I the number of places that folks can have access to the water in Oakland is relatively small\, given the size of the city. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: and to have any of them \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: challenged in the way that she described is a real hit to the city and to the its occupants and my neighbors\, and I I I hope that we can make some real progress that will enable people to access the bay \nfrom Oakland in a much more positive way. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you. Commissioner Vasquez. Did you have any questions or comments? Yeah\, you know\, Slide 6 if you put it back up. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: You know\, Marie\, we’ve heard this over the years about derelict sunk and abandoned vehicles. However\, you want to categorize them. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: It it seems as if we. We just keep approaching at a piecemeal effort. you know. Cal Recycle sometimes has money\, for every one of the 9 beer of county suffers with some kind of \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: vessel or vehicles in the water\, and it’s become a terrible\, terrible issue\, not environmentally\, but just making the waterways passable \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: along with a \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: all the other things that go along with it\, and it seems as if we’ve had these presentations in the past. I don’t know. Maybe it’s BC. DC. That calls for \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: they will. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: The 9 counties that come together working with the Da\, so have a more aggressive program in place\, and calling on the State to say\, find the funding for it. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: because you know\, as we \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: even our audit\, the audit of B. C. DC. Indicated that we’re not doing enough Well\, nobody’s doing enough because it’s not coordinated\, and we’re always looking for grants and money\, because n0 0ne entity can do it by themselves. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: You know \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: you go ahead. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: I I I was just gonna say I I think that’s a very good point\, and maybe that’s something that the committee needs to agendize. \nso we can talk about it\, and potentially bring it back \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: to the full commission for discussion to kind of get the ball rolling. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: But but having said that\, I don’t think \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So that’s that. Mutually exclusive from holding \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: the the separate agencies to their commitments that they made to remove derelict and and vessels\, and and anchor out. So I think\, think what i’m saying is\, we should get the ball rolling on the coordinated 9 Bay effort while we still kind of chug along with what we’ve been \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: entity that you know it’s it’s staffing it’s cost. We’re working on it\, you know \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: I I don’t know why the legislation hasn’t changed so we can deal with these derelict and abandoned vehicles\, vessels in in the waterways it \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: much more easily. and then the whole thing of recycling them\, or trying to get rid of them. I I know we do it small. Can we deal with them? Just? We just get a handful of those out of the water. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: and just the cost\, because a lot of times they’re loaded with stuff that people don’t want oils and pesticides and everything else \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: just dumped in the in the in the Delta or in the bay. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: It just seems that over the years we’ve heard this and heard this. And \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: yeah\, we all know it’s a problem. But you know\, coming with a global solution global by the bay area and the Delta itself\, it doesn’t run \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: Delta County is running into the same problem. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So i’m based on your comments. I’m going to suggest to Staff that at a future date we agenda is this for discussion \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: with with the I to presenting it \nto the the full commission to get the ball rolling. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: What I would say about this particular \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: scenario before us\, and and I think Rebecca alluded to it. This reminds me very much of Ssalito and Richard since Bay. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and maybe we need to somewhat handle it in the same way. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So i’m a little bit distressed that we didn’t think about having an inventory a year ago \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: of what exactly was in the estuary\, because if you don’t. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: if you don’t measure it. It doesn’t get done right. So my suggestion at least going forward is\, we have an inventory of exactly what’s there\, and and sort of a list of what we’re working to to resolve. So that’s that’s one thing. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: And then to the general comment that I think Mr. Degrees made about patrolling the estuary \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: part of the problem that we have. So I think it was back in 2\,013. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: There was a a multi agency\, you know\, State Federal attempt\, and we cleaned up the estuary right\, and it looked great for a while. But part of the problem is that there’s no there’s no vigilance. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and things are allowed to creep back in\, and then we’re at the same stage that we are now. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: And so what I so to to Mr. Dre’s point. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: One of the things you can ask the the folks at the port for is okay. This is why we need \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: more patrols\, because the more patrols we have out there. It’s a deterrence for people dumping stuff illegally\, and also the sooner we find out about it \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: the greater the potential for dealing with it in a timely fashion. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and also I’m. I think we’re all frustrated at at the fact that we make progress is\, I think\, somebody said\, it’s 2 steps forward\, one step back\, and I think that’s an area where \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: the patrols could could definitely help \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: A. And I understand that you know there there are constraints. We were just sent a couple of pictures of \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: abandoned vessels at at boat slips in public boat slips in Jack London Square. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and to me that’s really frustrating\, because that seems to me that it would be sort of low hanging fruit. The the vessel is abandoned\, and while it’s tied up there\, people who are coming to\, you know. Enjoy Jack London Square boat. Wise\, you know\, can’t tie up because there’s something there. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and that\, to me seems like sort of the lowest hanging through\, and and it’s the kind of thing that’s the kind of thing that makes. I think the public really really frustrated\, and make them feel like there’s not a whole lot happening. And and and I agree\, I I agree you guys have done. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and both cities have \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: put in some substantial efforts\, you know\, over the last year\, and you are to be commended. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: But then\, like I said\, you see the low hanging fruit. You kind of go. Well. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: why didn’t they take care of this? \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So that that’s sort of one comment. And and I especially want to commend the city of Oakland? Because you saw the need to get your regulations and policies changed. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and you’re doing that\, and that’s not easy. So I just\, I\, you know\, want to give you guys a serious pad on the back for doing that. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: The one other question I have. And this goes back to patrolling. Did anybody check in with the sheriff’s department about their boat\, and what their boats doing. \nJoe DeVries\, City of Oakland: Well\, n0 0ne’s talking so I will\, you know I would. I would ask Officer Albino\, I I I noticed you promoted him to panelists. I just that’s that’s I don’t have that detail\, and i’m not sure if the lieutenant from Alameda does \nJoe DeVries\, City of Oakland: but good good chance for off for Albino to say hello if he’s available to do so. \nOfc. K. Albino: Good morning\, Good morning to the committee. Thank you for having me here in regards to Alameda County sheriff. They have been out there on the water. They’re also experiencing a big staffing shortage. \nOfc. K. Albino: and they don’t have a full time maritime\, you know. Part of their maritime unit is through their bomb disposal unit. \nso they’re caught up with that as far as their manning goes. \nOfc. K. Albino: and as far as the inventory goes\, I’m. \nOfc. K. Albino: Maybe it was unclear before\, but we started last year with 25 vessels. and ultimately we’re down t0 18 now. i’m going to apply for a $150\,000 and grant funding in April \nOfc. K. Albino: i’m projecting that money to be released int0 0ur hands around July timeframe. \nOfc. K. Albino: and then i’m hoping to do a clean up in late summer\, early fall\, and i’m hoping that 18 turns into a 0 by the end of the year. \nOfc. K. Albino: So that’s my goal for those vessels there. \nOfc. K. Albino: and then a big way to mitigate these vessels from coming out and becoming illegally anchored\, is sh them through the vessel\, turn in program \nOfc. K. Albino: where owners will surrender their vote to the State. That’s where I can kind of catch these boats before they end up in the estuary\, illegally anchor down. and as far as an additional maritime officer we’re not approved yet \nOfc. K. Albino: to have one full time. but we have about 10 auxiliary units \nOfc. K. Albino: to this with these operations on an overtime basis. So that’s kind of how we’re handling that right there. \nOfc. K. Albino: Any other questions for me at this time. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Actually\, I I do have a question. You mentioned the vessel turn in. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: How aware is the voting community about that program? So I guess my question is\, is it more incumbent on you to tell them\, or is it something that they voluntarily say? Hey\, you know my both on its last legs? I want to turn it in. \nOfc. K. Albino: Typically it goes through the harbor\, master. If they’re \nOfc. K. Albino: boat is mechanically failing\, or it’s sinking\, they’ll go to the Harvard Master and the Harvard master. Usually we’ll give them some options on how \nOfc. K. Albino: to mitigate their vessel from becoming some \nOfc. K. Albino: part of that is\, through the division of boating and waterways. I’m listed. My specific name and phone number are listed on the website. \nOfc. K. Albino: so you can go search\, and I believe maybe Lieutenant Klaus or Alameda police is also \nOfc. K. Albino: on that site as well. So I received calls weekly and monthly\, and I have a log \nOfc. K. Albino: of about 11 vessels right now on the waiting list to turn in their votes. So I know that the information is out there because I receive calls pretty frequently. \nOfc. K. Albino: and that’s one way for them to do it. And then for these boats that are anchored out. I also verbally tell them that’s an option for them is to surrender their both to the state of their \nOfc. K. Albino: in over their head. They’re both syncing something like that. \nOkay. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: thank you. \nCommissioner Isa. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: Thank you. I I just wanted to add that I I really appreciate Commissioner V. As his comment about \nseeking some kind of a regional approach\, and and the chairs \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: comment that we should agendize this and maybe move it forward to the full commission. To me this whole question about the anchor out and the abandoned vessels and the access \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: it’s. It’s shot through with environmental justice issues\, I think. and \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: you know some communities have much more ability to address those issues than others\, and if we can work together as a region \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: to solve these problems for all of the communities around the bay. I think it would just be\, you know\, so much better for everyone. But \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: So I i’m really glad that we’re going to be doing what the chair suggested\, because I think it really does have those issues in it\, and we are committed to doing something about those issues\, and we’ve recommitted to it recently. So i’m glad to see that \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: those thoughts Are there. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, any other Commissioner comments. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Don’t See any? \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay? Well\, now\, we will take public comments on this item\, which is item number 6 0n the agenda. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and I’m going to make a notation for the record that we have received 8 written comments on this item. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: S0 0nce again\, if you’re a member of the public\, and would like to provide comments. You will need to raise your hand by clicking on the participants\, tab in zoom or by phone\, dialing Star 9 to raise your hand and Star 6 to unmute yourself. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Margie will then announce you and invite you to comment. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Comments should be kept t0 3Â min\, and Margie will be keeping track of time\, and this is a request for comments on Item 6\, \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and I know we have public comments. So\, Margie\, do you want to start us off with the first individual. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Yes\, we have Rock the lap first on the list. \nBrock de Lappe: Good morning\, Commissioners. My name is Brock to Lap. To begin with\, it is important to acknowledge the work that the city of Oakland has accomplished during the past 2 years to remove encampments from Union Point Park. \nBrock de Lappe: The open and barked Arrow and the San Francisco Bay trail. \nBrock de Lappe: This was a challenging undertaking\, and it has resulted in a tremendous improvement to the embarked arrow Neighborhood \nBrock de Lappe: Major Credit is due to Joe Debris\, the tonda\, Simmons open public works and the \nBrock de Lappe: bravo. What this does show is that where there is a will there is a way. \nBrock de Lappe: What remains an untouched and growing problem is the Oakland estuary waterfront. which has been severely impacted by a large number of anchor out and abandoned wrecks \nBrock de Lappe: to be clear\, it is illegal to anchor anywhere on the Oakland estuary. \nBrock de Lappe: Nevertheless\, a criminal element has been allowed to totally flaunt this prohibition. The consequences are severe threat to health and safety of the general public. \nBrock de Lappe: This is a clear and present danger. \nBrock de Lappe: Since late December many vessels have sunk or drifted loose unmanned\, creating a serious threat to navigation. \nBrock de Lappe: An anchor out off Union Point Park\, recently caught fire and sank. And now the wreck is an unmarked hazard to navigation\, only visible at low tide. \nBrock de Lappe: Private docks and marinas have derelicts tied up without permission\, and they have not been cited by the Opd. For trespass \nBrock de Lappe: owners have no ability to deal with this unwanted intrusion. \nBrock de Lappe: The condition on the estuary has been allowed to reach a true code red status. I’m. Aware of the new nuisance vessel ordinance that has been created by the city of Oakland. \nBrock de Lappe: It still requires the full approval of the city council. \nBrock de Lappe: This is a necessary step in addressing this problem. \nBrock de Lappe: What wasn’t clear from the text of the document is the source of funding necessary to conduct a cleanup that would remove all anchor outs sunken wrecks and shoreline debris. \nBrock de Lappe: I have tremendous respect for the Oakland Police Department Marine patrol officers\, and I know that if it was up to them conditions on the estuary would never have gotten so bad. \nBrock de Lappe: It is absolutely imperative that the marine patrol unit be properly staffed with certified personnel\, and that they have all the equipment and authorization to undertake the required cleanup and ongoing patrols to prevent a recurrence \nBrock de Lappe: if the required funding is not available from the city or port of Oakland. Efforts should be made t0 0btain the necessary resources from Alameda County\, State of California\, or the Federal Government. \nBrock de Lappe: The EPA provided 3.5 million dollars for the 2\,013 cleanup. and the Department of Homeland Security has assisted the Oakland Police Department with a three-quarter 1 million dollar moose patrol vessel \nBrock de Lappe: they could assist again to meet the need for on the water law enforcement\, especially considering that the port of Oakland is the fourth largest port on the west coast. \nBrock de Lappe: The continued lack of timely on the water law enforcement would be extremely irresponsible. \nBrock de Lappe: I hope I hope\, that we can move forward with this and that we won’t again\, go through another year\, and have the same situation exist as it has during this past year. Thank you. Thank you very much. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Next up we have Steve Mcphessel. \nMr. Fessel\, please state your name for the record. \nSteveMeckfessel: My name is Steve Mcfast\, so can you hear me? \nSteveMeckfessel: Yes\, yes\, and I am the manager at Marina Bella Jot Harbor in Alameda. \nSteveMeckfessel: First of all\, I want to say this is one of the most encouraging public hearings I’ve ever attended or been to. I really support all of the comments made by \nChair Gilmour\, as well as the Commissioners\, as well as the speakers. \nSteveMeckfessel: I don’t want to take a lot of your time. I also\, by the way\, want to thank being in Alameda\, the great work that Lieutenant the lieutenant\, has done\, and his team has done. \nSteveMeckfessel: I do want to just emphasize that I concur that this is a huge issue and problem\, and the biggest threat to the estuary in bay that’s out there right now. \nSteveMeckfessel: It seems like we all have people committed to do it\, and I I love the idea of getting the 9 counties together on this and some sort of state fine funding. So I encourage you to all to do what you’re continuing to do. I thank you\, and just one again emphasize that \nSteveMeckfessel: this is really a threat from an environmental standpoint. It’s a threat from a safety standpoint. It’s that a threat to the health of the estuary in the bay. Thank you very much for your efforts. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Thank you very much. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Next we have Tanya voice \ndefinitely. \nTanya Boyce: Hello! Can you hear me. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Yes\, we can. \nTanya Boyce: Okay\, great. S0 0nce again I’m Tanya\, Boyce. East Oakland Resident. \nTanya Boyce: I want to say that \nTanya Boyce: I do not think that the city of Oakland has done a great job. I’m grateful that my neighbor \nTanya Boyce: doesn’t have the encampments in his neighborhood anymore\, but I want to let him and everyone know that they move from there over to lead where the cabinet has grown exp potentially\, and I know that my very good friend\, like Joe Devise\, has acknowledged that leap. \nTanya Boyce: It has become an encampment of big problems. But what I don’t understand\, I really can’t understand. Is that \nTanya Boyce: Why is it that the city has bathrooms there for for the people who are camping\, but doesn’t \nTanya Boyce: provide dumpsters. so that \nTanya Boyce: all of their trash is going directly into the water elite every single day. \nTanya Boyce: and if I want to walk past there\, I I can’t even have access to the walkway. That is completely unacceptable\, and I don’t see why we would wait for anything \nTanya Boyce: to fix that situation. Furthermore\, on Denison. \nTanya Boyce: so captors went from \nTanya Boyce: on top of the street to under the bridge. So when I’m. \nTanya Boyce: Rowing down the estuary. I can show you that there are still people living there\, and that’s defecating and throwing things directly into the water. There is a gigantic dump \nTanya Boyce: under the bridge full of stuff that n0 0ne has cleaned up\, and that my row was point that every time that we pass it like wow\, that’s a whole another world down there. \nTanya Boyce: I myself fell into the estuary a few months ago\, when I was trying to park my boat \nTanya Boyce: and became definitely ill\, deathly ill I I was on death’s door for like \nTanya Boyce: 2 and a half weeks. only to find out that I had round worms. \nTanya Boyce: and so we are now exposing \nTanya Boyce: our children and our cells. The Third World diseases \nTanya Boyce: that were since eradicated in our country. \nTanya Boyce: because we are not dealing with homelessness in the way that we need to the lasting point that I want to say\, and hopefully someone will hear me. Is we actually have a campsite \nTanya Boyce: East Bay Regional park runs a campsite. \nTanya Boyce: Why would they allow camping on their property on the waterfront\, instead of moving people to a camp site where there are showers and places for them to burn things and places for people who want to live outside to be outside. \nTanya Boyce: Oaklands \nTanya Boyce: policies are like there of\, have invited everybody from around the world to come here and do whatever they want\, because there’s no enforcement of any kind of any rule \nTanya Boyce: anywhere\, especially in. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Thank you very much\, Miss Boyce. Next we have Tomas0 0gia. Please stay there. Your name for the record. You have 3Â min. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Mr. Bogea. \nTommaso Boggia: Hi! My name is in the history for 12 years. \nand i’m calling in mostly to caution everyone to speak \nTommaso Boggia: kindly of the people we’re referring to these people that you referred to as the legal are poor people\, probably going through the hardest moments of their lives\, and the a lot of the language used around here is a language of criminalization\, of poverty. \nTommaso Boggia: Specifically\, one of the most egregious uses of this is pictures of the guest Talk with both Spark there\, and my boat is directly across from the guest talk. They’ve never been a problem. People cycle through here. There’s been one of the commissioners mentioned\, both being abandoned there in the guest Talk\, I guess Doc is is free right now. \nTommaso Boggia: It’s it’s been it’s free it it’s like people come in and come out\, and often both keep pictures of votes \non the guest\, Doc\, or being used to make the point that these people are \nTommaso Boggia: taken advantage of the public re of the public realm. They’re not. They just come in and out another point I wanted to make around this issue of criminalizing poverty is there’s this a lot\, this language on crisis. \nTommaso Boggia: It’s there’s definitely an environmental impact of people who do not have access to marina facilities. But if you look at any studies of the major sources of pollution in the bay. It’s not. We call anchor outs. It’s just that we we keep using these dramatic language around them\, but even might just build millions of gallons of sewage into the bay. \nTommaso Boggia: Chevron refinery is constantly spilling oil\, oil dripping from cars is what is the biggest non-source point pollution of the bay. So let’s let’s not pretend this is the biggest environmental problem in the in the estuary. Right now. There’s date on that. Look at that data. \nTommaso Boggia: Finally\, as the previous commenter said\, as a policy of criminalizing and evicting UN sheltered folks. That doesn’t provide solutions for where these people should \nTommaso Boggia: should go \nTommaso Boggia: is not a policy that works. There was one of the Commissioner pointed out that this is what’s at\, what? What’s happening now is what happened in Ssolito. Yeah\, you know why it’s happening here\, because everybody was just cleared out of Saleido without a place to go. And so now they’re coming here. If we clear them out from here\, where do you think they will go? They’ll go to the next place. \nSo we need to. Yes\, a regional solution\, but a regional solution \nTommaso Boggia: based on providing housing for people who need it. \nWe’re in the housing crisis\, and this is just another manifestation of it. Stop criminalizing poverty\, start providing public housing. Thank you \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Thank you very much. Next we have Tom\, when \ntom horton – East Bay Rowing: yes\, thank you\, i’m unmuted. Now my name is Thank you\, members of the committee. My name is Tom port\, and I’m. The volunteer boat house manager at Jacqueline Aquatic Center. As you know\, Jack Lennon is located at the south end of Jacklin and Square. \ntom horton – East Bay Rowing: and is\, in addition t0 0ther boat houses along the estuary\, such as the open strokes. \ntom horton – East Bay Rowing: It’s one of the most active public access areas to the estuary literally. There’s hundreds of hours of adult and youth activities that operate out of Jekyll out of J. Lack\, including a rowing dragon voting. \ntom horton – East Bay Rowing: kayaking\, paddle\, boarding\, and public launch and the public launch ramp. \ntom horton – East Bay Rowing: So\, with such an active facility\, we are most concerned about the public health and safety of our users\, especially our youth users. \ntom horton – East Bay Rowing: and so well we appreciate many of the comments that we’ve heard this morning. We are very concerned about the impact of the anchor out on the estuary\, both from a health and safety\, environmental and a navigational standpoint. \ntom horton – East Bay Rowing: Morning and evening the our aquatic users have to navigate through the flotilla of vessels that are more at offshore. \ntom horton – East Bay Rowing: just offshore in the cove. \nand also\, as you’ve heard along the the the shallows of the estuary\, there are numerous sunken vessels \ntom horton – East Bay Rowing: that pose both the environmental and a navigational hazard. Over the last few months Only a couple of those vessels\, including a sailboat\, have been removed. So it’s been since 2019 years since any concerted activity to remove these vessels was accomplished \ntom horton – East Bay Rowing: at J. Lack we participate in multiple shoreline cleanups throughout the year. \ntom horton – East Bay Rowing: where we literally removed tons of cast off garbage\, including hypodermic needles from the shores and beaches along the estuary\, and especially around the Jlac Cove. \ntom horton – East Bay Rowing: We’ve\, also experienced evidence of human waste being released into the into the water. And while we acknowledged that that’s not the only source of pollution\, the fact that the city of Oakland has closed the public restrooms at the public launch. Ramps really gives the anchor outs now where to go. \ntom horton – East Bay Rowing: so we do appreciate the recent efforts by the city of Oakland\, and especially the the efforts by the Oakland Marine Division to get a handle on the situation. But I think the 3 things that we really need to continue to see happen is that the city live up to its commitment \ntom horton – East Bay Rowing: to deal with the situation. \ntom horton – East Bay Rowing: and we are encouraged by the pending nuisance or ordinance. That’s good progress. But things are happening much too slowly\, and it continues to let it. The current situation grow worse \ntom horton – East Bay Rowing: that the comprehensive\, cleanup be moved along quickly and again we we appreciate all Officer Albino saying that he’s planning to clean up the summer into the fall. \ntom horton – East Bay Rowing: and then\, lastly\, that illegal mooring and anchoring of boats be cited\, and that there’d be regular enforcement on the estuary. And then\, lastly\, we are concerned to hear Mr. De. We say that the the J. Like parking lot\, may be used as a temporary storage facility for boat removal. If you were to go down on any given Saturday he would see that the entire parking lot of jailac is full. \ntom horton – East Bay Rowing: and that this would be a significant issue if that becomes a storage area. Thank you very much. Thank you. \nNext we have Libby Adelson. \nLibby Edelson: Good morning. Can you hear me? Thank you. My name is Libby Adelson. I \nLibby Edelson: was a long time resident of Oakland and I’m. A resident currently of Berkeley. \nLibby Edelson: I row at the East Bay Rowing Club \nLibby Edelson: out of Jack London Aquatic Center\, and I wanted to comment that \nLibby Edelson: rowing has significantly changed my life\, and being out on the water \nLibby Edelson: and being able to see our beautiful cities\, Alameda\, Oakland\, Berkeley\, and our ecosystem has inspired me to \nLibby Edelson: give back to both\, to work on behalf of our communities and on behalf of the environment. It’s been very life changing \nLibby Edelson: my concern with anchor outs off the Cov. Of Jack London. Aquatic Center is the danger they present to us as rowers\, especially our youth rowers\, both Oakland Tech and Berkeley High Row out of Jackland and Aquatic Center. \nLibby Edelson: For example\, there is an anchor out there currently that has an underwater rope tied to another boat. This rope is not visible to rowers that presents a significant danger. \nYou can tangled in it \nLibby Edelson: for the swamp\, etc. I’ve also witnessed \nLibby Edelson: people on live aboards come to sure in smaller boats and dump their trash in the Jack London Aquatic Center\, parking lot \nLibby Edelson: in class\, etc. I am not interested in criminalizing poverty in any way. I think it is. It’s ingenuous\, however\, to state that the bigger concern is corporate pollution. Of course that’s a bigger concern. It does not mean \nLibby Edelson: we can’t advocate for individual responsibility as well. So \nLibby Edelson: I am just here to urge \nLibby Edelson: a more timely attention to the matter of illegal anger out and \nLibby Edelson: dangers. They present both to us as individuals\, to the community\, t0 0ur environment. \nLibby Edelson: Thank you. So \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: thank you. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Next we have Matt Briven. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Mr. Bloomin. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: You’re muted. \nMatt Bliven: Good morning\, Commissioners. \nMatt Bliven: My name is Matt Blevin. \nMatt Bliven: My wife and I reside on Marina. Drive in Alameda. and our home is on the waterfront of the Oakland title Canal. Between the High Street and the Fruit Bell Avenue or Miller Sweeney Bridge. \nMatt Bliven: there has been a fair amount of attention placed on derelict and abandoned vessels in the estuary. but not much discussion or enforcement activity or action to the legal activity along the shoreline\, including the San Francisco bay trail \nMatt Bliven: across the estuary from our residents. Approximately 15 Rvs are illegally parked along Alameda Avenue. along with numerous abandoned vehicles and piles of trash effectively blocking the bike lanes and interference with traffic \nMatt Bliven: on Alameda Avenue. All of this activity falls within 100 feet of the San Francisco Bay shoreline. \nMatt Bliven: and I believe it is within BC. DC’s. Enforcement jurisdiction. \nMatt Bliven: Additionally\, on any given day. \nMatt Bliven: There are 3 t0 5 transient or abandoned vehicles parked directly on the bay trail in this vicinity Some of them are up on cinder blocks. Some are leaking oil or hydraulic fluid\, and some have people living in them. \nMatt Bliven: Currently there is an abandoned Jersey barrier which obstructs the day trail near the foot of the Miller Sweeney Bridge. It’s been there for approximately 3 weeks. \nMatt Bliven: There are also long-term unhouse people who are permitted to live beneath the elevated portion of the bay trail. In this location \nMatt Bliven: one who has created a huge garbage mound in the tidal zone directly below the bay trail. including 15 shopping cards. Yes\, 15 shopping cards. \nMatt Bliven: The garbage mound and the shopping carts are immersed twice a day during the normal title cycle. \nThe city of Oakland has previously removed the rbs along Alameda Avenue most recently\, about 3 years ag0 0nly for them to return again a few months later. \nMatt Bliven: The city has also previously dispatched. We could weekly clean up crews along Alameda Avenue\, but that practice is left as well. The San Francisco Bay trail used to be a pleasant place to bicycle\, jog\, or walk your dog\, or with your family. \nMatt Bliven: We called it our bridge to Bridge Walk. Now\, however\, it is unsafe\, unsightly\, and unpleasant to do any of these activities due to the illegal activity that has been allowed t0 0ccur. \nMatt Bliven: Finally. I note that the city of Oakland’s fruitful\, alive project is proceeding. \nMatt Bliven: which includes pedestrian and bicycle enhancements along the fruit Bell corridor\, and also connecting the bay trail between fruit bill avenue and the Jingle Town neighborhood. This project is long overdue\, and an important enhancement for the San Francisco Bay trail\, but its value is effectively diminished. If the problems I have just described are not addressed. \nMatt Bliven: Thank you for your attention today\, and the time and energy you devote to BC. DC. To resolve these issues. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Thank you very much. Next up we have. Val. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Well go ahead. \nVal: Hi! \nVal: 1Â s. \nVal: So my name is Val Hamill\, and I am a rower with the East Bay rowing club out of Jailac\, and I am also a live aboard at Union Point\, Marina. \nI \nVal: I live and have for a long time been in very close contact with the situation \nVal: all over the estuary\, and particularly the anchor out situation near the Coast Guard Island Bridge. \nVal: I want to speak to the history of this issue\, which has been going on for many years. \nVal: A a year ago in February \nthere were many presentations from the city of Oakland and Alameda and other State agencies \nVal: about \nVal: what was going on with the anchor outs\, and there were many commitments made. The cities of Oakland and Alameda \nVal: volunteered to give themselves the generous timeline of one year to complete a clean up of all anchor outs and vessels and sunken vessels \nin the estuary. \nVal: In the March meeting. I’m. Going to read. I’m. Going to quote from the Transcript. \nVal: the city of Oakland committed to develop and implement a comprehensive policy for dealing with anchor outs occupied\, unoccupied\, floating\, and sunken. \nVal: It also also in the march in the march meeting. \nAdrian Klein said that the direction recorded \nVal: from the comments following these briefings was that the cities should cause removal of the anchor outs and dry lined encampments with the one year of the briefing\, or by February 2\,023. \nVal: She also said that staff recommends that a formal and course enforcement proceeding \nVal: be commenced If the anchor outs and encampments remain unaddressed as of that date February 2023. That is the date right now. I’m also going to quote to you from the September \nVal: 2022 meeting\, where the cities of Alameda and Oakland that had committed to give updates every 3 months. \nand didn’t do so. This was the only update that was made by the cities was in September. \nVal: 2\,022. \nVal: The city of Alameda reported that they had completely handled all the anchor outs and derelict vessels and every situation on their side of the estuary and the city of Oakland reported that it had gotten exactly nothing done. \nVal: I quote again from that meeting you very much\, Val. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Next we have Mary Spicer. \nmary spicer: Hi! My name is Mary Spicer\, and I founded a \nmary spicer: a story garbage\, clean up organization called Iheart Oakland\, Alameda estuary.com in 2\,016. \nmary spicer: It was initially out of Grand Street boat ramp in Alameda\, and eventually we made ourself to the Jack London Aquatic Center. \nwhere I am the adoptive spot Lead there at Jack\, London Aquatic Center \nmary spicer: we started to clean the Oakland Alameda estuary because of the amount of garbage in our frustration \nmary spicer: I have to see and listening to the initial comments on it being piecemeal. I really do think that we need an overall structure and a whole bunch of agencies coming together to solve this issue. \nI agree with Tanya. I do think that we clean up one area and another. and everyone else will just move all to t0 0ther areas. \nmary spicer: I agree with Tomaso that I think the major garbage issue is the Storm Drain Star drain issues\, and not so much the anchor out\, but I do think that watching the boat sink over and over\, and the the \noil and the gas consistently from the sun. Boats going into the water is extremely painful and tragic to nature. \nmary spicer: I don’t think that the Jack London parking lot would be a great place to bring abandoned boats. I do think that the Jackland and Aquatic Center needs a lot more support. \nI think 150 Grant funding and waiting for April to get that done doesn’t make sense. I think we need major funding to deal with this issue. Now\, I would think that potentially the State of California must be able to give us some support to take care of this environmental issue as as soon as possible. \nmary spicer: Once the boat hits the shores\, at least on the beaches we clean. They usually stay there\, and are eventually taken under and sunk by the high tide. It is extremely painful to watch the boats take on the water\, knowing that they will leak fuel\, oil\, and that all kinds of corrosives\, one to the water. \nmary spicer: Much of the garbage that was on the boat finds its way t0 0ur bay. We pick up lots of restaurant corrosive\, flammable liquid containers\, cans of chemicals\, a few propane tanks\, needles\, and even bags of human waste on the empty shores of the estuary\, often near abandoned. Boats \nmary spicer: having boat sink is tr tragic. It’s not fair t0 0ur nature that we allow this to happen t0 0ur harbor seals\, bat race\, fish\, and shore birds. I do not understand why there is not efficient comprehensive plan to get boat boats off the water before they sink. \nmary spicer: I know many people report the stranded and abandoned boats. Sometimes they are days and weeks before the boats truly sink. It seems like it’s a preventable disaster. Can’t we tow the boats away before they sink? \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Thank you very much\, Miss Vicer. Next we have Chris Leverage. \nKris Leverich: Good morning. My name is Chris Leverage. I am the port captain at a only and yacht club. \nKris Leverich: I also volunteer with the Sea Scouts in the East Bay\, which includes growing as an activity as well as the Coast Guard rowing team at Base Alameto. \nI want to first \nKris Leverich: make sure that we’re not discounting the the factor that Well\, poverty absolutely is a major issue. The housing crisis is really crushing the most vulnerable people in the bay area that does not mean that there isn’t substantial criminal \nKris Leverich: activity\, as well as a legal activity\, or things that are in violation of law that are affecting everybody; and we all have agency in this situation\, and with that\, said \nKris Leverich: some of the enduring concerns\, I have. You’ve noticed a substantial improvement in the engagement of the city of Alameda. But we have not seen the commensurate level \nKris Leverich: of enforcement and remediation is support \nKris Leverich: on the Oakland side of the estuary. and there certainly has been a noted spike of aggregated\, unregistered vessels in a derelict condition. \nKris Leverich: Boats in that situation are not a housing solution. They’re in fact\, the most dangerous possible situation to put anyone or allow anyone to stay in an Rv. Will not sink into the parking lot at 3 in the morning a boat will absolutely do that. \nKris Leverich: and if someone’s a board. There’s certainly a risk of life\, and everything in that vessel\, including the construction of the vessel itself\, poses a hazard. \nKris Leverich: We’ve seen evidence of boats deliberately grounding to Korean\, which is scraping the bottom paint right on to the bottom and waiting for the next tide to float\, instead of properly hauling out \nKris Leverich: numerous instances. A boat dumping in Marinos spike of groundings and sinking\, seeing tragic outcomes. \nKris Leverich: pollution wise with that absence of uniform enforcement and the waterways gives warned anchor outs the game space to balance around the estuary and evade any sort of enforcement outcome\, meaningful enforcement outcome in a lot of cases \nKris Leverich: and a lot of another major concern we have is with a pending recession that hits discretional expenses for working in middle class people first. \nKris Leverich: and the recreational boating is top of the cuts we will be \nKris Leverich: as after the global financial crisis\, there’ll be a flood of quote\, UN\, quote dollar boats coming into the market that are unsailable except for minimal expense\, going to folks who may not have the means to sustain those boats which are probably already have a lot of deferred maintenance. \nKris Leverich: and find their way into the estuary. You may see many more soon. \nKris Leverich: So here’s the ask. Alameda must have partners in Alameda County Government. The o \nKris Leverich: the same degree of commitment\, and to act. Now\, Federal partners are not resourced. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Next up we have collect Lucas Conwell. \nColette Lucas-Conwell: Hi\, everyone! Thank you for your time. My name is Collette Lucas Conwell. I’m. A board member at East Bay Rowing Club and a Coxon with the Us. Wrong National team\, which trains out of the T. Gary Rogers Rowing center in Oakland. I’ll keep my comments and questions quick. \nColette Lucas-Conwell: First\, I really loved hearing more from the \nColette Lucas-Conwell: Alameda Marine Patrol unit about the monthly meetings that they have with stakeholders. I would encourage them to either invite Oakland\, Pd. And those marinas and stakeholders to them\, or for officer i’ll be you know\, to set up his own\, so that we can kind of share all this information and \nColette Lucas-Conwell: be up to date on what everybody is doing. \nColette Lucas-Conwell: Second\, I was concerned by the Assistant City Administrator’s comments that they hadn’t been able to quantify what additional needs the opd Marine Patrol has\, I think\, it’s imperative that they come back to this committee with that information about \nColette Lucas-Conwell: how many more offices they need\, how much more funding is needed. It’s really concerning that they Haven’t \nColette Lucas-Conwell: really broach this topic\, yet with the Opda Marine Patrol unit. \nColette Lucas-Conwell: and then third is for the city of Oakland to also take a look at the measure Dd. Funds\, which was a bond passed back in 2\,002\, whose purpose was to improve water quality\, Provide recreational facilities. \nColette Lucas-Conwell: Restore Oakland’s creeks\, waterfronts estuary. \nColette Lucas-Conwell: you know. There may be some left over funds there\, or projects that haven’t been undertaking yet that could be looked at\, and it would be interesting for the City administrator to come back with information on measured Dd. Funds as well. Thank you. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Thank you very much. Next we have Damon Taylor. \nDamon Taylor: Hello! \nDamon Taylor: Can you hear me? Yes. \nDamon Taylor: yes\, I am a current agent at the the Jack London Aquatic Center. I just wanted to speak on a few points. I also want to thank everyone that’s putting this together. And now everyone that’s commented so far that’s putting their input to this \nDamon Taylor: as far as the the aquatic center. \nDamon Taylor: I can say that at least in the last month or 2\, that I I personally have tried to sustain some kind of self-pleasing amongst the inkrelats there. \nDamon Taylor: and that there is an asserted effort among the people the few people that are left there. We’ve asked some people to leave because of their dangers to the rowers and whatnot\, and they they have left. \nDamon Taylor: and we’ll continue to do such things as of now as of today. Right\, now there should be a there’s a a clear lane\, all the boats that are anchored out\, which I believe is only 3 \nDamon Taylor: or you about\, so should be 4\, all of which are in working order that can all be started up and moved what needed to be. \nDamon Taylor: And and so\, anyway. we’re all making an effort to communicate with with each other to help each other out if we do have any problems\, and also join together to not only get rid of the \nDamon Taylor: of unwanted or unsafe elements there. This last weekend I gathered 5 0ther people that were liberal boards there\, and we went to round and cleaned up the parking lot\, the aquatic center\, and the and the shoreline\, which was already believe it or not\, relatively clean. \nDamon Taylor: and myself Personally\, I’ve I’ve helped\, I believe\, 4 0r 5 \nDamon Taylor: boats that we’re running around there\, get off the shore\, and and have the both removed. I i’m constantly advising anyone that has a boat that\, or does not have the skill set to be on the water to get the heck off the water\, so that you know that. So we’re we’re not\, and we’re also trying to keep any kind of criminal element which which does exist. \nDamon Taylor: you know\, away from at least the the Jacqueline aquatic center\, because it’s a smaller area\, and it’s it’s a it’s what we know small enough that amongst a few people we can\, we can sell police it Also\, if I didn’t want to come in. There was something about them having \nDamon Taylor: the Jack London\, a product center parking lot. Be a temporary place for for the \nDamon Taylor: to take both out of the water that that parking lot is not only full on weekends\, but also quite a bit \nDamon Taylor: on weekday nights. It’s just. This would be a horrible place to have staging for anything. There’s very little room there when there is a a rowers\, and there’s a a lot of young children around and whatnot\, and also. I just\, you know\, as far as the Aquax\, and I just wanted to spell a lot of the \nDamon Taylor: criminalization and bombs and villains and criminals all that kind of aspect of people there that we are trying My name’s Damon Taylor. I drive a Blue Bo and W. That sometimes park in the parking lot. I have the red boat. Anyone that misinterested it’s free to come. Talk to me personally to address any issues. Anyone that works at the Aquatic Center for the rowers that has a concern. \nDamon Taylor: I’ll be more than happy to address it and handle it for you\, because we want the rollers to be safe as well\, and we want to be able to share. You know we’re we’re in a position that we have to be. We want anyone else to\, and be able to enjoy what they do there. Thank you. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Thank you very much. John Timothy. Europe \nDamon Taylor: that \nokay? Hi! Can you hear me? \nJohn Timothy: Yes\, we can \nJohn Timothy: just about homelessness\, and \nJohn Timothy: I I am sympathetic to homeless people\, and I it’s a difficult problem. I don’t want to criminalize them. But\, on the other hand. \nJohn Timothy: being homeless\, does not entitle you to put the health and welfare of other residents at risk. And so i’m just going to \ntell you that in the last couple of weeks \nJohn Timothy: a couple of things that happened. One of those anchor outs caught fire in at about 8 30 in the in the evening\, and it the Oakland Fire department was out there in force. I think that finally was put out 45Â min later by a fireboat. But in the meantime there was \nJohn Timothy: the and and of course the boat burned down to the whole. \nJohn Timothy: And then the second thing that happened just about a week ago was that one of those anchor outs\, lost its maureen and was blown over and impacted. One of the \nboats on. The Marina crashed into it. \nJohn Timothy: and then got. We got moved over \nJohn Timothy: a few spaces down to an empty birth\, and was there for a few for a few nights. But those \nJohn Timothy: sorts of incidents are are really dangerous to the health and safety and welfare of the people around the Marina\, and not to mention property. \nJohn Timothy: So the the last thing i’m gonna just notice is that there is right in the same area. There is a boat that is halfway in and halfway out of the water and get semi submerged every time the tide gets high. That that boat has been there for for weeks. \nJohn Timothy: so I \nJohn Timothy: I just don’t understand these are vehicles\, and I don’t understand why they can’t be treated like motor vehicles are treated\, which is\, if there’s something that’s parked illegally\, you put a tag on it. The the police department puts a tag on it 72Â h to to move\, and if it’s not moved\, it is towed away \nJohn Timothy: and I think that rather than having a \nJohn Timothy: the storage place on land. Why don’t\, we just \nJohn Timothy: find a place to buoy off an area and just toe the boats over there. Leave them there\, and if they owners Don’t claim\, and then \nJohn Timothy: put them up for sale. \nJohn Timothy: So that’s my idea. Thank you for listening. I appreciate everybody’s hard work on this. I know it’s a very a difficult problem. \nJohn Timothy: Thanks. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Thank you. Next we have Hannah Sacrament. \nHannah Zucherman: Good morning. My name is Hannah Zuckerman. I am also a rower with the East\, with East Bay Rowing Club\, and I’m\, also a resident of Jack London Square. \nHannah Zucherman: I want to echo everything that my teammates have said\, and also want to say that you know I am able to walk to the aquatic center from where I live\, but often do not in the morning\, because it doesn’t feel safe. \nHannah Zucherman: and you know I’m. I’m agree with the Thomas\, who who discussion about criminalizing homelessness. But you know I want to be able to\, you know. be able to walk to and from practice not have to drive. \nHannah Zucherman: And also\, you know\, I want to also echo that the aquatic center parking lot is not. It’s even too small for our needs\, and to \nHannah Zucherman: have boats there would be difficult for us to access practice as well as access boats. We use the parking lot often to maneuver our long 8 boats\, so we need that space to be able to do that. \nHannah Zucherman: I also want to mention that you know there’s been a few times that the anchor outs have caught fire during the day\, and we’ve seen that so like the previous commenter\, said there was a boat that was right near the the dock that the generator caught fire\, and s0 0ur coach had to\, you know\, g0 0ut there to see \nHannah Zucherman: if there was someone on board and what was going on\, and that’s\, you know\, really something that we shouldn’t have to feel responsible\, you know\, not only responsible to do\, but you know that’s not necessarily something that \nHannah Zucherman: falls under our coaches description or ours as rowers. And so again\, you know\, I love being on the on the water as a rower. I love being seeing the water as a resident\, and so these are very important discussions. Thank you\, and thank you to all my teammates who have also brought up comments. Thank you. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Thank you. Last we have David Smith. \ndavid schmidt: Hello. \ndavid schmidt: Yeah. But everyone has some very good points and what not I’m just gonna for you one of my experiments being on that in that area for so many years \ndavid schmidt: the the \ndavid schmidt: exactly when but it was. could be 20 year ago t0 2 years ago there was a fight on the anchor outboats argument between me. Most people on shore and homeless people on the boats \ndavid schmidt: and the homeless people on shore road out there about a dozen of them. \ndavid schmidt: and with a giant like an 8 foot long metal bar\, and went to beat up the guy out on the anchor out. There was about a dozen of us in the Marina witnessing this \ndavid schmidt: we called the police. We’re immediately put on hold. \ndavid schmidt: stayed on hold for about 5 0r 10Â min. Eventually I had to hang up on the police because my phone on my camera would not work. Well\, it was. The phone was like overloaded. So I started video shipping the fight just after a gunshot was fired. \ndavid schmidt: Just after this guy with the 8 foot pole was swinging it on the guy with the in the boat\, and the guy in the boat came out. I mean they’re all dressed like pirates\, anyways\, but it was kind of \ndavid schmidt: interesting\, but they got comes out literally with a World War Ii dress. So we didn’t start swinging a sword around on the other dozen people. \nand then jumps back in his boat. One guy shoots the gun into the boat. \ndavid schmidt: and then the guy on the boat just goes quiet. \ndavid schmidt: So they roll away. I get on video tape. I’ve got all of the \ndavid schmidt: and assailants. and \ndavid schmidt: we show this to the police When they finally do show up. And they say\, well\, because \ndavid schmidt: you know the actual gunshots we’re not on video tape. There’s nothing we can do. \ndavid schmidt: And I was like\, Well\, there’s a dozen people here that and all the people\, all the homeless people they knew nothing was going to be done. They were just hanging around the shoreline leaning on the handrail. \ndavid schmidt: watching the police talk to us. And \ndavid schmidt: we’ve said that that’s them right there. We can all identify them\, and several of us were willing to testify. \ndavid schmidt: And they’re on this video taped\, and we’re all willing to. You know. We’re willing to testify. \ndavid schmidt: And the police said\, Well\, there’s just nothing we can do about it. \ndavid schmidt: So that’s one example. Another example is this World War Ii. \ndavid schmidt: 60 0r 70 foot boat that sank \ndavid schmidt: about a few weeks before it sank. It was drifting and almost hitting boats in the Marina. I called the Coast Guard with pictures. and they said that\, due to the they wouldn’t do anything\, and I I persisted and went higher and higher to the highest level that I could speak to in the Coast Guard. \ndavid schmidt: and he finally told me\, I said\, Tell me honestly what’s happening\, he said honestly. The situation in open. The political situation in the Oakland \nmakes it such that we can do nothing about this\, and that boat was \ndavid schmidt: blocking. A navigable channel was drifting down towards the parson bridge\, almost hit the parks through bridge\, drifted back and almost hit a bunch of goats in the green. It was nothing that Coast Guard could do \ndavid schmidt: because of the political situation in Oakland. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Next we have East Bay. \nEast Bay: Hi! My name is Denise Martini. I am the president of the Board of East Bay Rowing Club\, and you’ve heard from a number of folks so far. \nEast Bay: I’m. I’m not going to pile on the same comments. But we do have a good size club of 150 0r so adult rowers. \nEast Bay: and among our club\, Berkeley High\, an Artemis rowing\, another several 100 youth rowers. \nEast Bay: and the adults row in the morning in the dark. \nEast Bay: and the youth row in the evening in the dark. \nEast Bay: Everything that we’re talking about here is dangerous to the adults and the children. because you can’t see a lot of these things as well in the dark. \nEast Bay: the issue of unhoused people near Jacqueline and aquatic center Again\, it’s scarier in the dark. \nSo I really encourage for safety that we work on all of these issues. \nEast Bay: We’re trying to encourage more children from around Oakland. Our rowing club is open to any Oakland unified school District High School student anywhere in Oakland. We’re trying to get as many \nEast Bay: kids from around the city down to the boat house to row. \nEast Bay: and there are a lot of parents that look and say\, not sure. I want my kids to be there after dark. It’s a little bit scary\, so I encourage the city of Oakland\, and everybody else to do what they can to \nEast Bay: deal with the unsafe boats in the cove on the estuary\, occasionally tied up at our boat dock overnight \nEast Bay: such that we can have a safe and efficient rowing program. Thanks very much. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Thank you very much. \nNext we have Michael. \nMichael Fanfa: Hi\, i’m Michael. \nMichael Fanfa: So about 20 years ago I was in the Saliando Marina. \nMichael Fanfa: and what they used to do with a lot of their boats that they couldn’t get rid of is\, they would haul them up the boat\, launch and move them into their gated area. That was for storage. They bring a big wrecking dump truck \nMichael Fanfa: and a dozer. \nMichael Fanfa: and they would crush these boats and put them in the dump truck. \nMichael Fanfa: and \nMichael Fanfa: what they did after that I don’t know\, because there’s motors and so much good stuff that scrapped\, I would have assumed that they would have disassembled some of the stuff as best they could\, and then the engines that are inside. They could pick up with \nMichael Fanfa: the end of a backhole and take out of the wreckage after everything is smashed\, so that they could get the metal out. \nMichael Fanfa: That being said here in the estuary\, in my opinion\, the best place to take boats out is the old boat yards ramps on the Alameda Island \nMichael Fanfa: that that are still not being used for anything. You slide the boats up\, and then you can fit a dozer in there \nMichael Fanfa: and do the same thing. \nMichael Fanfa: That’s just my thought on up a place to get rid of these these posts that you can finally legally access and and get rid of. Thank you. \nOkay. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Thank you. \nNext we have \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Marjorie. Such call. \nMarjorie Setchko: Sorry I was having trouble unmeting. \nMarjorie Setchko: Yes\, i’m a rowing coach on the estuary\, and I don’t operate out of Jack\, London or Oakland strokes. I operate out of \nMarjorie Setchko: a small club behind Coast Guard Island. and it’s all young people at this club and right alongside of the Coast Guard Island Bridge are frequently a great number of these illegal anger outs. \nMarjorie Setchko: They don’t have any lights on them. They \nMarjorie Setchko: do not more their boats properly\, so that the anchor lines are \nMarjorie Setchko: very long and they’re invisible. \nMarjorie Setchko: So we have these kids out there as a space people have said. \nMarjorie Setchko: But our situation is a little different in that. We have to go by these people. \nMarjorie Setchko: We have to to get in and out of our club. \nMarjorie Setchko: and I have had kids \nMarjorie Setchko: get hung up on those anchor lines and flip in the dark in the estuary\, because there’s no light there. There’s there’s no way to see these people. \nMarjorie Setchko: We’ve asked them. We’ve asked them. Can you move to the side so that we can at least go through some arch of the bridge. They just scream at us and laugh at us. \nThere’s you know. \nMarjorie Setchko: I understand\, that there is a large problem with \nMarjorie Setchko: housing. \nMarjorie Setchko: but if you know we can. We’re willing to work together? They are clearly not so. \nMarjorie Setchko: you know. I know that there are issues with liability for these things. We’ve talked to the police about calling abandoned vessels out. Nobody wants to to have to deal with it. \nMarjorie Setchko: I know that there was a woman who sued the city of Oakland\, and that’s why the city of Oakland is wanting to be super. Hands off with dealing with the anchor outs\, but something has to be done. \nMarjorie Setchko: You know it’s it’s an accessibility issue. If If we’re supposed to be able to enjoy the waterways. \nMarjorie Setchko: protect the waterways\, n0 0ne’s doing anything to enforce all of these wonderful ideas\, and it’s time somebody does something \nMarjorie Setchko: that’s all I have to say about it. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Thank you very much. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Chair Gilmore. That’s all we have. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you\, Margie and I just want to say thank you to all the members of the public \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: who took the time out of their busy day to come down and speak to us. The committee is very\, very appreciative. We do realize this is a big problem\, and so we value your input \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: I think I speak for all of us. When I say we always learn from members of the public who are our eyes and ears out there. S0 0nce again we are deeply appreciative \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: of on the time and the effort that you took today. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Having said that\, Adrian\, can you put up that last slide with \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: all the questions for the committee. Thank you. \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: May I orally\, at one question\, that I neglected to include. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Sure \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: I should have noted here also that the Enforcement Committee may wish to consider \nwhether there’s a role for its new compliance staff in \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: addressing this map. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, thank you. So \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: i’m gonna lead off with kind of my thoughts about all of this in in no particular order\, and i’d like to hear feedback from the committee members. \nI I think \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: we’ve all commented on the \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: the similarity that this has to Ssalito and the be our our. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: And so\, while I acknowledge the fact that both cities\, particularly the city of Alameda\, have made. You know\, some strides. I think we need to maybe restructure how we’re dealing with this. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: And so I was actually thinking about sending this to the Compliance staff \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: to sort of help guide the cities and and kind of keep them on track. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: I \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: personally think that being updated on a monthly basis is probably a little bit too much given. How long some of these actions tend to take? \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: I’m leaning towards quarterly reports. Because. \nyeah. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: i’m hoping that’s enough time to get things done and to spot potential problems before \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: things get you know\, out of hand. \nAnd so that’s kind of where \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: i’m thinking this goes\, and I would leave it up to the Compliance staff \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: to determine a working schedule with the cities. Once they sort of get their feet wet and and get up to speed. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So i’m curious to hear what other members of the committee think about this. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and I can’t see any hands\, because the \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: the the slide is up. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: Marie. This is John. I would agree with you. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, Thank you. Anything else \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: for me. No. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: okay\, thank you\, Rebecca. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Yes\, Larry wants to speak. 0 0kay. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: go ahead\, Larry. \nLarry Goldzband: Sorry about that. A couple of things I\, Frank\, is out of the country this week. \nLarry Goldzband: and so I thought I would step in as a senior staffer to say that I tend to agree with Chair Gilmore\, to move this over to \nLarry Goldzband: compliance. I would add a couple of things\, though \nLarry Goldzband: I think that you ought to ask Grab. and we’ll ask Greg to make sure that the Compliance staff comes back to you in 3 months\, which is \nin June \nLarry Goldzband: with a report back. \nLarry Goldzband: I would also \nLarry Goldzband: that I would also suggest that \nthe city of Oakland\, in the city of Alameda \nLarry Goldzband: most definitely has taken notes\, and I would imagine they know what they need to provide you in 3 months in terms of an inventory and the like. \nLarry Goldzband: But I would suggest\, and i’ll be talking with Greg about this. I’m sure Greg will be talking to his compliance staff about this that you schedule them for June. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So Larry\, is a point of clarification. \nAre you asking in June that just the Compliance staff give a report. \nLarry Goldzband: or we bringing the cities back? At the same time\, I think you leave that up to. I think you leave that up t0 0ur General Council\, who has both enforcement and compliance underneath him\, to work that through \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: perfect. Thank you. \nLarry Goldzband: Happy to answer any questions from Commissioner Basket as well. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you. Any other committee members want to weigh in \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: none. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay. so just just a general question for Staff. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: We’ve outlined where we think this should go and have provided direction. Do you have any questions of the committee before we we sign off. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: I I don’t have any questions\, but I think I would like to for clarity just parrot back what I think I’ve heard in terms of next steps. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Great. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: Okay. So i’m hearing that \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: we’re Now\, i’m reading into this essentially\, but we’re continuing to \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: receive updates from the city\, but that a. A and and and monitor their progress that will be transferred if I I think effective immediately over to Compliance Staff. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: and then \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: in June you will receive another update based on you know that continuing\, working together with the city from the Compliance staff and possibly the cities \non on the Progress. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Correct? Okay. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: and I\, \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and related. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: but not directly related\, is\, I want to remind Staff to agendize that discussion on the the 9 Bay Counties\, and and dealing with this problem in a holistic basis. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: so we can have that discussion and and maybe forward it. Pass it on to the the full commission. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: Yes\, we will definitely do that. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay. Any other comments for the good of the order before I look for a a motion to adjourn. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, seeing none. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: I’m: going to move adjournment. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, and I have 1131. Thank you\, everybody\, for your time and attention today\, and we really appreciate it. We are 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/february-22-2023-enforcement-committee-meeting-2/
LOCATION:Webinar
CATEGORIES:Enforcement Committee
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20230209T080000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20230209T170000
DTSTAMP:20231013T032059Z
CREATED:20230210T042008Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20231013T032059Z
UID:10000029-1675929600-1675962000@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:February 9\, 2023 Enforcement Meeting (Cancelled)
DESCRIPTION:
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/february-9-2023-enforcement-meeting-cancelled/
CATEGORIES:Enforcement Committee
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20230125T093000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20230125T120000
DTSTAMP:20231009T231032Z
CREATED:20230126T061410Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20231009T231032Z
UID:10000017-1674639000-1674648000@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:January 25\, 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/88332950368?pwd=a2x4cVJ0TStRNnFnNVZkRnF3RzdOQT09 \nTeleconference numbers1 (866) 590-5055Conference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID883 3295 0368 \nPasscode591828 \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 CommentsThe Committee will hear public comments on matters that are not on the agenda. \nApproval of Draft Minutes from the December 21\, 2022\, 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 Regarding Point Buckler Island Enforcement Matter (Cease and Desist Order CCD2016.002.00). CANCELLEDDeputy Attorney General Shari Posner will provide an update on the continued efforts to enforce the court judgments in the Point Buckler matter (Duck Club #801; Solano County Assessor’s Parcel No. 0090-020-010)\, which is located off the western tip of Simmons Island\, Solano County\, in the Primary Management Area of Suisun Marsh.(Matthew Trujillo) [415/352-3633; matthew.trujillo@bcdc.ca.gov]\nPublic Hearing and Vote on Stipulated Cease and Desist Order and Civil Penalty Order Number 2023.001.00 (BCDC Enforcement Case ER2020.021.00) (PDF).The Committee will hold a public hearing to address the unauthorized development of Duck Club #423 (Family Gun Club) in the Primary Management Area of Suisun Marsh\, Benicia\, Solano County\, and vote on a recommended enforcement decision to adopt a stipulated Cease and Desist and Civil Penalty Order to require remedial actions at the site\, and to pay $215\,630 in administrative civil penalties.(Brent Plater) [415/352-3628; brent.plater@bcdc.ca.gov]Executive Director’s Recommended Enforcement Decision Exhibits (PDF) // Proposed Stipulated Order with Exhibits (PDF) // Violation Report and Complaint with Exhibits (PDF) // Statement of Defense with Exhibits (PDF) // Public Comment (PDF) // Late Submission (PDF)\nAdjournment\n\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Meeting Minutes\n				January 25\, 2023 Enforcement Committee Meeting Transcript\n2023.01.25 Recording Transcript – Enforcement Committee Meeting \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: The B. C. DC. Enforcement Committee \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: is hereby call to order. My name is Marie Gilmour\, and I am the chair of this committee. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Commissioners\, please ensure that your video camera is always on\, and please mute yourself 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. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Excuse me. Matthew Gilmore. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Commissioner Ranch. I had joined us. \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: Good morning. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Good morning. Welcome. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: Good morning\, John. \nHmm. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, Matthew. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: Commissioner Isa \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: here. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: Commissioner. \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: Yeah. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: What’s more for the Record Commissioner \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: share you more. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Here \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: we have a quorum present\, and are duly constituted to conduct business. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and before we get to item 3 on our agenda. I would like to make a comment\, an announcement that \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: the previously scheduled update on Point Buckler has been withdrawn. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: That was our previous item Number 6. So if you were here for that\, it will not be heard today. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So we’re on to item number 3\, which is the public comment\, and in accordance with our usual practice\, and is indicated on the agenda. We will now have general public comment on items not on today’s agenda. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and we have received \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: 0 written public \ncomments. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: but for members of the public who are present. 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 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 style Star 9 to raise your hand and 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 in which they were raised. After you called on\, you will be unmuted\, so that you can share your comments. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Please announce yourself by first and last name for the record. Before making your comment. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Commenters are limited to 3Â min to speak. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Please keep your comments respectful and focus. We are here to listen to any individual who request 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 abuse of language. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: We will mute anyone who fails to follow these guidelines. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So\, Margie\, do we have any hands raised by the public? \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: There are no hands based. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, thank you very much. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So that brings us to item number 4\, which is approval of the draft minutes. We’ve all been furnished draft minutes from our last meeting \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: committee members. I would appreciate a motion and a second to approve these. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: so moved. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: move by Commissioner Eisen\, I need a second. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So all in favor of approving the graph meeting minutes. Please raise your hand. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and the motion carries unanimously. Thank you all. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So the next item\, item\, 5 on the agenda is the Enforcement report and Enforcement policy manager. Matthew Tre. Here will we will provide the report. Matthew. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: Good morning\, and I belated Happy New Year to you\, Chair and to all the committee members. This is our first meeting of the year. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: There are only 2 brief items to report out on today. The first item\, as usual\, is a case update Since our last meeting that took place on December 20\, first\, 2022\, \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: and in the past month we received 3 new cases resolved 3 cases so as of today \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: we are at 93 unresolved cases in the queue. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: And second is an update on our efforts to fill the current cpa to or sorry coastal program analysts level 2 vacancy \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: I took your feedback from the last meeting to Senior Staff\, and I’m. Reporting back that we are looking at the possibility of extending the term from 6 months to one or 2 years\, depending on such factors as available funding. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: I continue\, on the other hand\, to. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: or nevertheless\, to spread the word about the position to whoever I I I come in contact with. For instance\, yesterday I announced the opening to a group of my colleagues when I was attending \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: a training at Cnr\, a headquarters in Sacramento. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: This concludes my report\, and i’ll be glad to entertain any. Follow up questions \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: that you may have at this time. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you\, Matthew. Does anybody have any questions for Matthew. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: seeing none? Are there any members of the public who wish to comment on this item? \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: I don’t see anybody. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, Thank you\, Margie. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay. So that brings us to our next item\, which is item 7 made the announcement that item 6. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: The Point Buckler report has been withdrawn. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: And so\, and next\, our next agenda item is a public hearing and vote on a recommended enforcement decision to adopt a proposed stipulated cease and the Civil Penalty Order\, Ccd: 2023.0\, 0\, 1.0 0 \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: to address the unauthorized Development of Duck Club number 423\, the Family Gun Club in the primary management areas in marsh in the city of Venetia solonica county \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: The record for this matter includes the violation report and complaint. Respondent Statement of defense\, the recommended Enforcement decision and proposed stipulated order and all other items identified by B. C. DC. Regulation \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: 11 3 70 \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: at this time will the representatives or representative for the respondent please identify themselves and their association with the respondent for the record. \nDonal Cummins: I am Donald Cummins\, I’m. The attorney for the \nDonal Cummins: Prices\, who are the owner of the subject property. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, thank you\, sir. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: I will now invite lead Enforcement Attorney Brent\, player to give his presentation. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Mr. Plater. I understand that the respondents have agreed to the terms of a proposed stipulated order\, since the item was first put on the agenda\, and so please present the Staff’s recommendation for today. \nBrent Plater: Thank you. Chair Gilmore. Yes\, that’s correct. We based on the direction we received at the last committee. Hearing on this matter. \nBrent Plater: We worked with the Family Duck Club and their their representatives to prepare a stipulated season to assist in still penalty order for the committee’s consideration\, and we recommend that the committee adopt it\, and recommend to the full commission that they adopt the finalized \nBrent Plater: seasoned Assistant Civil Penalty Order at the February sixteenth meeting \nBrent Plater: the new stipulated\, cease and desist Order addresses the violations by requiring family that club to create a Wetland Restoration plan and submit it to B. C DC. To remediate the the required \nBrent Plater: preserved wetland near the the Family Duck Club \nBrent Plater: Family Duck club’s headquarters. \nBrent Plater: That’s that plan will need to be submitted by june 2\,023\, with a currently a date expected to actually implement that plan. By the end of the year \nBrent Plater: the violation addressing the fill of the \nBrent Plater: the the canal that went around the the the\, the the \nBrent Plater: the levy around the exterior portion of the Deck Duck Club will also require some offsite mitigation. Compensary mitigation actions. Similarly\, they’ll have a plan submitted to B. Cdc. By June 2\,023\, explaining what they intend to do to mitigate for that destroyed area \nBrent Plater: and implement that by the end of the year. Now\, both of those dates for implementation are expected to be fulfilled by. \nBrent Plater: We. We will have better information about the date to fulfill those those mandates. Once we receive the plan\, so it is very likely that those dates may be changed by executive director. Order. Once those plans are reviewed by B Cdc. And ultimately approved. The December 2031 2023 dates are there as a sort of a placeholder for now. So until we get some more information about how long it may actually take for those plans to be implemented. \nBrent Plater: It also requires the \nBrent Plater: the Family Duck club to family gun club\, to actually to pay civil liability for the violations\, though the total civil liability has been reduced to $215\,630. Compared to the previous version that was presented to the committee\, which had penalties at $306\,000. \nBrent Plater: The reductions are largely from combining some violations for events\, events that were held at the Family Duck Club\, family\, gun\, club\, clay’s operation. \nBrent Plater: and by a reduction in the total amount of of daily penalty for the operation of the of the family club Clays operation. \nBrent Plater: so that brought the total penalty down to $215\,630. \nThose \nBrent Plater: terms have been reviewed by the Representatives at \nBrent Plater: Family Gun Club\, and they have agreed to those terms\, as i’m sure Mr. Cummins will will tell you. And so we have the stipulated order adopting these findings and these these requirements before you today. \nBrent Plater: I’m happy to answer any questions you may have about the changes in the in the order \nBrent Plater: as the as the meeting pursuit completes. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, thank you\, Brent. Before we go to questions. I just want to get on the record. If\, Mr. Cummings\, do you agree? Do you and your \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and the respondents agree to the stipulated order? \nWe? We do\, your honor. I have \nDonal Cummins: just 2 comments\, if I may. \nDonal Cummins: on page one of the stipulated order \nDonal Cummins: that’s Roman numeral\, one \nDonal Cummins: letter F. \nDonal Cummins: It speaks to 5 unauthorized structures\, that number should be 4\, \nDonal Cummins: and that would be consistent with Roman numeral to on page 2. Item\, 5. That correctly states there are 4 unauthorized structures \nDonal Cummins: that comment\, and then the only other one is. \nDonal Cummins: I don’t know\, to to confirm or agree with Mr. Plan\, or what he said\, that \nDonal Cummins: on the mitigation issues the the December 31 2\,023. I want to confirm \nDonal Cummins: is a target day\, but it’s also a placeholder\, because that’s construction in a marshy area\, and there’s \nDonal Cummins: a lot of \nDonal Cummins: a lot of things that have to be considered before before it can actually be done. So as long as the Commissioner \nDonal Cummins: as authority to adjust the \nDonal Cummins: completion dates of those were okay. The rest of the order is fine. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: That’s fine. That would be the executive director once. This is approved by us\, and it’s recommended to the full commission\, and the full Commission approves it. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So thank you. So i’m going to open. Well\, I see Commissioner Vasquez. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: Thank you. The \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: The Family duck. The Family Gun Club is not in the city of Benitia. It’s on Venetia Road. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: It’s in the unincorporated small county. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: I think there’s a \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: it says in the title of Benisha\, but it’s on initial road. Is it not \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: Mr. Coming? \nDonal Cummins: It’s actually on Pierce Drive here\, and and I think it’s a I do think it’s a Venetia address\, though \nDonal Cummins: at least for post office purposes. I I think it’s a. But the permitting authority is the only is Islamic County itself. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: So yes\, it’s. I think it comes off of initial route or something like that. \nDonal Cummins: Yes. \nDonal Cummins: comes off the front edge of there. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: Yeah\, the address would be Benisha. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: but the it. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: the provincial authority\, is Song County. