March 14, 2024 Enforcement Committee Meeting

1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Public Comment
   The Committee will hear public comments on matters that are not on the agenda.
4. Approval of Draft Minutes from the January 24, 2024 Enforcement Committee meeting.
5. Hearing 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
6. Briefing 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]
7. Adjournment

March 14, 2024 Minutes

Transcript for item 5

Audio recording

Audio transcript

Marie Gilmore, Chair: And please mute.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: please mute yourselves when you are not speaking.

Marie 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.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: you’re muted, Adrian.

Boardroom SX80: Thank you. Chair Gilmore. Good morning. Chair, Gilmore. I’ll start with you here.

Boardroom SX80: Commissioner Eisen. Here.

John Vasquez, Commissioner: Commissioner Vasquez, here.

Boardroom SX80: and I believe that’s it. We have a quorum of 3.

Marie 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.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Please note that item 6

Marie 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.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: we will reschedule that briefing for a future date. So that brings us to item 3 on our agenda public comment.

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

Marie Gilmore, Chair: and I believe we have not received any general comments in advance of this meeting, Margie?

Boardroom SX80: We did receive one general comment, not on the agenda. and it will be posted today.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Okay, thank you.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: And I believe that Commissioner Blynn has just joined us. So welcome. And thank you.

Letty Belin, Commissioner: Good morning. Morning. Sorry. I’m a little bit late.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: No worries.

Marie 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.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Please raise your hand in the zoom application by clicking on the participants. Icon at the bottom of your screen and look in the box where your name is listed under attendees.

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

Marie Gilmore, Chair: or if you are joining this meeting by phone, you must dial Star 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.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: the meeting host will call on individuals who have raised their hands in the order that they were raised.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: After you are called upon, you will be unmuted, so that you can share your comments. Please announce yourself.

Marie 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.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Commenters are limited to 3 min to speak.

Marie 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.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: We will not tolerate hate, speech, direct threats, indirect threats, or abusive language. We will mute anyone who fails to follow those guidelines.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Margie, do we have any commenters today?

Boardroom SX80: Yes, we do. We have Chris Mckay. Mr. Mckay, you have 3 min.

Boardroom SX80: Mr. Mckay.

Boardroom SX80: Mr. Mckay.

Boardroom SX80: Okay, I think he has a problem with his

Boardroom SX80: speakers. So, Chair Gilmore, we have no other commenters.

Marie 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.

Boardroom SX80: yeah, we do not have actually, we have another couple speakers online.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Okay.

Boardroom SX80: first up Brock, the lab.

Boardroom SX80: Mr. Dilap, you have 3 min.

Brock de Lappe: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Brock Dilap.

Brock de Lappe: I’m extremely concerned about the fact that the Union Point Park matter

Brock de Lappe: has been removed from today’s agenda.

Brock 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

Brock de Lappe: and the problems along the shoreline.

Brock de Lappe: It was in 2019

Brock de Lappe: that the East parking lot at Union Point Park was totally packed with rbs.

Brock 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.

Brock de Lappe: It was complete lawlessness. and in 2019 the city of Oakland

moved

Brock de Lappe: those vehicles from the east parking lot.

Brock de Lappe: The park itself was overrun with homeless encampments. and in march of 2012,

Brock de Lappe: under a cease and desist order.

Brock de Lappe: the city of Oakland removed those encampments from Union Point Park.

Brock de Lappe: At that time the park was deemed to be a closure area.

Brock de Lappe: which meant that no reoccupation was to occur.

Brock de Lappe: Unfortunately that has not

Brock de Lappe: been supported

Brock de Lappe: by the city of Oakland. The park now has numerous encampments

Brock 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

Brock de Lappe: because of the existing encampments. and as it is. it would not be used by the general public

Brock 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.

Brock de Lappe: There are. boat anchored offshore illegally in the estuary off of the East parking lot

Brock de Lappe: which people have seen stolen property stolen outboard motors

Brock de Lappe: that cannot be recovered.

