August 28, 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. 
   Public comment letter
4. Approval of Draft Minutes from the April 24, 2024 Enforcement Committee meeting
5. Enforcement Report.
   Staff will update the committee on the current status of the enforcement program’s activities.
   (Matthew Trujillo) [415/352-3633; matthew.trujillo@bcdc.ca.gov]
6. Briefing on Oakland Alameda Estuary and Encampment Issue.
   The Enforcement Committee will receive a briefing on actions taken to address abandoned and derelict vessels and anchor-outs in the Oakland-Alameda Estuary by BCDC staff and the Cities of Oakland and Alameda.
   (John Creech) [415/352-3619; john.creech@bcdc.ca.gov]Public comment
7. Briefing on Richardson Bay Regional Agency Settlement Agreement.
   The Enforcement Committee will receive a briefing on actions taken by Richardson Bay Regional Agency (RBRA) to meet deadlines outlined in the BCDC-RBRA Settlement Agreement.

   (John Creech) [415/352-3619; john.creech@bcdc.ca.gov]

8. Briefing on Implementation of BCDC’s Compliance Program.
   The Enforcement Committee will receive a briefing on implementation of BCDC’s Compliance Unit, including briefing on ways in which this unit has returned out of compliant permittees to compliance.

   (Tony Daysog and John Creech) [415/352-3622 and 415/352-3619;
   john.creech@bcdc.ca.gov and anthony.daysog@bcdc.ca.gov]Presentation

9. Adjournment

Meeting recording

Transcript

Marie Gilmore, Chair: And I am.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: and I am the chair of this committee

Marie Gilmore, Chair: for Commissioners, including those attending at Heale Street. Please ensure that your video cameras are always on, and please mute yourselves when you are not speaking.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: The 1st order of business is to call the role Matthew. Please call the role, and commissioners, please unmute yourselves while he does this, to respond, and then mute yourselves. After responding.

Matthew Trujillo: Commissioner, Belan.

Letty Belin, Commissioner: Here.

Matthew Trujillo: Commissioner, Eisen.

Rebecca Eisen, Commissioner: Here.

Matthew Trujillo: Commissioner Vasquez.

John Vasquez, Commissioner: Here.

Matthew Trujillo: Chair, Gilmore.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Here

Marie Gilmore, Chair: we have a quorum present, and are duly constituted to conduct business.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: That brings us to item 3 on our agenda, which is public comment

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

Marie Gilmore, Chair: and as of now, we’ve received no public comments. Margie, in advance of the meeting.

Boardroom SX80: We did receive one general comment this morning.

Boardroom SX80: and

Boardroom SX80: it will be posted on our website.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Great. Thank you

Marie Gilmore, Chair: for members of the public attending online. If you would like to speak

Marie Gilmore, Chair: either during the public during the general public comment period, or during the public comment period for an item on the agenda. Please raise your hand in the zoom application by clicking on the participants. Icon at the bottom of your screen and look in the box where your name is listed under attendees. Find the small palm icon on the left. If you click on that palm, icon, it will raise your hand.

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 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 by 1st and last name for the record before making your comment

Marie Gilmore, Chair: for members of the public attending in person. Please queue up at the speakers podium, and wait to be called upon to speak.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Commenters are limited to 3 min to speak. Please keep your comments respectful and focused. We’re here to listen to any individual who requests to speak, but each speaker has the responsibility to act in a civil and courteous manner.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: as determined by the chair.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: We will not tolerate hate, speech, direct threats, indirect threats, or abusive language.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: We will mute anyone who fails to follow these guidelines.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Margie, do we have any speakers.

Boardroom SX80: Chair. Gilmore, Commissioner Ranchott has joined us.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Good morning, and welcome.

Sanjay Ranchod, Commissioner: Morning. Thank you.

Boardroom SX80: And we do not have a public comment.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: And nobody at any of the remote locations.

Boardroom SX80: We do not. We have no public attendees in person.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Okay, thank you.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Okay. So then, that means we are on to item number 4, which is approval of the draft minutes for the last meeting.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: We’ve all been furnished. Draft me

Marie Gilmore, Chair: draft minutes from our last meeting committee members. I would appreciate a motion and a second to approve these.

Rebecca Eisen, Commissioner: So moved.

Sanjay Ranchod, Commissioner: Second.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Okay, Commissioner Eisen moves, seconded by Commissioner Ranshot. If anybody objects, please raise your hand.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: I see no raised hands. The meeting minutes are approved.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Okay.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: on to Item 5, which is the Enforcement Report

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Enforcement program manager, Matthew Trujillo will now update the Committee on the current status of the Enforcement programs. Activities. Matthew.

Matthew Trujillo: Thank you. Good morning to the Commissioners and to all members of the public in attendance. Thank you for being here today. I have only 2 items to report out on today. The first, st as usual, is an update on our Caseload

Matthew Trujillo: since this committee’s last meeting on April 24, th

Matthew Trujillo: we have opened 13 new cases. We’ve closed 23 new cases. I’m sorry we’ve closed 23 cases, and the total number of cases in the queue, as of this morning, is 63.

Matthew Trujillo: This represents a

Matthew Trujillo: Well, I would call it a new low, except in June. We did get it down to the low fifties.

Matthew Trujillo: but we’re making progress. That’s the great thing to report.

Matthew Trujillo: The second item is on staffing. So

Matthew Trujillo: between May 1st and August 1st

Matthew Trujillo: I will report that the program was became critically understaffed. We had 3 vacancies, 2 analysts, and an Enforcement attorney vacancy, and on May 1st Adrienne Klein took an extended personal leave, and she’s expected to continue to be out until early October. At this point

Matthew Trujillo: on August first, st however, we had 2 new Enforcement analysts that started

Matthew Trujillo: Anne Usher and Isabel Chamberlain

Matthew Trujillo: and our new Enforcement attorney, Bella Castradial, who’s here today with us, has joined the team as well. So we are now fully staffed, and in addition to a full complement of staff, I brought on 2 interns, Monica, Opiano, and Eric Miller.

Matthew Trujillo: who are here to help us with some program development and modernization projects that have been in the works for some time and in exchange for their help. We are providing a training work experience and an opportunity to network.

Matthew Trujillo: So, thanks to the new personnel, I’m happy to report that August has been a very productive month. Everyone is adjusting well, and everyone is doing a very fine job, and I’m gratified to report this in my conclusion.

Matthew Trujillo: And I will be glad to take any of your questions at this time.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Thank you, Matthew. I I just have to comment on the fact that you guys have been incredibly productive, especially during a period where, as you pointed out, you were critically low in staff, and you still manage to keep the

Marie Gilmore, Chair: the the queue, I guess I would call it gratifyingly low. So congratulations to you. And your staff. Anybody else.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Rebecca.

Rebecca Eisen, Commissioner: Thank you, Matthew. A couple of quick questions are, do you still have any vacancies that you’re trying to fill? And what is the total number of the Enforcement staff.

Rebecca Eisen, Commissioner: Now that you’ve filled a lot of those vacancies.

Matthew Trujillo: So. No, we don’t have any any further vacancies at this time. The total number of staff in terms of positions are 3 analysts. Then you have the myself, the Enforcement program manager, and then

Matthew Trujillo: we consider part of the team. Of course, Margie and the enforcement attorney, Bella.

Rebecca Eisen, Commissioner: Okay. Great thanks. Matthew.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Anyone else.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Okay, thank you very much, Matthew. And once again congratulations to the team.

Matthew Trujillo: Thank you.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Okay. Item 6 is a briefing on the Alameda Oakland estuary anchor out and derelict vessel issues.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: So this committee will now receive a briefing on actions to taken to address abandoned and derelict vessels and anchor outs in the Oakland, Alameda, Oakland estuary by Ecdc. Staff and the cities of Alameda and Oakland.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: This committee may consider whether the cities are taking sufficient action to address these issues

Marie Gilmore, Chair: and may provide further direction to staff after deliberation on this matter.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Okay, so I’m going to now invite John preach of our compliance unit to kick things off. John.

Boardroom SX80: Good morning, Commissioners.

Boardroom SX80: My name is John Creech. I’m on BCC’s compliance team. I’m here today to introduce, item 6, a briefing on the Oakland, Alameda estuary. We will then hear from representatives from the cities of Alameda and Oakland, on the status of the estuary, and the work that they have done to clean up the estuary, the shoreline band, and their plans for preventing

Boardroom SX80: further issues.

Boardroom SX80: So the issues of shoreline encampments abandoned and derelict vessels or advs, and anchor outs in and around the Oakland Alameda estuary in Alameda County, was introduced at the February 23, 2,022 Enforcement Committee meeting

Boardroom SX80: at that meeting, Bcdc. And Cities agreed to continue to collaborate and regularly return to provide progress reports to the Enforcement Committee

Boardroom SX80: to see if an agreeable resolution could be reached without initiating formal enforcement proceedings.

Boardroom SX80: This collective issue was brought back to the Committee on February 20, second, 2,023,

Boardroom SX80: where the committee suggested that Bcdc’s newly formed compliance team continue to work with cities to address the issue.

Boardroom SX80: Bcdc. Staff have been hosting monthly check-in meetings with representatives from the cities of Oakland and Alameda.

Boardroom SX80: The port of Oakland, East Bay, regional parks, and others.

Boardroom SX80: These meetings have been very beneficial to facilitate productive conversations, and to keep that this issue at the forefront of people’s minds.

Boardroom SX80: The committee last heard from the cities of Alameda and Oakland at the April 24, th 2,024 Enforcement Committee meeting

Boardroom SX80: at the Enforcement Committee. Briefing in January of this year, we learned that the estuary was successfully cleaned up of illegal vessels and anchor outs. Officer Kaleo Albino, of Oakland’s Police Department, briefed the Committee on the Task force that he assembled, which resulted in over 400 h of Water patrol conducted a successful arrest made in response to illegal activity performed by anchor outs and 25 vessels being abated from the estuary.

Boardroom SX80: The photo on the screen shows some abated boats that were piled in Jack London aquatic center parking lot, where they were later loaded onto dump trucks and removed from Bcdc’s jurisdiction.

Boardroom SX80: Moving forward Bcdc. Staff and city staff are committed to continue to regularly check in and monitor the status of the estuary. To ensure it remains cleaned up and free of illegal vessels and anch routes. Bcdc. Staff is pleased with the progress and collaboration Oakland and Alameda and other agencies have demonstrated over these years to work towards getting the estuary where it is today.

Boardroom SX80: we realize that the job is not complete, but we are happy with the partnership, dedication, and the progress. The cities continue to demonstrate. To resolve these complex issues.

Boardroom SX80: It is important to pro that prevention remain a point of focus for everyone.

Boardroom SX80: We look forward to hearing regular updates on how

Boardroom SX80: they are keeping the estuary and the shoreline ban clean, and ensuring that the cities are devoting the necessary resources to the shoreline and the estuary.

Boardroom SX80: I will now introduce Jota vries of Oakland, and Officer Colio Albino, of Oakland Police Department, and

Boardroom SX80: a few others. Looks like we have a lot of people here today which is great.