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: Secondly\, the to the timeline \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: in the unincorporated after October fifteenth. You can’t do the grading based on our grading ordinance. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: so there some of that has to come into play should the plan not be \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: fully developed or submitted in in the construction time to do the repairs. And the marsh has its own set of standards\, too. So. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: as Mr. Coming\, said that it it’s a it’s a placeholder date. It’s not. It can’t be held exact\, because depending on weather and conditions in the marsh \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: really determines \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: the work you can do. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: And and lastly\, explain to me again. Oh\, why there is a \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: fine attached to events. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: I’m still confused about that. \nBrent Plater: So the way we’ve thank you for the questions and the the clarification points. We will make the correction to change the the 5 unauthorized structures for\, and I don’t believe the order has anything specific about the location \nBrent Plater: in or outside of Venetia\, but that is\, I think\, that also is \nBrent Plater: a a an important point on the the title of it that there’s there’s a slight slight \nmistaken that \nBrent Plater: in the in the title of the agenda item. \nBrent Plater: But in terms of the events\, so the way we’ve looked at the the courses. And you know\, Commissioner\, I’ve been here not very long. You’ve been here a lot longer than me\, so\, and you know i’m learning learning things every day. \nBrent Plater: But the way that I understood these alleged violations to fit within our regulations and and requirements is that there is a the development of the course itself\, which was an act that was not within the Duck Club management plan\, which was that the change in the way that I understand that then\, I think\, regulated events out there. But it \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: it’s the fact that the work was done and the events occurred by benefit of that work being done which wasn’t permitted by us. \nBrent Plater: That’s right. That wasn’t permitted\, and then so that that was like one category of the violations and the other sort of place of of violations where these\, the the events themselves\, which arguably have these additional impacts\, beyond which\, in in in the absence of having an authorized \npre-authorized \nBrent Plater: clay’s operation out there\, would have at least required some additional kind of permitting \nBrent Plater: from from B. Cdc. Given the nature of those events if they had just been. You know\, like other events that we’re aware of in the marsh where \nBrent Plater: you know their events that were \nBrent Plater: held more \nBrent Plater: more closely to the to the membership\, you know. Perhaps it would have been thought of differently. That’s how we broken down\, based in in this case\, and I think we have a a stipulated order that made sense also to Family Gun Club the way we thought about it now. And so I I I think that’s \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: that we’re we’re on the right track now. Thank you for that. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: That’s it for me. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, do any other commissioners have any questions? \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: I don’t see any. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Margie\, do we have any members of the public \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: wishing to comment on this? \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: I don’t see any. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: all right. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So if there are no other comments from \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: committee members\, and no comments from members of the public. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: I would like Brent. Could you restate the staff recommendation\, please? And then we can get a motion in a second on it. \nBrent Plater: so our recommendation staff recommendation would be to with a. With this modification to one F to change that from 5 to 4 \nBrent Plater: for the committee to adopt the the Executive Director’s recommended enforcement decision as its own recommendation to the full Commission for its consideration and final adoption at the at the next commission\, hearing after February sixteenth. \nBrent Plater: of 2\,023. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, I will entertain a motion on this. \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: So moved \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: That was Commissioner ran shot. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: I need a second. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: I think that’s Rebecca trying to second. But you’re muted. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Second\, Thank you. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay. Let’s take a roll call. Vote. \nOkay. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Is that\, Margie \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Matthew. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Yes\, for you. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: Here I am. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: Commissioner Eisen. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: Hi. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: Commissioner Ronchad. \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: Yes. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: Mr. Vasquez. Yes. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: chair\, Gilmour. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Yes. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: thank you. The \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: The enforcement decision is adopted unanimously. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and this matter is scheduled to be heard and voted on by the full commission at its february sixteenth\, 2\,023 meeting. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: which is scheduled to start at 10’clock at the Metro Center\, 375 Field Street in San Francisco \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: online and remote access to the meeting will be available as well. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and for more information and updates\, please visit \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and navigate to the public meetings. Section. \nDonal Cummins: Yes\, Mr. Commons has his hand up \nDonal Cummins: commission date after February nineteenth. \nDonal Cummins: on February 16\, I’m. Conflicted with a \nDonal Cummins: hearing in another matter in San Francisco. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Can we leave this to staff to work it out in terms of of of the date. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Because I don’t. Yes. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: thank you \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: all right\, thank you\, Mr. Cummings. Be in contact with staff\, and we’ll work out a mutually agreeable date. \nThank you\, though. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay. Anybody else have anything Commissioner \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: appreciation to the staff for continuing to work on this matter over many months to bring it to a satisfactory resolution. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you\, and I also want to comment on the fact\, You know\, congratulations to staff and the respondents. It was a \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: It was not exactly a straight line\, but we got there in the end\, and I think it’s something that all of us can feel happy about. So Thank you all. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and at this point in time I will entertain a motion to adjourn. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: I don’t think any of us want to lead. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: because we weren’t here long enough. Is that it? \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: Do you need a motion? I’ll move. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay. Motion by Vasquez\, second by Eisen. And thank you very much. Everybody staff and Mr. Cummings go all go forth and enjoy the rest of your day. Thanks so much. \nGoodbye. \nbye. \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-25-2023-enforcement-committee-meeting/
CATEGORIES:Enforcement Committee
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20221221T093000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20221221T120000
DTSTAMP:20231017T051058Z
CREATED:20221222T013133Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20231017T051058Z
UID:10000025-1671615000-1671624000@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:December 21\, 2022 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/88450250278?pwd=cGlFWXJ5ZmJMR3VmZWlDUjBGQ05IUT09 \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers1 (866) 590-5055Conference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID884 5025 0278 \nPasscode185383 \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 CommentsThe Committee will hear public comments on matters that are not on the agenda. \nApproval of Draft Minutes from the December 8\, 2022\, 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]\nPublic Hearing and Vote on an Executive Director’s Recommended Enforcement Decision\, including a Proposed Complaint for Civil Penalties CCD2022.008.00 to resolve three violations pertaining to BCDC Enforcement Case ER2019.063.00 (PDF) – POSTPONEDThe Committee will hold a public hearing and will vote on whether to recommend to the full Commission the adoption of a proposed Order for Civil Penalties to finally resolve two violations of the terms and conditions of BCDC Permit No. 1973.014.04 as well as Section 66632(a) of the McAteer-Petris Act and one violation of a condition of Permit No. M1985.030.01 by the permittee: Seaplane Investments\, Inc.\, operating at 240-242 Redwood Highway Frontage Road\, Mill Valley\, Marin County. Respondent owes $21\,170 in total unpaid penalties for the violations.(Adrienne Klein) [415/352-3609; adrienne.klein@bcdc.ca.gov]Executive Director’s Recommended Enforcement Decision Exhibit A – Proposed Civil Penalty Order (PDF) //Executive Director’s Recommended Enforcement Decision Exhibit B – Complaint for Administrative Civil Penalties (PDF) //  Executive Director’s Recommended Enforcement Decision Exhibit C- Statement of Defense (PDF)\nPublic Hearing and Vote on an Executive Director’s Recommended Enforcement Decision\, including Proposed Cease and Desist and Civil Penalty Order Number CCD2022.006.00 (BCDC Enforcement Case ER2019.063.00) (PDF) – POSTPONEDThe Committee will hold a public hearing to address the permit violations and unauthorized development in the Bay and shoreline band at 240-242 Redwood Highway Frontage Road\, Mill Valley\, Marin County\, and vote whether to adopt a Recommended Enforcement Decision proposed by the Executive Director which includes a proposed Cease and Desist and Civil Penalty Order to require remedial actions at the site and payment of $180\,000 in administrative civil liability.Adrienne Klein) [415/352-3609; adrienne.klein@bcdc.ca.govExecutive Director’s Recommended Enforcement Decision Exhibit A – Proposed Cease and Desist Order (PDF)  // 12-21-Item7-Executive-Directors-Recommended-Enforcement-Decision-Exhibit-B-Violation-Report-Complaint-with-exhibits // Executive Director’s Recommended Enforcement Decision Exhibit C to C9 – Statement of Defense (PDF) // Public Comment (PDF) // Late Submission (PDF)\nQuarterly Update to the Committee on the Simmons Island Habitat Restoration Project (Enforcement Case 1990.026.00).Anchor QEA\, the Port of Stockton’s consultant\, 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 case.Adrienne Klein) [415/352-3609; adrienne.klein@bcdc.ca.govPresentation (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/december-21-2022-enforcement-committee-meeting/
LOCATION:Webinar
CATEGORIES:Enforcement Committee
END:VEVENT
END:VCALENDAR