Brock de Lappe: So once again the park, for lack of enforcement.

Brock de Lappe: Lack of involvement by the city of Oakland

Brock de Lappe: has been allowed to go into disrepair, and I think the public has a right to know

Brock de Lappe: why this item was removed from the agenda. Thank you.

Boardroom SX80: Thank you very much. Next we have Chris Mckay.

Boardroom SX80: Go ahead, Mr. Mckay.

Chris McKay: Yes. Can you hear me.

Chris 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.

Chris 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

Chris 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

Chris 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

Chris 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.

Chris 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

Chris 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.

Chris McKay: and our Neighborhood association

Chris 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.

Boardroom SX80: Thank you, Mr. Mckay. Next we have Mike Gorman.

iPhone (6)Mike Gorman EYC: Hello! This is Michael Gorman. Can you hear me?

Boardroom SX80: Yes, you have 3 min.

iPhone (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.

iPhone (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.

iPhone (6)Mike Gorman EYC: and many other boats from the Alameda Community Sailing center and

iPhone (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.

iPhone (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.

iPhone (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.

iPhone (6)Mike Gorman EYC: We have photographs of those at the Crier Yard

iPhone (6)Mike Gorman EYC: encampment next to the Coast Guard Bridge.

iPhone (6)Mike Gorman EYC: also on the beach right now. One of them is on the beach right now

iPhone (6)Mike Gorman EYC: this morning at the east parking lot.

iPhone (6)Mike Gorman EYC: and also. At the fake the

iPhone (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.

iPhone (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

iPhone (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.

iPhone (6)Mike Gorman EYC: There’s structures and tents erected in the park itself.

iPhone (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.

iPhone (6)Mike Gorman EYC: I, too, am very curious as to why this

iPhone (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

iPhone (6)Mike Gorman EYC: so just like Mr. Delop. I’d like to know the answer to that.

iPhone (6)Mike Gorman EYC: Please please do something for our neighborhood and our waterfront community.

iPhone (6)Mike Gorman EYC: Thank you.

Boardroom SX80: Thank you very much. I believe that’s all we have here, Gilmore.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Thank you, Margie.

Marie 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.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: So committee members, I would appreciate a motion and a second to approve the minutes.

Rebecca Eisen, Commissioner: So moved.

John Vasquez, Commissioner: Second.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: okay, so we have motion from Commissioner Eisen, and a second from Commissioner Vasquez. Anybody opposed to approving the minutes.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: hearing no objections, the minutes are approved unanimously.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Okay.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: so we move on to item number 5, which is a hearing and a vote on recommended Enforcement decision to resolve

Marie Gilmore, Chair: ER. 2021.0 8 0 point 0 0

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Bayview, one LLC.

Marie 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.

Marie 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.

Marie 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

Marie 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.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: So after BC. DC. Staff gives its opening remarks, the respondent will be invited to present their remarks.

Marie 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.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: So at this time will the representative or representatives for the respondent, please identify themselves for the record

Marie Gilmore, Chair: respondents.

Boardroom SX80: They’re just being promoted to panelists. Now, I believe

Marie Gilmore, Chair: thank you.

Chris Henry: good morning. Can you hear me?

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Yes.

Chris 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.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Great. Thank you and welcome. Thank you for being here.

Marie 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.

Marie 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

Marie 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.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: This committee shall not allow the introduction of any new evidence or oral testimony.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: so I will now invite enforcement. Analyst Rachel Cohen to give her opening remarks, Rachel. Thank you.

Boardroom SX80: Thank you. Chair Gilmour. just a second for me to share my screen. Please

Boardroom SX80: see.

Boardroom SX80: does that appear in full screen for you?

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Yes, it does.

Boardroom SX80: Okay. Great thanks.

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom SX80: And the building is here in the middle.