Boardroom SX80: Mr. Devries, would you like us to promote?

Boardroom SX80: Who else.

Boardroom SX80: Jordan.

Joe DeVries City of Oakland: I think we’re fine for now. Yeah.

Joe DeVries City of Oakland: I think for the estuary anchor. I’ll update that. So good morning. Sorry. Deputy city Administrator. Joe Devries, City of Oakland. Good to see you all again. Chair Gilmore, and the team.

Joe DeVries City of Oakland: Yeah, very, very happy to to report out I’m gonna just give a high level about some of the the future things that we’re looking forward to potentially in the fall, and then I’ll I’ll turn it over to Officer Albino, who can talk about more hands on some of the recent work that’s been done even since the last report. Because I think it’s all really good news.

Joe DeVries City of Oakland: So on a high level, you know. Again, the the department has been using save Grant dollars and has continued to pursue boats.

Joe DeVries City of Oakland: and I’ll leave that to Officer Albino. John preach mentioned the the need for prevention. We are waiting anxiously to find out. We’ve been told that the announcement will be made as to whether or not we were successful in getting a noaa marine debris removal, grant, I believe. September 5, th and so I I wish I could have found out before this meeting.

Joe DeVries City of Oakland: But certainly we we will find out if we’re successful in securing this grant. It will allow us to remove approximately 16 sunken vessels from the estuary which have been on the floor for a long time. But they’ll also allow us to perform about 4 annual major cleanups

Joe DeVries City of Oakland: in partnership with I heart Oakland Alameda estuary, the nonprofit that does the kayak cleanups on the estuary. What? What’s exciting about those cleanups in the way they do them? And if any of you participated, they’re getting out to places on the estuary that that we can’t typically get to from land. They also engage a lot of Oaklanders, especially from our frontline communities

Joe DeVries City of Oakland: to get them out there volunteering. So they’re teaching young people about the importance of water quality and and the importance of of protecting our waterways. So it it has both a long term preventive beneficial effect, as well as a short term, immediate cleanup. Another portion of the grant that that we wrote in 2 portions. One is a proactive boat. Buy back program that we will model after other programs. We’ve looked at around the state.

Joe DeVries City of Oakland: the the and we will have an outreach component, so that we can have a team doing outreach at the Marinas to to grab boats that owners may not want anymore before they turn around and sell them to someone who doesn’t understand the regulations and the and the responsibility of owning a boat. And so we are hopeful that this buyback would be successful in helping us again in a preventive way, getting boats out of the water before they become the the problems that we’ve seen in the past.

Joe DeVries City of Oakland: The other part of it is to do some public education on prevention along the estuary, through signage, through outreach at the Marinas just to remind people of the importance of not you know, impacting the the marine the estuary with marine debris. So

Joe DeVries City of Oakland: it’s a very comprehensive grant proposal. We feel that it’s very competitive and we’ll know in about a week. And of course we’ll share that with our Vcdc team. So that’s that’s looking forward, and I’m I’m really excited. If we get it to to do that as far as the current work removing boats, I’m going to turn it over to off Officer Albino, because I think his team has been doing a phenomenal job, and I’ll let him share.

Joe DeVries City of Oakland: Thank you.

Ofc. Kaleo Albino OPD: Hey? Good morning, everyone.

Ofc. Kaleo Albino OPD: Recently, in the past couple of months, we were able to utilize our save Grant from our grant from 2023,

Ofc. Kaleo Albino OPD: and we expended about 95% of that recently removing about 17 boats at the beginning of July.

Ofc. Kaleo Albino OPD: What I really liked about this last cleanup is that we stopped using the Jack London aquatic center parking lot

Ofc. Kaleo Albino OPD: as kind of a crushing site and then loading

Ofc. Kaleo Albino OPD: that crushed debris into transfer trucks, and then transferring them over the road

Ofc. Kaleo Albino OPD: through Oakland.

Ofc. Kaleo Albino OPD: where we partnered with Lynn marine this time, and they brought in a large barge, a crane and heavy equipment.

Ofc. Kaleo Albino OPD: and they were able to pick up the boats directly out of the water

Ofc. Kaleo Albino OPD: where me and my team would go out into the these 17 boats came out of Belmar, Marina specifically on the Oakland side.

Ofc. Kaleo Albino OPD: And these were boats that have been. The tenants have walked away from, or they stopped paying rent, and the owners of the

Ofc. Kaleo Albino OPD: marina were able to lean, hold these boats.

Ofc. Kaleo Albino OPD: and these were all identified

Ofc. Kaleo Albino OPD: prior to the clean up, and we also put our own 30 day boasting on them just in case.

Ofc. Kaleo Albino OPD: There was some ownership questions there.

Ofc. Kaleo Albino OPD: but we were able to go in with me, and my team pulled these boats out of their slips in the Amar Marinas

Ofc. Kaleo Albino OPD: towed them over to the barge, where a large crane was able to lift them right out of the water and place them in the barge

Ofc. Kaleo Albino OPD: and sailed out of the estuary over to Mare Island, near Vallejo.

Ofc. Kaleo Albino OPD: where they were crushed inside of the barge and disposed of in a lot

Ofc. Kaleo Albino OPD: cleaner way than we have in the past. So I’m

Ofc. Kaleo Albino OPD: hoping that we can continue our partnership with Lin Marine and move forward. With that

Ofc. Kaleo Albino OPD: I think those 17 boats that we pulled out brought our total number up, since

Ofc. Kaleo Albino OPD: kind of those start

Ofc. Kaleo Albino OPD: of my relationship with Bcdc. Close to 50 to 55 vessels that we’ve either abated. They’ve left on their own.

Ofc. Kaleo Albino OPD: or we have physically removed and destroyed

Ofc. Kaleo Albino OPD: as far as future planning goes. Back in April. And May I applied for a quarter 1 million dollar grant through the State. Another saved grant. Essentially

Ofc. Kaleo Albino OPD: that we’re still waiting to hear back from. And hopefully, then

Ofc. Kaleo Albino OPD: we get awarded all or some of that amount, and we can continue.

Ofc. Kaleo Albino OPD: There was about 25 more vessels inside of the marinas

Ofc. Kaleo Albino OPD: kind of the same deal where tenants have walked away from

Ofc. Kaleo Albino OPD: the marina. Owners have lean hold of those boats, and they’re just sitting there

Ofc. Kaleo Albino OPD: rotting away, in a sense, inside of the marinas taking up a slip.

Ofc. Kaleo Albino OPD: and my goal is to get at least get rid of all those

Ofc. Kaleo Albino OPD: vessels that are just sitting there, so they don’t become an anchor out.

Ofc. Kaleo Albino OPD: And that leads me into our anchor out problem. That always

Ofc. Kaleo Albino OPD: seems to be there.

Ofc. Kaleo Albino OPD: and we have last. I counted 2 days ago. We have 8 vessels now

Ofc. Kaleo Albino OPD: that I’m working on abating those as well.

Ofc. Kaleo Albino OPD: I’m being very patient with them and trying to come up with a plan for them to leave on their own.

Ofc. Kaleo Albino OPD: That

Ofc. Kaleo Albino OPD: doesn’t seem likely, with some that some of them

Ofc. Kaleo Albino OPD: there’s about 3 that do seem like they will take alternative housing, or they will seek an a different location to take their vessels to. I’m optimistic about that, and I’m hoping to have no anchor outs in the estuary by November first.st

Ofc. Kaleo Albino OPD: That’s kind of the date that I set on myself, and I’m hoping I can be successful with them.

Ofc. Kaleo Albino OPD: I think that’s it for my update on the estuary.

Ofc. Kaleo Albino OPD: and thank you, Joe, for covering the large scale of everything.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: before we move on to the city of Alameda. I wanna give an opportunity

Marie Gilmore, Chair: for commissioners to ask questions. But 1st I want to say thank you very much.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: to the city of Oakland representatives for coming here, and thank you for the partnership that we’ve had with Bcdc. Over the last several years. I did have a question for Officer Albino, I think, in one of our prior updates. One of the issues you had was staffing

Marie Gilmore, Chair: you were trying to get more officers on the boat on the water, and there was some

Marie Gilmore, Chair: question as to whether or not the funding would be available in the city’s budget. Can you give us an update on that.

Ofc. Kaleo Albino OPD: I don’t have a specific update where we’re at with adding additional staff. Now, I did have 3 officers assigned with me for 180 days.

Ofc. Kaleo Albino OPD: and I can tell you that made a tremendous difference in the amount of work and the speed of work that I was able

Ofc. Kaleo Albino OPD: to conduct

Ofc. Kaleo Albino OPD: Our department right now is going through some tough times, and I’m still hoping

Ofc. Kaleo Albino OPD: to at least get some additional officers on a future loan, and I’m trying to time those loans around

Ofc. Kaleo Albino OPD: the Grant approval process. And by the time the grant I’m actually able to spend that money is when I would like to

Ofc. Kaleo Albino OPD: essentially start those loans. So once I’m ready to actually go out in the estuary and do work with the money that’s ready there, I think that will be

Ofc. Kaleo Albino OPD: The best way to go about things, for now, until additional staffing can be

Ofc. Kaleo Albino OPD: can be brought forth. I would

Ofc. Kaleo Albino OPD: love any help that anyone’s able to

Ofc. Kaleo Albino OPD: talk to their friends. Talk to my chain of command as well. I I would appreciate that. But

Ofc. Kaleo Albino OPD: right now, where I think we’re doing some good work with

Ofc. Kaleo Albino OPD: with what we have going on for. Now.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Okay, well, thank you for clarifying that I appreciate it.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Any other committee members? Have any questions for the city of Oakland representatives. Oh, I saw a hand! Where did it go?

Joe DeVries City of Oakland: I I just but chair, Gilmore. I just wanted to point out that

Joe DeVries City of Oakland: for that Noaa Grant. We did write cost of overtime shifts into it for Opd explicitly to see that Officer Albino would have that support. So if we are successful because we recognize that these shifts get filled often with with volunteer overtime slots, the department staffing is is challenged, and and those overtime slots can be hard to fill. But certainly, if if we are successful, there will be funding so that that eases the burden on the city a bit.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Thank you. Anybody else.

John Vasquez, Commissioner: Marie, this is John. I just want to say thank you to the city of Oakland. This has been a long.

John Vasquez, Commissioner: difficult task, and they have stayed

John Vasquez, Commissioner: in the game, and

John Vasquez, Commissioner: the results are showing.

John Vasquez, Commissioner: I.

Letty Belin, Commissioner: I I was thinking exactly the same. This is more encouraging than earlier times that I’ve seen. So thank you very much. It’s great.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Once once again, thanks again to the city of Oakland, and all your efforts. For the estuary, and on everybody’s behalf.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: So now I think we’re gonna move on to the city of Alameda.

APD T. Siebert: Good morning. It’s Tyson Siever, with the city of Alameda police department.

APD T. Siebert: So currently, as for an update for us, we just recently closed out our save 22 grant.

APD T. Siebert: and we close that grant out by spending $56,000 removing 4 sunken vessels that were along our south rock wall along the beachfront there.

APD T. Siebert: So we close that grunt out by removing those 4 sunken vessels.