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom SX80: The access area provides sweeping bay views and a connection to the Yitak Chi Park to the immediate south

Boardroom SX80: this dark blue polygon, if you can follow my cursor approximately outlines the space which used to be used by ill piccolo Cafe.

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom SX80: restaurant staff were telling members of the public to either purchase food or leave the area.

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom SX80: After more than a year Mister Henry failed to complete his permit application, and it was returned unfiled.

Boardroom 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

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom 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

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom SX80: the entire public access area was being used to store furniture, construction materials and trash bins, making it unusable to the public.

Boardroom 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

Boardroom SX80: Enforcement staff then notified the respondent that the opportunity to resolve the case using standardized fines was no longer available.

Boardroom 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

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom 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

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom 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

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom SX80: here an wine bar and retail space across the hallway, and, as you can see on the right.

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom 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

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom 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

Boardroom SX80: that work was performed to the back deck, and that he installed Plywood to block access to it.

Boardroom 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

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom SX80: Yep.

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom 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

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom 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

Boardroom 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

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom 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

Boardroom SX80: to place restaurant, dining tables and chairs throughout the public access area. All of these activities require Bcd consultation and authorization

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom 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

Boardroom SX80: violators to submit factual information and supporting documentation to enable staff in the Commission to evaluate their financial condition.

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom SX80: To review the proposed administrative civil penalty. Appendix J. Of the Commission’s regulations requires staff to assess certain

Boardroom 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

Boardroom SX80: from the statutory requirement to provide the permit required public access and secure a permit or remove the unauthorized fill is major

Boardroom 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

Boardroom SX80: moving on to our recommended Enforcement decision.

Boardroom 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

Boardroom SX80: to obtain a permit or permit amendment for all unauthorized work by the end of 2,024

Boardroom 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

Boardroom SX80: that authorizes such use is obtained, and to pay $60,000 in administrative civil liability within 30 days of order issuance.

Boardroom SX80: And that concludes the staff’s presentation, and I’ll stop sharing my screen now.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Thank you, Rachel. I think I’m gonna hold questions until we hear from the respondent.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: So is he still on the screen, Mr. Henry? Could you please

Marie 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.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: So thank you, sir, and you may begin.

Chris Henry: Okay. First of all, can everybody hear me? Okay.

Chris Henry: okay. Great. Thank you. Well, thank you for being here today. And and thank you for having me. I appreciate that.

Chris Henry: I wanted to go over a few things with you here

Chris Henry: and and correct and and make clear a little bit more of actually what happened

Chris Henry: as this is not

Chris Henry: What what you previously heard is not all you know, factual and true and kind of brushed over.

Chris Henry: First off. I’ve always comply with Bcd. C.

Chris Henry: You know requirements. If if there’s something that needed to be done.

Chris 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.

Chris 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.

Chris 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

Chris Henry: II made the tenant comply, and and, as far as I know, everything was cleared, and and you know, benches were.

Chris Henry: you know, cleared off, garbage cans were were installed

Chris Henry: The you know. The the previous tenant was was one that told the the public they had to sit there and

Chris 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.

Chris 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.

Chris Henry: and I didn’t receive any notifications from BC DC.

Chris Henry: From about 2,020 when Covid hit I moved. and so I don’t. I didn’t know about all the notifications that

that were alleged in in this complaint.

Chris Henry: I didn’t find out about even this hearing until

Chris Henry: I was notified by my attorney that Rachel contacted him.

Chris Henry: This was the first that I heard about this whole situation about the hearing and the noncompliance for.

Chris Henry: you know, going back to 2,021, because I never received any notification from you guys.

Chris Henry: During Covid II moved away and my address changed.

Chris 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.

Chris Henry: the restaurant part downstairs.

Chris Henry: the storage area and the back stairs were completely burned

Chris Henry: back in.

Chris Henry: I believe it was 1027 of 21 I went through the the process with the city for fire restoration

Chris Henry: complied, you know. Hired an architect and engineer. We. We supplied all the plans.