APD T. Siebert: We are starting on our save 23 grant right now. Which we’ve been awarded $200,000 within that grant. And we’re currently working just like Officer Albino, currently working with our Marinas to remove the derelict vessels out of the Marinas, so they don’t become anchor outs so far in our save 23 Grant. We’ve removed 4 vessels for the Fortman, Marina, Oakland, Marina, and the Marina village yacht harbor.

APD T. Siebert: Currently right now along our side of the estuary, as of our last patrol date, which was last weekend there were 0 anchor outs on our side that that we recognized.

APD T. Siebert: We have

APD T. Siebert: one vessel that’s illegally docked at our Grand Street, Marina, and that was a derelict vessel that got sold by the Grand Street, Marina.

APD T. Siebert: And then he’s anchored out there at the public dock. So that’s the the one problem that we are dealing with right now, as far as yes, where is concerned.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Do we have?

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Thank thank you for your update. Do we have any questions for the city of Alameda?

Marie Gilmore, Chair: I don’t see any hands. I would just like to say Thank you both to both cities for the time and effort.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: and not inconsiderable expense, that has gone into cleaning up the estuary and

Marie Gilmore, Chair: I I know it matters to all of us who go out and do recreation on the estuary, and I also want to point out. I believe we had some rowers from the estuary who did very well in the summer. Olympics.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: So

Marie Gilmore, Chair: I I think that’s just sort of a nice bow on top of everybody’s efforts. So you know, I think if we ever get discouraged, we can just think about that that team, and and probably the difference that this made in you know, their training efforts. As sort of an inspiration to to keep going.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: any other comments.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Okay, well, thank you very much, everybody, and keep up the good work.

Joe DeVries City of Oakland: I just wanted to point out. I’m sorry to interrupt, but you do have a hand raised from the Coast Guard in the chat in the attendee column.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Oh, I’m sorry I can’t see that. So public! I forgot about public comment. Thank you.

Boardroom SX80: Alright. We have one hand raised rebecca Leesburg.

Rebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: Hi! Good morning, rebecca Schwartz, Lasberg. Health policy solutions. Wanted to give you guys a lot of kudos for the hard work out there and improving conditions in the Oakland estuary. I know it’s not an easy task. I have 2 questions. I know that sometimes ability into questions during public comment is limited. I will throw them out there if you’d like to answer them. That would be great.

Rebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: My 1st question is, I know it’s a little bit hard to quantify. Because boats are in a state of flux. Some are sunken, some are at docks, some are anchored out, but and my apologies if I missed it. Do you have a general

Rebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: sense of how many boats were out there, and how many have been removed, and how many are left.

Rebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: And again my apologies. If I missed that that number. And then my second question is.

Rebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: as you look towards opportunities for a vessel buyback program. Are you thinking something similar to what our Bra has been doing? Richardson Bay and do you have? I mean, they they have their own ways that we’ve been working to fund that both through internal agency dollars. Looking at Grant funds. How are you guys thinking about trying to fund something like that. So those are my 2 questions. Thank you so much for all of your hard work.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Thank you very much. Do we have any other public comments?

Boardroom SX80: that’s all we have.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Okay? I I think.

Boardroom SX80: Oh, sorry. We have Brock de lab.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Okay.

Boardroom SX80: Hello!

Brock de Lappe: Good morning, Commissioners. I just want to reiterate what Officer Albino said about the use of Lind Marine for doing the July 1st Cleanup.

Brock de Lappe: where they brought a large barge with a crane into the estuary.

Brock de Lappe: and abandoned boats from Marinas were loaded onto the barge, and they were taken up to the Lind shipyard at Mare Island for disposal.

Brock de Lappe: This is

Brock de Lappe: the ideal way of doing this work. It’s clean

Brock de Lappe: doesn’t require any crushing of boats, and the

Brock de Lappe: in the Jlak parking lot.

Brock de Lappe: and it gets rid of a lot of boats very quickly.

Brock de Lappe: I just want to commend both

Brock de Lappe: Oakland and Alameda for being proactive about removing abandoned boats from Marinas.

Brock de Lappe: When people get tired of their boats and don’t want to make any effort to sell them

Brock de Lappe: they just walk away from their boat, and it’s left in the slip. The Marina has to go through a lengthy

Brock de Lappe: Dmv. Lean process. The boat is eventually taken through a lean sale. Nobody shows up for that. It then becomes the property of the marina.

Brock de Lappe: There’s no insurance on the boat. If it sinks in the slip

Brock de Lappe: that becomes the Marina’s expense.

Brock de Lappe: So

Brock de Lappe: this is exactly what the Save Grant money is is earmarked for is to deal with people that just can’t afford to responsibly get rid of their boats, and what we don’t want to do is for harbor masters to sell these boats for 50 bucks, and say, I don’t care what you do with it. Just get it out of my marina, because that feeds the anchor out problem.

Brock de Lappe: So by addressing this, by removing these abandoned boats from Marinas. It prevents there being a source feeding the anchor outs. So

Brock de Lappe: having been involved in the estuary for well over a decade, I just want to say it’s cleaner and better than it’s ever been, and while there’s still a few anchor outs on the Oakland side, I’m sure that when Officer Albino gets the necessary funding to proceed.

Brock de Lappe: He will.

Brock de Lappe: and very soon we will have a completely cleared estuary. So thank you, everybody for all the effort. It’s really it’s made a tremendous difference. Thank you.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Thank you. Thank.

Boardroom SX80: Hey, Brock.

Boardroom SX80: that’s all we have to go. Well, actually, Commissioner Vasquez would like to speak.

John Vasquez, Commissioner: Did Brock? Did you leave?

John Vasquez, Commissioner: No, I mean.

Brock de Lappe: Here.

John Vasquez, Commissioner: You know you over the years you’ve talked about the that whole process of doing the lean sale and the difficulty in that. And then the fact that somebody can pick up a boat for 50 bucks afterwards.

John Vasquez, Commissioner: You’ve given it a lot of thought.

John Vasquez, Commissioner: Is is it a

John Vasquez, Commissioner: A legislative issue that we have to work with, because I’ve heard this for decades. This issue of you know, the

John Vasquez, Commissioner: get trying to get rid of the boats trying to sell the boats off and somebody buying them.

John Vasquez, Commissioner: If we know the problem, why isn’t somebody come up with a solution? And I I’m asking you because you’re in the industry. You certainly have spoken many times, and have always brought to our attention these these issues.

John Vasquez, Commissioner: any ideas.

Brock de Lappe: Well, it’s John. It’s an end of life matter.

Brock de Lappe: Unfortunately, we all face that.

Brock de Lappe: and so do boats.

Brock de Lappe: and the State doesn’t really have

Brock de Lappe: any kind of a regional program set up to deal with that?

Brock de Lappe: there has been talk about adding

Brock de Lappe: a fee to annual registration

Brock de Lappe: that could fund

Brock de Lappe: regional recycling facilities. And that’s ideally what I think should happen.

Brock de Lappe: But you know what people feel like about anybody raising their taxes.

John Vasquez, Commissioner: Oh, yeah.

Brock de Lappe: It’s not very popular.

John Vasquez, Commissioner: No.

Brock de Lappe: But you know you can pay me now, or you can pay me later.

Brock de Lappe: And

Brock de Lappe: those boats that sank off of the rock wall

Brock de Lappe: on the the south west end of Alameda.

Brock de Lappe: That was a very expensive recovery.

Brock de Lappe: as will the recovery of the sunken boats that are still in the estuary.

Brock de Lappe: Those are going to be much more difficult to deal with than the ones that they’re taking out of the marinas, the ones that are in the marinas.

Brock de Lappe: That was an extremely efficient day. I was

Brock de Lappe: allowed to participate and and photograph

Brock de Lappe: the operation.

Brock de Lappe: and the boats were

Brock de Lappe: removed from the marina. They were towed out to the barge. The crane on the barge lifted the boats up onto the barge. They were all neatly stacked up on the barge, and by one o’clock in the afternoon that barge was on its way back up to Vallejo.

Brock de Lappe: That will not be the case with these sunken boats. This is going to be

Brock de Lappe: a much more

Brock de Lappe: detailed and and lengthy operation, so the sooner we can get to the boats that have been abandoned, the less expensive it is.

Brock de Lappe: And again, that’s why I’m absolutely commanding both Alameda

Brock de Lappe: and Oakland for using their save money to get these boats out of the Marinas, because the Marinas simply don’t have

Brock de Lappe: the funds to pay for people’s

Brock de Lappe: abandoned boats. It’s it’s between a hundred $5,200 a foot minimum.

Brock de Lappe: So if you’ve got a 30 foot boat

Brock de Lappe: you’re looking at, you know.

Brock de Lappe: 4,000 $506,000 to get rid of the boat.

Brock de Lappe: and it’s far more than it’s, you know, than it’s worth. It’s not worth anything at that point.

Brock de Lappe: So we do have a big problem with disposal of these end of life vessels, and it’s not going to get any better.

Brock de Lappe: I mean, every every day, every boats are getting older.

Brock de Lappe: And here’s the other problem that I see, and that is is that

Brock de Lappe: living in the Bay Area

Brock de Lappe: is tremendously expensive.

Brock de Lappe: Generations coming up

Brock de Lappe: are struggling to

Brock de Lappe: make rent and simply live in the Bay Area.

Brock de Lappe: They don’t have the the discretionary money for a recreational boating.

Brock de Lappe: and so that depresses the market, it reduces that recreational activity.

Brock de Lappe: And

Brock de Lappe: it’s just going to lead to more boats being abandoned.

Brock de Lappe: and the best we can do is what’s being done right now.

Brock de Lappe: which is using save grant money using noaa funding

Brock de Lappe: whatever we can get

Brock de Lappe: to stay on top of what will be an ongoing problem, and

Brock de Lappe: and unless the State

Brock de Lappe: add some kind of fee to annual registration, I don’t see any hope of anything changing.

John Vasquez, Commissioner: Thank you, Brock.

John Vasquez, Commissioner: Thank you, Marie, for letting me ask that question.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Grace.

John Vasquez, Commissioner: No, it’s so, I said, on the Delta Protection Commission, also on the same issue, is going on the Delta. We just had a presentation last month.

John Vasquez, Commissioner: about the average age of the boats in California is 35 years old.

John Vasquez, Commissioner: So, to Brock’s point, they, they are reaching the Asia.

John Vasquez, Commissioner: The end of their life. And they’re having more and more these kinds of issues, and less and less people are recreating on boats. So less boats are being sold. So even trying to put a fee on new boats, it’s not really going to solve the problem. We’re just. We’re coming up with

John Vasquez, Commissioner: lots of old boats that people no longer want or can afford to keep. So they’re either going to be in the Delta or in the bay.