Chris Henry: went through the process with the city. We had, we had several hearings

Chris Henry: with through the historic Landmarks board

Chris Henry: we. We received approval after 2. I believe it was 2 hearings there.

Chris 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

Chris Henry: the the application was approved, and and we didn’t. We didn’t add any fill to the to the project.

Chris Henry: There was. It was all the all the area that burned. We were placed in kind.

We didn’t grab any extra space anywhere.

Chris 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

Chris Henry: so actually, you could get more people in there to stand and and and and view the bay.

Chris Henry: It was mentioned that we that we closed off the back portion of of the building

Chris Henry: during since 2021. And that that’s true. That’s because we were directed by the fire, Marshal. It was unsafe.

Chris 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

Chris Henry: it would, it would be just a disaster. I would get sued. And

Chris 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.

Chris Henry: So we we went through the the whole, you know, process with city

Chris Henry: and the and the Historical Landmarks board

Chris Henry: permit. A permit was issued.

Chris 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.

Chris 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

Chris 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

Chris Henry: and

Chris Henry: III welcome your input. I want to work with you. Like I like. I mentioned, II

Chris 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

Chris 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.

And I haven’t heard back

Chris 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

Chris Henry: is is heavy.

Chris 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

Chris Henry: submitted the plans and and the fee.

Chris Henry: and I’m open to your your, your your comments.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: So are. Are you finished, Mr. Henry.

Chris Henry: Did do I get a chance to speak again, or is it? Is this it?

Marie Gilmore, Chair: This, is it unless members of the committee have any questions for you?

Chris Henry: Okay.

Chris Henry: III don’t understand what the what cease and desist really means

Marie Gilmore, Chair: immediately.

Chris Henry: Ye yeah, all, all the all the well, III understand that. But all the

Chris Henry: all the repairs to the fire were have been made

Chris Henry: so.

Chris Henry: and and we we put it back in as it was

Chris Henry: that that’s all I have to say.

Marie 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.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: So clarifying questions on behalf of committee members.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Anybody

Letty Belin, Commissioner: question

Letty 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.

Chris Henry: when I received a an email from my attorney Bill Hatcher.

He. He sent me an email.

Chris Henry: And and that was. well, it’s about 30 days before

Chris Henry: before before this hearing. It was a notification that this hearing was gonna happen.

Chris 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.

Chris 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.

Letty Belin, Commissioner: So you you say that you had no notification from being Cdc until just

Letty Belin, Commissioner: just like very, very recently, II mean, that’s

Letty Belin, Commissioner: I’m having trouble

Letty 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.

Chris Henry: I would say within the the past.

Chris 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

saying, you’re

Chris Henry: you know. Get in touch with Bcd. See? They’re gonna have this hearing. And then.

Chris 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.

Chris Henry: But all all through through Covid. I you know I didn’t receive any anything, you know, during that

Chris 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.

Letty Belin, Commissioner: So it sounds like you. You basically know anything about who Pcdc is, and what they do and

Chris 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

Chris Henry: as that somebody from the public buy, buy, buy a sandwich, or or leave.

Chris Henry: and and II have been in touch with Bcd. See over over the years. But during that period during Covid

Chris 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.

Chris Henry: who left on me a lot of rent, by the way, and and I had to evict

Chris Henry: But yeah, during Covid, I didn’t. I didn’t receive anything.

Letty Belin, Commissioner: Okay, go on. I see John, who has his hand up.

John Vasquez, Commissioner: Okay, thank you. Just a question, Mr. Henry. What did you? When did you employ your attorney on this issue.

Chris Henry: I think when we had the I haven’t actually employed him.

but 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

Chris Henry:

Chris Henry: He he was on the on the call with Rachel. We we did a sort of a compliance call.