John Vasquez, Commissioner: Thank you.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Thank you.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Any other Commissioner comments.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Okay, I’m gonna close the public hearing.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: No other Commissioner comments.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: So we are going to move on. Thank you, everybody. It is a really tough issue, but

Marie Gilmore, Chair: I do feel like the cities of Alameda and Oakland are making some real progress here.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: but like with everything else, we sort of have to keep at it, and be somewhat patient, and hope that

Marie Gilmore, Chair: you know the funding stream continues to be there.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Okay.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: item number 7.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: It’s a progress report on the compliance with the Richardson’s Bay Regional Agency and BC. DC. Settlement agreement.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: So the committee will now receive a briefing from the compliance staff and rbra staff on the current status of Rbra’s compliance with the terms and conditions of the settlement agreement that went into effect. In August 2021,

Marie Gilmore, Chair: and the main objectives of the settlement agreement are to enforce compliance with the Richardson stay special area plan

Marie Gilmore, Chair: to ensure the removal of anchored out vessels from Richardson’s Bay to restore damaged eelgrass beds in the bay, and to establish a long term protection and management plan for the eelgrass habitats.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: and I’m now going to invite John preach of our compliance unit to deliver his presentation.

Boardroom SX80: Good morning again John Creech here from Bcdc’s compliance team, I’d like to introduce item 7, a briefing on the status of the settlement agreement between Bcdc. And Richardson Bay Regional Agency or the Rbra.

Boardroom SX80: We will then hear from representatives from the Rbra regarding the progress they have made towards compliance with the agreement and eelgrass restoration.

Boardroom SX80: Enforcement case er 2010, 0 3, 8 was opened on August 31, st 2,010, in response to allegedly 220 anchor outs, living illegally on the anchorage in Richardson Bay, in Marin County.

Boardroom SX80: in 2,012, a census was conducted, and determined that 165 individuals were living on the anchorage.

Boardroom SX80: This Enforcement case was settled on September 8, th 2,021 has been amended twice, allowing Rbra a couple of time extensions to meet deadlines as authorized under Section 12 of the agreement

Boardroom SX80: our Bra. Agreed to develop and submitted their ten-year adaptive management plan for eelgrass restoration by the December 15, th 2,023 deadline.

Boardroom SX80: and we will hear more about that from Rbras

Boardroom SX80: representatives. After this introduction

Boardroom SX80: per the terms of this agreement. By no later than October 15, th 2,026, all occupied vessels. Their ground tackle, and their moorings are to be removed from the anchorage.

Boardroom SX80: Section 15. Of the agreement has certain reporting requirements that Rbra continues to successfully meet

Boardroom SX80: each month. Our Bra. Submits to Bcdc. A comprehensive report which indicates how much progress they have made towards reaching compliance with the settlement agreement.

Boardroom SX80: Bcdc. Staff also meets virtually with Rbra each month to ensure we keep an open line of communication.

Boardroom SX80: These reports, are to include the following metrics.

Boardroom SX80: vessel metrics, eelgrass metrics, housing metrics, governance metrics just to name a few. This section of the agreement also stipulates that Rbra brief Bcdc’s Enforcement Committee each quarter on their progress, and here they are today to meet that requirement.

Boardroom SX80: Rbra will report on the following metrics in their report, the number of vessels that remain on the anchorage, the number of vessels that remain in the Eelgrush Protection Zone. The number of active enforcement cases involving vessels on the anchorage number of vessels in the safe and seaworthy program

Boardroom SX80: number of vessels successfully removed through the vessel buyback program.

Boardroom SX80: their housing, success metrics and yieldgrass success metrics.

Boardroom SX80: Thank you very much. I would now like to introduce Brad Gross. He’s the executive director of the Richardson Bay Regional Agency, James Malcolm. He’s harbour master at Rbra and Rebecca Schwartz Lesberg. She is President of the Coastal policy solutions.

Brad Gross: Thank you, John. This is Brad Gross. Good morning, chair. Gilmore. Commissioners Brad, Gross, executive director from Rbra. Am I able to share my screen so I can give you a the Powerpoint presentation that we’ve prepared for today.

Boardroom SX80: That shouldn’t be a problem. Brad, can you see this share screen button.

Brad Gross: Got it. Yeah.

Brad Gross: thank you for your patience. Everybody this is Brad, Gross, executive director. Rbra, with me today I have Jim Malcolm, our harbor master, and Rebecca Schwartz Lesberg with our Rbra Hill grass expert and the President of Coastal policy solutions. It’s good to see everybody again today. The last time we were before this committee was in December.

Brad Gross: We’re going to update you on the activities since that time, and we’ll be ready to answer any questions you have at the conclusion of the presentation, or, if there are any questions you know, feel free to jump in at any time to ask a question.

Brad Gross: As usual, we open with acknowledging our partners as all aspects of what we’re doing involve a very large team.

Brad Gross: I’m gonna quickly quickly review. Let me try and get this moved over here. I’m gonna quickly review the milestones. Those that are highlighted with the dark blue have been accomplished. The others in the turquoise color are either underway or have future deadlines.

Brad Gross: The 1st quote few bullet points we presented in the past. So I’m just going to jump to Bullet Point, number 7, the removal of all post 2,019 vessels. We’ve made great progress on this, and there will be more on that later in the presentation.

Brad Gross: like to point out the final bullet point remove all floating homes illegally anchored off of Waldo Point. The last floating home was removed. Actually the illegally anchored vessels off Waldo Point that were identified in our agreement. I don’t want anybody to get the impression that we’re taking all the floating homes out of Waldo Point.

Brad Gross: The last floating home was removed during this reporting period and disposed of by Rbra. So now all the floating homes and their ground, their ground tackle, identified in our agreement, are now gone from Richardson Bay

Brad Gross: more milestones. I’m gonna just move to slide number 3 here. No vessels in the eelgrass protection zone. By October 15, th 2024. This is ongoing, and there will be more again on this also. Later in the presentation.

Brad Gross: the last 3 bullet points remove all occupied safe and seaworthy vessels, remove all vessels and occupants, and only transient seaworthy vessels in the anchor zone have due dates of October of 2026.

Brad Gross: Very quickly our vessel buyback program, this last reporting period, the way these slides are set up. We have the previous reporting period on the left, and then we will report on activities during this reporting period, and and for the last reporting period. I’ll just read the numbers 5, 1, 8, 39,000 781,721 vessels

Brad Gross: for this reporting period. Those numbers are now 11 vessels and one floating home purchase, 18 total vessels and floating homes properly disposed of. Since the reinstatement of the program in April of 2023,

Brad Gross: $120,800 distributed since the reinstatement, and $162,800 distributed, and 33 vessels disposed of since the program inception in 2,022

Brad Gross: regarding our codes and ordinances, we are constantly updating our codes and ordinances and the recent update which will go to our board in September for final approval, and if approved, this is just a new ordinance that will provide the harbor master with one more tool to efficiently remove vessels from the anchorage.

Brad Gross: I’m going to move on to Eelgrass now and turn it over to Ms. Schwartz Lesberg.

Rebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: Hello! Good morning again. Everybody. I have a couple of fun updates for you. I get to talk about the

Rebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: the environmental piece here, so I’ll give you some updates about the Restoration. Grant that we have from EPA and some upcoming actions.

Rebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: Oh, I can’t enter damn slides next slide, please.

Rebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: So, as a reminder, Rbra was granted about 3 million dollars from us. EPA. San Francisco Bay Water Quality Improvement Fund that supports or supported the development of the Restoration Adaptive Management Plan mentioned by John earlier, which was submitted to Bcdc. Last December.

Rebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: The Grant also funds the 1st 15 acres of eelgrass restoration in Richardson Bay specifically focused on the anchor scars.

Rebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: and our goal is to get those 15 acres planted by 2027.

Rebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: The Grant supports ongoing adaptive management. And so what that means is that it’s paying for scientists and restoration ecologists to go out there. Monitor, what’s going on under the water with the plants, how they’re surviving, if they need additional support, how we can change things from year to year, and how we’re putting plants in the ground and making sure that we’re learning from what we’re doing as we go along. The Grant also supports significant partner engagement and stakeholder outreach

Rebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: next slide.

Rebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: Since we were awarded the grant. All subcontracts and subawards have been executed, and so that includes subcontracts to coastal policy solutions, and to Merkel and associates Merkel and associates produced the figure on the left, which I’ll explain more in a moment. It also includes sub awards to San Francisco State University and Audubon, California.

Rebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: This past. So each year we do water bird monitoring, starting in November, and it continues through April. So the 2023, 2024 monitoring season completed since last time we talked.

Rebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: and that includes 6 drone surveys of rafting water birds in Richardson Bay. So what that’s looking at is not necessarily species, composition.

Rebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: or

Rebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: but abundance, but is really asking the question.

Rebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: where are birds gathering in large numbers to use the bay’s open waters?

Rebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: The the other piece of a

Rebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: we’re doing it out there. But

Rebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: is the app

Rebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: actual plan?

Rebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: Okay? So in 2024 we had 2 events is unstable. If I’m coming in and out my apologies. I can always take my video off if you’re having any issues hearing me.

Rebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: But we had 2 planting events, one in May and one in June. Those restoration events happen during the summer or early summer, late spring, early summer, specifically to coincide with the maximum maximum extent of the growing season for eelgrass. That’s also when we get some of our

Rebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: okay, I’ve got a note from Brad to kill my camera. My audio is shaking. Just turned off my camera, and those planting events also coincide with when we have our extreme low tides. During the day

Rebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: we got about 6 acres in this season with the EPA money as sort of a coda to that. There’s also other funds that are used to support restoration in Richardson Bay. So we got an additional 3 acres in the ground.

Rebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: Using Costco busan mitigation dollars.

Rebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: Now, what does that work include? It’s baseline data. So figuring out what is the current situation on the ground plan for where we’re going to be planting, doing a donor site survey, collecting the donor material, active, replanting, and then also tagging marine debris.

Rebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: which I’ll talk about more in a moment. But to refer to this figure on the left. What we see here is an aerial photo or a base map, basically of

Rebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: the eelgrass bed in Richardson Bay.

Rebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: On the bottom is the shoreline of Sausalito.

Rebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: The light green or sort of yellowish color is the distribution of eelgrass based on survey data taken in 2,022.

Rebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: There’s, of course, now car alarm going on outside the green dots are eel grass that was planted in 2024, using EPA Grant dollars.

Rebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: The other color dots are eelgrass plantings that took place before this year. You are using cosmosan dollars.

Rebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: You can see that we’re really focusing on the northern portion of the eelgrass protection zone which coincides with where we see the maximum extent of vessel renewal.

Rebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: So if any folks have questions about

Rebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: planting techniques, surveying design, anything like that, happy to answer those

Rebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: next slide.

Rebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: some upcoming actions. So this summer. Actually, it’s probably already happened by now. We’ll be doing the aerial photography for our annual ill grass damage assessment. So that produces those really compelling photographs that shows the anchor scars from the air.

Rebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: This winter we’ll again be doing waterbird monitoring. Spring will start planting, planning for next season’s restoration.

Rebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: and then next season will be. In addition to the Eelgrass restoration will be doing debris removal. There is a fair amount of

Rebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: debris on the bay floor in the areas of these anchor scars. It’s not all specifically abandoned and derelict vessels on the bay floor, but debris associated with them. So it’s things like skiffs or small boats that often sink and go unreported. General material that comes off the decks. There’s a lot of stuff down there. So Merkel. They they mapped and tagged a lot of that, and they’ll be focusing on that for next year.

Rebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: I do

Rebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: have.

Rebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: Well, we can skip it. I have some photos of what the actual Restoration efforts look like. That, Brad.

Rebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: if you would like me to share I and but we can always come back to that later.

Rebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: Let’s.

Brad Gross: Come back to that later.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Yeah, I was gonna say, maybe we should come back to that later and keep the presentation moving.

Rebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: Sounds good. I’m all done. Thank you.

Rebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: I believe this is now Brad or Jim.

Brad Gross: Do we have the harbor masters promoted

Brad Gross: over to Malcolm. This is his section. We can’t get him. I can cover it.

Rebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: I don’t see him as a participant.

Brad Gross: Well, in order to

Brad Gross: keep things moving, I’ll just jump in here. This was I. I am filling in for harbour, Master Jim Malcolm

Brad Gross: and he says he’s on, and he’s here. If someone can please promote Jim Malcolm Rbra

Brad Gross: cause. I’m sure there may be some questions for him. We can get him onto this presentation.

Brad Gross: Jim, pipe pipe in any time you get on board.

Brad Gross: In the meantime I’ll keep going.

Brad Gross: This is our

RBRA: Hello! I’m here. I got a problem.

Brad Gross: Alright sorry I was stalling. Thank you, everybody.

RBRA: Thank you very much. And good morning, Commissioners. My name is Jim Malcolm. I’m the harbour master for the Rbra. This will be my small section of our presentation today. I’d like to start by like I said. The slide says vessel census title on the side says vessels and floating homes in Richardson Bay. As Brad’s already mentioned, we have no more floating homes we just leave that in there as a pleasant reminder for a great work accomplished

RBRA: from everyone. Our current vessel census now is down to 31

RBRA: as was, as was mentioned earlier this slide only goes back to October 2021. This is when I started with the agency, the very beginning of 2021, we were at 100, about 155, and then going back as 2,01720 18, we were up at about 2 55. So this is this definitely displays a lot of good work that 31 represents. Both. You know, vessels engaged in in our housing people on a path to housing as well as

RBRA: vessels that are involved in active enforcement, not necessarily with housing, but active enforcement.

RBRA: Next slide, please.

RBRA: similar to other slides. That we have seen. I’ll be addressing this as in a format of

RBRA: milestones, you know, as milestones. In the agreement we know what the original milestone was, what it was last updated, and then what it is currently starting there on the left

RBRA: our milestone was October 15, th 2,023, all post 2,019 vessels to be removed from the anchorage.

RBRA: In August of 22 we were down to 14. December 23, we were down to 7, and as of this update. We now have 3 of those vessels remaining. 2 of those 2 of those 3 are engaged with our housing program on our path to housing.

RBRA: and they will be surrendering their vessels once they’re housed. I the best you know, as as far as the time it takes to get housed once they’re engaged. That that is really up to our housing component, but usually runs anywhere from 2 weeks to a month before the vessel is actually removed, so we’ll be down shortly. Be down to one.

RBRA: Next was is the removal of all floating homes, as been mentioned a couple of times. Now that has been accomplished. We have 0.

RBRA: Next is the no vessels inside the Eelgrass protection zone. There were 53 in July of 2242 August of 23

RBRA: 35 at our last update we now have 29, and I will. Our next slide will be. I’ll be kind of speaking to what our plan is for those remaining vessels.

RBRA: Next is our all occupied removal of all of our occupied, safe and seaworthy vessels. Vessels with that are that enrolled in the safe and seaworthy program back in 2,019, when that program was stood up.

RBRA: there were 10 of those in June of 2022, 7 in August of 2023 on.

RBRA: and then I’ll as well. 7

RBRA: at our last update. We’re down to 6. The reason these numbers are dropping these vessels per per the milestone. In the agreement these vessels are actually not required to be removed until the end of the agreement. In 2026. These folks are either electing to take housing the vessels were safe and seaworthy are safe, and are, are, you know, were enrolled as safe and seaworthy. They can take, and, you know.

RBRA: put them in a marina, seal them away, do whatever they like to do. These. The reduction in numbers that we’re actually seeing, though, is more, people are electing to go for the housing program and actually surrendering their vessels through the vessel. Buyback.

RBRA: lastly, is total vessels on the water. There were 57, as of July of 2022, 48, in August of 2343 at our last update in December.

RBRA: and then 31. As of this update 2 on 2 on authorized 30 day permits

RBRA: 6 vessels engaged in active enforcement, and 2 of those vessels are under nuisance abatement removal.

RBRA: Next slide, please.

RBRA: as I mentioned. For the folks that are within the Eelgrass protection zone.

RBRA: this is what you’re seeing. On the right of the slide is a copy of the notice that we’ve been delivering

RBRA: to the folks that are out on in the Eelgrass Protection zone that we will be relocating down into the authorized anchorage area. Once we close out the Eaglegrass Protection zone. Speaking to enforcement.

RBRA: we’ve had this period. We’ve had 35 citations issued 3 4 initial. Basically, somebody comes in drops the anchor. They can stay for 72 h

RBRA: once they have, exceeded that 72 h they get an initial citation, and then we give it a 30 day period for the give them time to either appeal or pay the citation. If they’re still there. After 30 days they get a second

RBRA: same scenario another 30 days, and then after that they get a 3.rd

RBRA: After they’ve received their 3rd citation, and they’re still there. 30 days later they get a a nuisance abatement notice, which is basically the rbra declaring their vessel public nuisance and giving them a period of time to remove their vessel from the anchorage

RBRA: or face impound.

RBRA: We’ve had 4 nuisance abatements issued, resulting in 2 vessel removals and one abatement. 2 vessel removals, and one of those base vessels has already been abated during the past reporting period. The other vessel is still in progress.

RBRA: All vessels on Richardson Bay, as I mentioned are required to relocate out of the Eelgrass protection zone of this October. They were issued a

RBRA: it doesn’t say one year, but they were issued a 1 year. They were issued a 9 month notice. They were issued a 6 month. Notice a 3 month notice. We’re in the process of issuing 2 month notices, and then they’ll also be issued a 1 month notice, giving them all due proper notice that says that they need to relocate out of the illgrass protection zone into the authorized anchorage area. Next slide, please.

RBRA: and as you can see, the the chartlet on the right side of your screen the beige area kind of at below the green is will be the new authorized anchorage area where we’re going to be relocating folks out of those green. Anybody who’s anchored in that green area is going to be relocated down into that

RBRA: Beige area which will be the new anchorage area. And how are they going to know the new anchorage area? Our planning is underway

RBRA: for eelgrass, protection, zone and anchorage signage? 5 signs will be placed on existing piles, installation of one new pile and 3 floating blue buoys.

RBRA: Our plans have all been approved by Bcdc. Staff permits are pending with other agencies.

RBRA: and, as I’ve mentioned, all vessels are going to be receiving those 2 month and one month notices with the intention of having everybody relocated out of the Eelgrass Protection zone and into the new anchorage by October of this year.

RBRA: Anybody kind of preempting a preempting questions. Anybody who either does not

RBRA: will not, does not, or just absolutely heck. No, we won’t go will fall into the enforcement side

RBRA: of the Enforcement side of our operation.

RBRA: as I’ve mentioned before, with the citations ramping up to eventual nuisance, abatement. The citation, however, the citations for remaining inside the eelgrass protection zone are significantly heftier

RBRA: than just the average citations that have been issued for exceeding the 72 h anchorage. So it’s it’s going to be a slightly slightly steeper enforcement slope for folks that don’t want to be move out of the Eelbras Protection zone. So that is all I have. I’m now going to send it back over to Brad to speak about some housing.

Brad Gross: Thank you, Jim. I appreciate that. We’re gonna move into the housing. Update

Brad Gross: the temporary housing update. There are, as I said in the past there are 4 components to the housing program funding. A 3 million dollar grant from the State

Brad Gross: was received in fiscal year 23, supported by Senator Mcguire. That was received on March 28, th 2,023. This allowed the program to begin on March 1st 2023, and we’ve been at it for 15 months. Now we’ve expended just under $400,000,

Brad Gross: temporary housing support. We’ve extended the agreement between Rbra and health and human services through June of 2025, and in turn Hhs and Episcopal Community Service have also extended their agreement through the end of next fiscal year.

Brad Gross: Finally, we’ve contracted to have a 1 year review of the Rbra temporary Housing Support program conducted. It was published in the beginning of the summer.

Brad Gross: and in a nutshell. The report cites the aspects of the program, the placement of the placement of individuals in secure housing while removing illegally anchored vessels from the anchorage, and and it basically highlights the successes and the challenges of the program. And actually it ended up being a very positive report. This report, if anybody is interested in reviewing it is available all on our website.

Brad Gross: Marinas, there’s been no activity report during this past period on marinas.

Brad Gross: This is the tracking of the post 2019 vessels, and as we committed when we 1st began tracking these vessels we, this slide was presented the last time we met just 2 months after the 1st extension was enact enacted, and, as you can see, they we were well on our way. 4 vessels were gone, 4 people were housed

Brad Gross: and 8 people were engaged in the program. This is again, this is from December. This is the current slide and the the there’s some dramatic progress that’s shown here. Those yellow, highlighted lines are vessels that are gone. People have either moved on, been housed, or their vessels have all the vessels have left the acreage.

Brad Gross: So with now we have 9 vessels gone, and 14 total people. How housed.

Brad Gross: and all but one is engaged, and as as a reminder we committed to have all of these vessels on this list, either gone or engaged by October 15th of 2024, so that gives us about 7 more weeks to get that last holdout engaged.

Brad Gross: So the the final recap on the housing program again, all the numbers from the last report on the left there. 4, 15, 7, and 4 important. But the current program covering the last 7 months highlights. Our recent successes. 14 people are now housed. 20 people are participating. 6 people are in queue, and 17 people now have a voucher, and 2 are pending, and 7 more vessels have been purchased in the vessel buyback program.

Brad Gross: I showed this slide at our last meeting in December. This slide’s a merger of the vessel and housing programs, and it’s a visual depiction of the successes of the programs.

Brad Gross: As I stand. In the last time I showed the slide I mentioned that at that time that the evidence of success will be obvious by the colored bars at the bottom, eventually intersecting with those 2 top lines. Those 2 top lines represent vessels and the housing opportunities and various programs are along the bottom, and that dark blue, the gray, light orange, green, and the Burgundy lines represent people housed

Brad Gross: people in process, vessels turned in or removed, and the people with vouchers, and all these lines were at that time beginning to trend up.

Brad Gross: This is the slide. Now this is for the last reporting period starting in December, and, as you can see, from December of 2023 to July 2024. Everything’s trending in the right direction.

Brad Gross: and eventually we will see an intersection of those lines, and the

Brad Gross: the 2 lines at the top will go flat where the other lines that colors that I mentioned will head to the top of the of the chart.

Brad Gross: As I start to wrap things up, I just I just wanna I wanna thank our Bra. Staff for their hard work and and their and our partners, including, of course, Vcdc. But the executive director, the chief counsel and and the staff, but but most importantly, the the flexibility and the partnership

Brad Gross: to this committee of this committee. It’s resulting in some constant and noticeable success.