Chris Henry: you know. I wanted to make sure that

Chris Henry: the the team was together to make sure the plans were together in in in order

Chris 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.

Chris Henry: you can tell me

Chris Henry: I don’t. I haven’t talked to him.

Tim 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.

Chris 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.

that’s all his function, is he? He was when I

Chris 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.

John Vasquez, Commissioner: Okay.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Alright. Rebecca.

Rebecca Eisen, Commissioner: yeah. So maybe Rachel can help clarify this. But it sounds as if

Rebecca Eisen, Commissioner: there was no assignment to an attorney to be the appointed person to receive notifications.

Rebecca 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

Rebecca Eisen, Commissioner: responded, and get any notifications, Rachel. I wonder if you could just sort of respond to what you’ve just heard that?

Boardroom SX80: Yeah, thank you for the opportunity.

Boardroom 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

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom SX80: and then

Boardroom SX80: there

Boardroom 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

Boardroom SX80: by doing that? We did reschedule the hearing date to today. It was, I believe, previously scheduled for

Boardroom SX80: Likely early February mister Henry got in contact with us when he did receive

Boardroom SX80: the via the reissued violation, reporting complaint. We’ve been in regular communications since January 30. First and

Boardroom SX80: I believe also to respond to the question about when

Boardroom SX80: he employed his attorney, Bill Hatcher. Is just the agent of service, so he acknowledged that he received it as well.

Boardroom SX80: And Tim Galuca, who’s on the phone. We had that compliance call on February 20, seventh. and if I may.

Boardroom 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

Boardroom SX80: consider it today.

Boardroom SX80: and

Boardroom SX80: yeah, I think that’s all I have for now.

Boardroom SX80: hopefully, that answers your question. It does, Rachel, and thank you for bringing up the issue about the tenant, because

Rebecca 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.

Rebecca Eisen, Commissioner: Those obligations cannot be assigned to a tenant without Bcd’s permission.

Rebecca 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.

Boardroom SX80: Yeah, Mister Henry, was the respondent, for all of those previous enforcement cases.

Marie 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

Marie Gilmore, Chair: compliance with all aspects of permit. and I find it a little bit incredulous.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: for him to say that he

Marie 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

Marie Gilmore, Chair: and so for him to say that I didn’t know I had to get

Marie Gilmore, Chair: permits from BC. DC. Or I didn’t at least have to check with them.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Ii have a hard time. Really accepting that.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: I have a question, and this is

Marie Gilmore, Chair: very sort of esoteric, but I want it for for my own edification.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: So the record said that Staff urged

Marie Gilmore, Chair: the respondent, to get a permit amendment as opposed to a regional permit.

Marie 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

Boardroom SX80: Mr. Henry applied for region wi region wide permit instead of a permit amendment. And the application

Boardroom SX80: was only for the fire repairs and not for the restaurant renovation. Region. Wide permits are for

Boardroom SX80: essentially de minimis projects, and they don’t require public access in order for us to issue them.

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom SX80: and it would also be an opportunity to formally formally assign the permit to Mister Henry.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: So in asking for region region wide, permit

Marie 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

Marie Gilmore, Chair: basically, he was non-responsive to BC. DC’s requests.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Okay, thank you.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Any other questions.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: I see

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Mr. Henry’s hand up, I will allow you one quick comment.

Chris Henry: Oh, oh, okay, tha thank you.

Chris Henry: It it!

Chris 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

Chris 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

Chris Henry: that we we wanna it’s for the restaurant and the fire repair

Marie Gilmore, Chair: while I appreciate that comment, Mr. Henry. We are

Marie Gilmore, Chair: charged with what is on the record.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: and what is on the record is a permit for the fire repairs, not the restaurant

Marie 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.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Okay, do I have any other clarifying comments from

Marie Gilmore, Chair: committee members before I open it up for public comment.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Rebecca.

Rebecca 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

Marie Gilmore, Chair: correct? Great thanks.