Brad Gross: I think this. This agreement between Rbra Bcbc may be unique. I’m not sure. I don’t know if it’s the 1st of its kind. But definitely some of the programs developed, based on this agreement are and they’re working. It may be a little slower than we managed. We we 1st imagined when starting. But we’re working.

Brad Gross: You know, we’re working with a unique and and

Brad Gross: willful population. I think that’s a great way to put it. But the consistent and methodical approach we’ve been taking to these solutions are working, and we’re confident that we will ultimately be able to accomplish the final goal of the anchorage truly operating as a transient anchorage, and, as I said, people are are taking note. This is just a quick list of some of the great press that we’ve received along with our partners, and Bcdc. Over the last few months.

Brad Gross: and with that I conclude my presentation. I apologize for having a video off during the presentation, but I wanted to make sure that we were able to get this out information out, and I’d be glad to take any questions.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Excuse me, thank you very much for your presentation. It was

Marie Gilmore, Chair: very concise and I’m happy to see the progress that the rbra is made even since the last reporting period. Do.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Can you stop sharing your screen, please, because I can’t see anybody?

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Thank you.

Brad Gross: I’m sorry.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: No, that’s okay. Rebecca.

Rebecca Eisen, Commissioner: Thank you. Thank you for the presentations. 2 questions from your one of your initial slides. You reported that there are 31 vessels and

Rebecca Eisen, Commissioner: combined a number of 31 remaining to be removed or to move. It looks like if I go sort of back 31 vessels before that

Rebecca Eisen, Commissioner: we had something like 62 vessels in in Richardson Bay, back in.

Rebecca Eisen, Commissioner: I think it was

Rebecca Eisen, Commissioner: 2022 which suggests that it took about 2 years

Rebecca Eisen, Commissioner: to get 31 vessels out of there. So I’m wondering if that trajectory is

Rebecca Eisen, Commissioner: is what you expect to hold. In other words, will it take another 2 years to get those remaining 31 vessels out?

Rebecca Eisen, Commissioner: That’s question number one.

Rebecca Eisen, Commissioner: and my second question for the harbor master. I appreciate your description of all of the notices that go out after a year and 6 months and 3 months and one month, and then they get into a nuisance situation, and then there are more notices. And

Rebecca Eisen, Commissioner: what is the inventive

Rebecca Eisen, Commissioner: for anyone getting these notices to do anything

Rebecca Eisen, Commissioner: up until the time it becomes a nuisance situation. I mean, if

Rebecca Eisen, Commissioner: if you get a notice at one year

Rebecca Eisen, Commissioner: why not just sit there for a year. What! What

Rebecca Eisen, Commissioner: incentive is there to do anything before those notices expire?

Brad Gross: Let let me

Brad Gross: start with the answer to the 1st question. Thank you, Commissioner, for the question.

Brad Gross: The 31 vessels includes vessels that have come into the anchorage as of late meaning. There’s a handful of vessels and harbormaster. Malcolm can give you the exact number that are in an Enforcement program right now.

Rebecca Eisen, Commissioner: And.

Brad Gross: The the numbers that you stated. They’re rough numbers, and and the numbers in the anchorage are always in flux because people are coming in and out.

Brad Gross: but we can use those numbers, and I would say that yes, we’re probably on about for the last year the same number of reductions of vessels from the acreage that we’re expecting to take place for the next 18 months to 2 years. The reason for that, Commissioner is that all of these vessels are occupied.

Brad Gross: It was quicker when we had unoccupied vessels. They’re a little bit easier for us to remove and take action on. We don’t have people that respond. Therefore we can do a derelict vessel notice and and remove the vessel quicker. We have to make sure that we are giving the people on these vessels. Due process. Due process does take some time. That being said, you asked the question, and sorry. Jim, I’ll I’ll just jump into the next one. You asked the question about enforcement and timing of Enforcement

Brad Gross: person is allowed to come into the anchorage and anchor for 72 h, not violation until after the 72 h. So if we project this out to 2026,

Brad Gross: and we still have vessels in the anchorage on October 15th of 2,026. Ultimately, our final day. Technically, they’re not in violation

Brad Gross: or 2 more, or for 3 more days.

Brad Gross: So let’s take a vessel that comes into the acreage. Now we’re making sure that we are taking all due process, so that we are making sure that they have their ability to appeal. Though you write a citation, the appeal process, they have 30 days to appeal. They we do an appeal within 10 days. So it draws the timing out.

Brad Gross: that being said, as we get closer to our deadlines of October of 2024 for the illgrass protection zone, October of 2025 for the remaining vessels. We are going to accelerate our notifications, meaning instead of 10. This is the 1st that we’re announcing it. This has been in discussions with us and our attorneys.

Brad Gross: We’re going to shorten that timeframe from

Brad Gross: a citation appeal on 30 days. We’re to shorten that to 2 weeks, so that in a matter of

Brad Gross: a month to 6 weeks, we will get to the nuisance abatement, hearing which then, if we’re successful, gets us to a warrant which gives us 14 days to abate the nuisance. So we understand that it seems like it’s a long time right now. But we’re making sure, basically, that we’re trying to keep our

Brad Gross: liability issues at a minimum. We’re a small agency. We don’t have a lot of money for these types of things. So we’re making sure that we can’t be successful. We get in front of a judge to get those warrants

Brad Gross: and

Brad Gross: and and all.

RBRA: Also Commissioner to to answer another. Another of what I understood your question to be, as far as the the motivation for somebody receiving a 6 month notice to go ahead and relocate out of the Eelgrass Protection zone. Historically, vessels, you know we had. If you take a look at those numbers, as you pointed out on the slide. You know you had 66 vessels in 2022. Those vessels were spread out all over

RBRA: basically the length of Richardson Bay. And as you look at that Chartlet, you notice that you know, the area of anchorage becomes significantly smaller. And so space, you know, for anybody who is who, you know, under under our agreement, under our plans for housing individuals and the boats that can stay until 2025, or can stay until 2026 space is at a premium.

RBRA: and so for somebody who receives a 6 month notice

RBRA: if they go ahead and they move, or they receive a 2 month. Notice that area, that new anchorage area right now, as of my patrol yesterday only had about 4 boats in it.

RBRA: We’re gonna have to take and fit if I still have.

RBRA: Let’s say, 23 boats that are authorized to be out there. Those are folks that are waiting for housing, waiting for their turn at the housing program or waiting to waiting for the housing outreach to get to them.

RBRA: That’s going to be 25 boats that need to move from the spread out region where they are now down into that finite anchor. So if they move sooner rather than later, they’re not going to have to be further south, further out into San Francisco, you know, closer to San Francisco Bay, where it may not be quite as sheltered as being potentially closer.

Rebecca Eisen, Commissioner: I I’m not.

Rebecca Eisen, Commissioner: I’m not fully understanding. So the incentive.

Rebecca Eisen, Commissioner: Is it a carrot or a stick that

Rebecca Eisen, Commissioner: or both, that will cause somebody who gets, say, a 6 months notice to move any sooner than 6 months.

RBRA: It’s a carrot, because if they move sooner than 6 months, 6 months, they could potentially be still inside the legal anchorage. And you know.

RBRA: 1520,

RBRA: 6,000 yards closer

RBRA: to the public dock.

Rebecca Eisen, Commissioner: And that’s desirable, I take it.

RBRA: Yes, it is.

RBRA: Okay.

Rebecca Eisen, Commissioner: Alright.

Rebecca Eisen, Commissioner: Thank you.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Are there any other questions?

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Okay, seeing none. I’m gonna open up the public comment. Margie, do we have any but any public commenters.

Boardroom SX80: I don’t see any hand raised. Cherry Elmore.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Okay, thank you. I want to thank the Rbra representatives

Marie Gilmore, Chair: for coming and giving a very comprehensive update. And I want to say, you know. Congratulations, you guys are. Yeah, I guess it’s slow and steady. Wins the race. Of course we’re always looking for a little bit faster, but we understand the challenges with dealing with

Marie Gilmore, Chair: you know, occupied vessels as opposed to derelict.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: unoccupied vessels.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Does anybody else have any comments. Or one last call for questions.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Okay, remember to close the public comment. Public comment is closed.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: And so thank you very much

Marie Gilmore, Chair: for the update, and we’ll see you, I guess, next quarter.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Thank you.

Brad Gross: Thank you.

Rebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: Thank you.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Okay, that brings us to item number 8, which is a briefing on the compliance unit units activities.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: So I’m gonna invite John Creech and Tony Desog

Marie Gilmore, Chair: to deliver the presentation.

Boardroom SX80: Good morning again, Commissioners. I’m still John Creech, still on the BC’s compliance team. I’m here with my counterpart, Tony Desog.

Boardroom SX80: Here’s an overview of our agenda. For this briefing we will discuss a few high level themes, a bit of background on the compliance program, and we’ll do our best to iterate how the compliance program works in practice.

Boardroom SX80: In 2,019 an audit resulted in the formation of the compliance program, and it mentioned the 1st quote

Boardroom SX80: which define the program as a systematic method of insurance, of ensuring compliance with permit conditions to lessen risks that permit violations go undetected.

Boardroom SX80: Another way to think about. The program is represented by the second quote, which indicates that the compliance team takes over. After a new permit is issued some sort of enforcement resolution is reached or a report is submitted.

Boardroom SX80: The point here is that prior to implementation of our units, permits would get issued. Vcdc. Would address compliance matters in a reactive manner. Mostly when we would field inquiries from the public about permit violations.

Boardroom SX80: So now, when Bcdc issues a permit, the compliance team acts as a liaison or a project manager to monitor deliverables required by the permits or orders, and I’ll now pass it over to Tony.

Boardroom SX80: Well, thank you, John. 1st off. It’s good to be here this morning. I will note that this is the 1st Enforcement meeting that I’ve attended. So it’s really good to be here. So let me quickly go over some of the background here. These 4 points John mentioned earlier, the audit of 2,019

Boardroom SX80: and

Boardroom SX80: to reiterate, reiterate. You know, one important part of that audit was the belief that the Commission could prevent potential violations and as important decrease its enforcement workload through this compliance program.

Boardroom SX80: Staff at the time expressed the view confirmed by the auditor that possibly 50% of violations were actually related to

Boardroom SX80: noncompliance with permits such as failing to provide reports or blocking public access. Things like that.

Boardroom SX80: Now, on the second point of the year 2,022 new hires, while both John and I were hired in August 2,022, the program really began in earnest. In January of 2,023, roughly, 18 months ago.

Boardroom SX80: John will later discuss our work since the inception of the compliance program. But for now let me just quickly mention 2 highlights over the 18 month period. One is having to do with having updated the compliance web page on Bcdc’s website.

Boardroom SX80: and a special thank yous and kudos to Ethan Levine, and also Raylena. Ruiz for their great assistance and helping us streamline. That website for the compliance program. So now it’s easy to use and follow for permittees or members of the public who might want to contact us about compliance related issues that they see, or maybe permates might have questions.