Okay.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Ms. Klein.

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom SX80: so the fire repairs remain unauthorized along with all of the other work that has taken place at the site.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Oh, thank you very much. That is a very good clarifying comment.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Okay, so going on to do, we have any public comment on this matter.

Boardroom SX80: We do not jog more.

Marie 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.

Rebecca Eisen, Commissioner: you know when you own property on the edge of the bay

Rebecca 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

Rebecca Eisen, Commissioner: but the

Rebecca Eisen, Commissioner: the

Rebecca Eisen, Commissioner: obligations to the public have to be considered always. When you are

Rebecca 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

Rebecca 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

Chris 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?

Rebecca 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

Rebecca Eisen, Commissioner: with the decision we made today.

Rebecca Eisen, Commissioner: Is that is that something, Greg or Rachel, that we can make sure to spell out in the

Rebecca Eisen, Commissioner: in the decision

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom SX80: and any failure to comply with the cease and desist. Order.

Boardroom SX80: The the Attorney General may

Boardroom SX80: petition the Superior Court for the issuance of a preliminary or permanent injunction, or both restraining Mister Henry from continuing any activity.

Boardroom 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

Rebecca 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?

Boardroom 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.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Anybody else.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Okay,

Marie Gilmore, Chair: hey? If there are no other comments.

Marie 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.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: I’m ahead of myself. Staff recommendation

Marie Gilmore, Chair: got that?

Boardroom 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?

Marie Gilmore, Chair: why don’t you just read it?

Boardroom SX80: Okay.

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom 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

Boardroom 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

Boardroom 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.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Thank you. Now, may I have a motion and a second on the recommended Enforcement decision.

Tim 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?

John Vasquez, Commissioner: Who is that

Rebecca Eisen, Commissioner: that was on the

Marie Gilmore, Chair: that was the respondent.

Marie 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.

Boardroom 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

Boardroom SX80: basically land us at a certain daily penalty, and that daily penalty amount is then multiplied by the amount of days that

Boardroom SX80: that the violation persisted.

Boardroom SX80: so

Boardroom 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.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Okay, thank you. Rachel.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: okay. Now, I’m, looking for a motion and A, second to accept the staff recommendation.

Rebecca Eisen, Commissioner: I move to accept the staff recommendation.

Letty Belin, Commissioner: Second.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: okay. It was moved by Commissioner Eisen, and was it, second, by Commissioner Vasquez, no delinquent. Thank you.

John Vasquez, Commissioner: move on, can Greg, explain the process after this is a recommendation. Full commission, is it not?

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Yes.

John Vasquez, Commissioner: and that the Mister Henry will have an opportunity again to speak before full commission.

Boardroom SX80: That’s correct, you will.

John Vasquez, Commissioner: Yes, thank you.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Thank you, Adrienne. Would you please call the roll?

Boardroom SX80: Yes, Commissioner Bailey. our committee member Bailey? Yes.

Letty Belin, Commissioner: alright.

John Vasquez, Commissioner: Commissioner Vasquez. Yes.

Boardroom SX80: Commissioner Eisen. Yes. Commissioner Gilmore. Yes.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Motion passes by a vote of 4, 2 0. I wanna thank all the Commissioners and staff and the respondent.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: So our next item on the agenda is adjournment.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Does anybody object to adjourn adjurning this meeting?

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Hearing no objections, we are adjourned. Thank you, everyone.

Boardroom SX80: Thank you.

Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act

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

How to Provide Comments and Comment Time Limits

Pursuant 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.

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

Questions and Staff Reports

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

Campaign Contributions

State law requires Commissioners to disqualify themselves from voting on any matter if they have received a campaign contribution from an interested party within the past 12 months. If you intend to speak on any hearing item, please indicate in your testimony if you have made campaign contributions in excess of $250 to any Commissioner within the last year, and if so, to which Commissioner(s) you have contributed. 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.

Access to Meetings

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