Boardroom SX80: Now, as for the internal procedures, we are right now finalizing the internal procedures. When those procedures are finalized, we will have on paper. The ways in which different programs of Bcdc. Such as the shoreline development program, or such as the Bay Resources Program.

Boardroom SX80: or even the Bcdc staff, engineer or design analyst. You know, we will have on paper the different ways in which programs of Bcdc interact with the compliant program and vice versa.

Boardroom SX80: So let me now hand it over back to John, who will start the discussion about how the compliance program works and has worked in the past 18 months.

Boardroom SX80: Thanks, Tony. Here are a few examples and categories of compliance work that includes working on settlement agreements and orders.

Boardroom SX80: new permit compliance

Boardroom SX80: processing annual reports and technical reports and helping return noncompliant parties to compliance.

Boardroom SX80: So prior to going to work as a compliance officer, I was an enforcement analyst

Boardroom SX80: with this enforcement, experience and background. I tend to handle the lion’s share of resolved enforcement cases, including settlement agreements and order compliance.

Boardroom SX80: You just heard an example of an instance, where Bcdc. Was able to get creative to avoid enforcement proceedings by successfully utilizing us. Bcdc’s new compliance team

Boardroom SX80: with the Oakland Alameda estuary. There is no formal enforcement action taken, however, compliance staff regularly works with individuals from Oakland and Alameda staff, among others, to ensure no enforcement. Actions are necessary, and to ensure that the cities continue to

Boardroom SX80: prioritize, maintaining a safe, clean, and healthy estuary.

Boardroom SX80: You also heard the example of how Bcdc. Staff is continuing to work with Rbra staff to ensure that they remain in compliance with their settlement agreement.

Boardroom SX80: This work includes regular meetings with rbra, staff, and positive communication to stay on top of deliverable deliverables due, and ensure that there is a comprehensive understanding of the situation on the water.

Boardroom SX80: Tony will now speak to some specific permitting compliance matters

Boardroom SX80: great. Well, thanks, John. In. In the last slide John mentioned how? Based upon his prior background in the enforcement program, that has resulted in him handling the lions work of the settlement agreements.

Boardroom SX80: On behalf of this compliance program. Now, as for myself, prior to joining the compliance program, my background was in Bcdc’s shoreline development program. Get getting great guidance from Ethan Levine as well as Katherine Pan.

Boardroom SX80: And I think it’s because of this background that I’ve taken really to enjoying the processing of recently issued new permits processing these new permits for compliance related questions or or purposes.

Boardroom SX80: And right now I’m going to discuss one example of a new permit that that the Commission had approved in late 2022, December 2022, and it was a permit that the former Staffer, analyst, Shruti Sinha, had processed. And this has to do with the 200 Twin Dolphin Office, R. And D. Project in Redwood City.

Boardroom SX80: Just really quickly. This project involved the redevelopment of an office campus. Whose 5 story office R&D buildings were mostly outside of the shoreline band but whose public access areas within the public within the Bcdc’s jurisdiction were greatly expanded as a result of the of the permit.

Boardroom SX80: So because of this, we, in compliance once, Reina, from the administrative Clerical Staff, let us know about the issuance of of this new permit, we went about in compliance, our work. So

Boardroom SX80: in particular, in handling new permits that are issued. What one of the 1st things that we do is, you know, just creating a checklist of all the deliverables corresponding to special conditions in the permit.

Boardroom SX80: And for those deliverables that have this very specific deadline due dates we create in Microsoft outlook calendars, reminders, reminder notices that ping us

Boardroom SX80: in advance of the due dates, or on or on the actual due dates itself. So at this point, it’s really using something as basic as Microsoft outlook which is really at the heart of our proactive monitoring system that we have in place in terms of monitoring

Boardroom SX80: new permits that you issue, and getting them to deliver or transmit to us their deliverables in the time that they agreed.

Boardroom SX80: But you know, as important as with the checklist. It’s really about sending out that letter that that congratulations letter to the new permittees. Not only, you know, sharing with them. Oh, hey! Here’s a checklist. We know that you’re the new permitee. We we know, you know, what your requirements are. But you know, nonetheless. Here’s this letter. We want to congratulate you on this

Boardroom SX80: on this new permit, and here are the due dates and but indirectly, what we’re also saying is, Hey, we’ve got a system in place. To basically monitor you to to keep you hopefully on top of in terms of submitting your deliverables. And next slide.

Boardroom SX80: This is just obviously you can’t read this. But this is just an example of of an email a checklist that we send out. This is actually a follow up email, a follow up to the initial checklist letter that we sent out. And basically, we’re in the green. Indicates, refers to a a deliverable subject to a special condition

Boardroom SX80: that they that the permitee of 200 twin Dolphin had already submitted. So we’re saying, Okay, you submitted this. You submitted this. You submitted this.

Boardroom SX80: Now, obviously you can’t read it, but you can see yellow. The yellow indicates. Oh, you know what you were supposed to do this deliverable by a certain timetable, but we but we had not received it. So this is a a quick way of of reminding people. You need to get this into us.

Boardroom SX80: You’ll also see at the bottom of this a bunch of deliverables where there is no color. That’s simply because a good number of deliverables, as you well know. aren’t required to be trigger sent to us, either. Not until a later point point in time, down in the future.

Boardroom SX80: or some deliverables such as sea level rise, flooding reports of public access areas. They don’t need to be transmitted to us unless a certain triggering, triggering event occurs.

Boardroom SX80: So that’s just an example of how we follow up proactively and keeping people on their toes when in working with new permittees. But also in the compliance unit. You know, we also want to work with existing permittees. You know, people who’ve had permits either for several years, or maybe even decades. And so next slide.

Boardroom SX80: And so here we’re now going to talk about how the compliance program deals with existing permittees. When, when we hear of situations where they are out of compliance.

Boardroom SX80: In the situation of the Richmond Yacht Club. What triggered our review of the situation, or the insertion of of the compliance unit. Into this situation was, we received a complaint from a member of the public who who knew a lot of details about what was going on, and the member of the public. Had, you know, let us know, hey?

Boardroom SX80: There’s been some unauthorized work that had been going on. You know, make sure to take a look at this and we did. And so basically, just really quickly. What the Richmond Yacht Club had done was

Boardroom SX80: removed and replaced a beam that was underneath a wharf, and the beam supports the wharf load the beam is called a glue lamb and so originally, when we looked at the Permit history originally, Richmond Yacht Club prior to, you know, getting the permit issued in August of 2023,

Boardroom SX80: only one year ago. Prior to getting the permit issued one year ago. They actually wanted to remove and replace the the glue lamb but as they started to do their work in September and October, they decided, or or no, prior to the issuance of of the permit, they said, you know what we don’t need to remove the glue lamb. All we need to do is strengthen the pilings and that will support the wharf. adequately.

Boardroom SX80: But as they did they, as they received the permit in August of 2023, and as they proceeded to do the work in September and October. They decided to remove the gluland in an event. And so you know, someone in February someone let us know that that had been done. And so we went about. looking into the situation

Boardroom SX80: and part and parcel of a compliance program is, you know we want. I work with other staff members, especially those who, you know, have the expertise to to analyze the situation in this case. staff Engineer Jennifer Hyman.

Boardroom SX80: and we. Our conclusion was that yes, you know the removal of the gluland and the replacement of it was an unauthorized activity. But our analysis of of the work was such that it it could be something that could be permitted on an after the fact basis.

Boardroom SX80: So one of the things that I put together is a plan to what we call return to compliance plan. And and it’s basically, you know, the initial contact letter of the Icl that I I believe. You are familiar with and so

Boardroom SX80: the icl had give and take with the permitee. They accepted the terms of of the Icl, not only authorizing the glue lamp work on an after-the-act basis, but they also did a few other minor work on an unauthorized basis, having to do with the type of pilings that they also put in

Boardroom SX80: and so we went about putting together a a letter that basically put a plan to get them back on track. And the letter itself then became the basis for Sam Fielding in the bay resources unit. Then to process a permit application? So that you know that that hopefully made things a a lot quicker in terms for

Boardroom SX80: for Sam to process the after the fact permit which eventually was issued. You had issued it this past June.

Boardroom SX80: So you know, we found out about the situation in February, and then we resolved it in June, with the issuance of a new permit. But we still have to check up on it. You know we still have to check up, you know. Are they doing the work in accordance with the with a permit that was issued the after the fact permit.

Boardroom SX80: Now, in the second case of a program at work is Innovation Point which is in Redwood City. And in this situation, the permitee of Innovation Point, which is an R&D office structure with a public access new shoreline and expanded. Public access area.

Boardroom SX80: They were it was

Boardroom SX80: It was April, and they let us know that, you know. Come, May, we will have finished. The project, including the public access areas. And so at in May. At that time we will submit a notice of completion.

Boardroom SX80: and so that then triggered. A review of because part and parcel of the notice of completion. Special condition. Is that? That then triggers a review of the of the Deliverables, or the review of of all the conditions, whether they’ve met it. And the notice receiving the notice of completion. Approval is important.

Boardroom SX80: The permitees receiving of a notice of completion. Approval is important, because that way the permitee, then, can use begin to use the authorized improvements.

Boardroom SX80: So we looked through the the permit, and lo and behold! We found several minor things that they can correct such as you know they didn’t. They didn’t update the Eco Atlas data entry that Todd Todd Halenbeck here at Bcdc works on and they also had failed to record the permit. So those were easily dealt with.

Boardroom SX80: But there was one important glaring thing that they failed to do is so the permit says that prior to construction, let alone prior to use, and this is found in many permits.

Boardroom SX80: the permitee is supposed to complete. and submit. A legal instrument dedicating the public access area as permanent public access area. And

Boardroom SX80: so. And this is supposed to be done prior to construction, and unfortunately they had not done that, even though they were on the cusp of finishing everything already. So we went through a process by which,

Boardroom SX80: we put together a plan that would allow them to submit the notice of completion document.

Boardroom SX80: Have Bcdc. Approve the document and and have our design analysts issue a a use permit so that they can begin to use the the improvements. And the theory being we want that we wanted to see people, you know, begin to use the the the the bay trail that was already mostly completed.

Boardroom SX80: but as a side on a parallel path, though by a certain date. By the end of July this year. They had to submit to us. The legal instrument dedicating the public access area as permanent public access area. And and they’d met that deadline. So so so that was good.

Boardroom SX80: And one of the reasons why we also a lot, you know, went down this path is because this is a an amendment to a permit. And so the public act, the original public access area. There was all there has always been in place a legal instrument, dedicating the original public access area, as as permanent public access area.

Boardroom SX80: But by virtue of the new work, because there was now 15,000 square feet of new public access area because of the new public access area. They had to redo that whole

Boardroom SX80: whole agreement. So what we said was, you know, there’s a there there is regardless. There’s still a public access. Dedication agreement in place. So so you know. So we can still you know, move down the path of of

Boardroom SX80: accepting the required new revamped public access area agreement after the completion of the construction. Because one is still in place. It’s just the, you know, the the slight modification.

Boardroom SX80: So those are just 2 examples of recent examples of how we have worked in trying to resolve. An adult compliance situation with existing permittees.

Boardroom SX80: Thank you.

Boardroom SX80: Thanks, Tony. Many permetees are also responsible for submitting regular reports such as various annual reports, pre construction reports, post construction reports, habitat mitigation reports, monitoring reports.

Boardroom SX80: etc.

Boardroom SX80: We receive file review, and in some instances are responsible for their approval, conditional approval or denial.

Boardroom SX80: Some submitted reports require specific skill sets and training to respond comprehensively. In these instances we’ll act as liaison or project manager to collaborate with our colleagues inside Bcdc. To ensure a comprehensive complete response is returned.

Boardroom SX80: In order to fully review these documents, we 1st must review and understand the underlying permit and its conditions verify that the permitee does not have any outstanding deliverables.

Boardroom SX80: By doing this we are able to include in the response letter a section where we remind the permitee of any deliverables that have yet to be submitted, and help them understand the best way to come back into compliance with the terms of their permit.

Boardroom SX80: As we work to develop and implement the compliance program, we are continuing to look for programmatic improvements, we are currently finalizing our procedures for internal use. A draft has been circulated internally for comment, and we hope to finalize those soon.

Boardroom SX80: Also, we have identified a need for an internal database that can be utilized across departments at Bcdc. For internal project and record management to improve, workflow and efficiency.

Boardroom SX80: Thank you all very much for bearing with us. If you have any questions, we’d be happy to do our best to answer them.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Great. Thank you, John and Tony. This was a very comprehensive, and now I feel like I have a a good idea of how the compliance program works. But but I do have a question, though.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: So

Marie Gilmore, Chair: I think

Marie Gilmore, Chair: the purpose of the compliance program is to

Marie Gilmore, Chair: reduce the number of cases

Marie Gilmore, Chair: that are actually

Marie Gilmore, Chair: reduce the number of cases that become enforcement actions.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: So my question for you is, how do we measure the program? Success?

Marie Gilmore, Chair: I mean, how how do we measure?

Marie Gilmore, Chair: What could have been an Enforcement case but didn’t become an Enforcement case because of the compliance team?

Marie Gilmore, Chair: And maybe maybe we don’t have enough data to do that yet, because you guys, have only been at it for 18 months. I mean, I I get

Marie Gilmore, Chair: everything that you’re doing is wonderful, and it’s necessary.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: But

Marie Gilmore, Chair: I’m kind of wondering about this measurement.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: right? I mean, maybe it’s trying to prove a negative. I don’t know. But I’d like to hear your thoughts on that.

Matthew Trujillo: I can speak to that chair. And the reason being is because

Matthew Trujillo: when it comes to making

Matthew Trujillo: compliance referrals from enforcement, I I’m the one that basically manages that.

Matthew Trujillo: I can kind of walk you through the process of how I do it. If you would like.

Matthew Trujillo: Okay.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Well, yeah, because I think

Marie Gilmore, Chair: I think that lets us know how effective the compliance program is being.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: I mean, for for that one measure.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: which is not to say that

Marie Gilmore, Chair: that the other things that the compliance program does those things are all very helpful. But I’m I’m curious as to this particular measure.

Matthew Trujillo: Yes, and I’ll speak to that. I’m glad you

Matthew Trujillo: You made that qualification because I I just wanted to also

Matthew Trujillo: basically state that

Matthew Trujillo: I think that preventing enforcement

Matthew Trujillo: issues, you’re right. It’s it’s it’s 1 of the main goals. But they also work very closely with permits to ensure that permit is compliance, which, of course, serves the same

Matthew Trujillo: kind of kind of cool anyway, when it comes to the way that we interact with them.

Matthew Trujillo: so the public has one way of con contacting us when they have any concerns whatsoever, and that’s through our Enforcement report form.

Matthew Trujillo: And so what happens is that oftentimes, you know, I’m the one that monitors and and distributes and creates new cases. So when I see a complaint come in that doesn’t quite measure up or or indicate an actual violation, which is what enforcement is meant to address.

Matthew Trujillo: I will then

Matthew Trujillo: tend to make a referral. I’ll either close the case. It’s not an issue, or I’ll tend to make a referral for follow up at their discretion to compliance.

Matthew Trujillo: And that has been

Matthew Trujillo: I

Matthew Trujillo: I don’t know that I can necessarily give you the numbers, but that it is I would I would roughly put that at about a 50, 50, 60, 40, somewhere around there in terms of what?

Matthew Trujillo: What number of cases come in, and, you know, get channeled into enforcement versus channel into compliance.

Matthew Trujillo: So they’ve been an extremely helpful

Matthew Trujillo: a partner in keeping that caseload down and and helping us to reduce that caseload

Matthew Trujillo: The other thing that they help with is when we issue an order or any kind of settlement. Our role in enforcement ends once that order or settlement is signed and issued, and they move forward with compliance. And so, therefore, in theory, though it hasn’t happened yet.

Matthew Trujillo: They would handle such things as say, referring a matter to the

Matthew Trujillo: Attorney General’s office in the event that somebody violates an order issued by the Commission, they would kind of handle that that route. So that also is a great relief in terms of the administrative burden on enforcement.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Well, thank you for that. I mean it. It’s very clear to me how handling settlement settlement agreements. Is something that I think the compliance program was definitely meant to do

Marie Gilmore, Chair: and I can see how that is. Very beneficial for enforcement staff

Marie Gilmore, Chair: where it kind of got a little bit murky for me is like, say, we get

Marie Gilmore, Chair: a complaint that either somebody

Marie Gilmore, Chair: didn’t post signage or the signage was there, and it fell off, or you know the benches are in disrepair. So that comes in, something like that comes in, and I assume that comes to you. And then so you make the decision as to whether or not it’s a compliance issue or whether or not it’s an enforcement issue.

Matthew Trujillo: Generally speaking, yes, but that’s not to say that there is a conversation that happens around that, and also generally I would say that when it comes to

Matthew Trujillo: issues like you described where it’s a maintenance issue. With regard to a required piece of public access, it’s actually built into.

Matthew Trujillo: I would say, almost all of our permits.

Matthew Trujillo: A period of 30 days, that a maintenance, a a permitee, has the opportunity to correct any maintenance, deficiency after notification.

Matthew Trujillo: and after such. And it’s not considered a violation. During those 30 days the phone becomes a violation once they fail to make the correction in the time allotted.

Matthew Trujillo: But that’s how we kind of get into that. You know. Those weeds trying to figure out well, is this associated with a permit? Is there a maintenance provision that would basically give them that that grace period. And if

Matthew Trujillo: those questions

Matthew Trujillo: if any, if the answer to any of those questions is a no, it means that there’s an actual violation

Matthew Trujillo: right here right now that’s taking place. Therefore I will not give it to compliance. I will take it on in enforcement, and make sure that those matters are addressed through our process.

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

Boardroom SX80: Gilmore.

Boardroom SX80: yeah.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Yes. Who? Who said that?

Boardroom SX80: This is this is Tony!

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Okay. Thank you.

Boardroom SX80: Chair, Gilmore, if I could take a stab at the answer to your question as well, just really, briefly, because your question also indirectly gets at. You know, the procedures we’re putting together in terms of how the compliance unit works with the enforcement unit.

Boardroom SX80: And we we put together? In our draft procedures kind of 2 sets of question tests like questions. And in the second set of questions, one of the questions that we raise among the second set is, is there enough information to let us know that

Boardroom SX80: an an an alleged unauthorized work is something that could be authorized under normal procedures. So, for example, in the case of the the Richmond glulam situation that that we discussed, yes, it was, it was unauthorized work. But the information that was submitted suggested that it could be authorized, and so that in in that sense.

Boardroom SX80: then then it’s the compliance units can take over and and begin to kind of create that path to compliance. And then Jennifer, then, you know, does her further review. Beyond, you know, the initial set of information that receive, you know, if further review in terms of actually doing site visits and and talking with whoever put together in this case? Whoever put together the glulam

Boardroom SX80: and then, you know, once we get more information as a result of that that even improves the path to compliance, and then we’re able to give it over to Sam. But the long and short of it, though, is that in our procedures we have draft steps. As to you know how to decide.

Boardroom SX80: What is a possible, what gets sent to us on an enforcement basis. What could possibly then be dealt with compliance? So because by virtue of those of those steps that we have in place. That’s how we can begin to measure. You know how how many things came to us down this route. That eventually we

Boardroom SX80: dealt with successfully, ie. Got them to comply.

Boardroom SX80: or and or how many did we eventually have to kick back to Matthew? So that would be one way to to deal with measuring performance.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Well, thank you for that. And I think that’s something that you guys should keep in mind as you’re refining your procedures is, how do we measure this?

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Okay, Rebecca.

Rebecca Eisen, Commissioner: Yeah. Thank you. So one of the things that we notice on the Enforcement Committee is, there are

Rebecca Eisen, Commissioner: cases and issues that seem to have dragged on for a long time, and they didn’t.

Rebecca Eisen, Commissioner: They didn’t really come to our attention because the mechanisms for getting getting a non compliance issue to the Bcdc. Are are thin, you know, we have to rely on neighbors and whatnot. So at the end of each one of these enforcement matters.

Rebecca Eisen, Commissioner: It seems like it would be worthwhile to do sort of a a little debrief. And maybe this is already happening. What could have happened differently to keep this out of the enforcement world.

Rebecca Eisen, Commissioner: And I know that at least a couple of things have come up over the years one was an idea that we ask our permittees to certify. On some regular basis. I don’t know if it’s annually, or whatever it probably depends on the permit. But certify to us.

Rebecca Eisen, Commissioner: That they are in compliance. We. I’m remembering the situation where they built a bathroom that they were required to build on a near public access, but then let it fall into disrepair, which we never learned of, or didn’t learn of it for many, many years.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Isn’t it.

Rebecca Eisen, Commissioner: So had they been required to certify to us that they were in compliance, they would be either they would have had to review on their own what the requirements were, and to say yes or no, we’re still doing the things we’re supposed to be doing. So I don’t know what if anything ever happened with that idea

Rebecca Eisen, Commissioner: of inserting a certification requirement into our permits?

Rebecca Eisen, Commissioner: But to me you know that, and to do sort of a lessons learned review of Enforcement actions to see if it can inform us

Rebecca Eisen, Commissioner: as to other things that we could be doing. I agree with Matthew, that compliance and enforcement are basically, they basically have the same goal.

Rebecca Eisen, Commissioner: But obviously, enforcement is a much more difficult step to take. So

Rebecca Eisen, Commissioner: doing, that kind of a debriefing, or, you know, lessons learned from enforcement actions. And then looking at this question of whether to add a certification requirement, both of those things could be helpful. I there may be things about them that

Rebecca Eisen, Commissioner: make them unhelpful, but you know I leave that to the experts to sort of figure out if that might benefit us.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Thank you. John.

John Vasquez, Commissioner: Thank you, Marie, just sitting here thinking about that audit

John Vasquez, Commissioner: reliving it.

John Vasquez, Commissioner: Yeah, 5 years ago.

John Vasquez, Commissioner: and how far we’ve come? I mean a lot of these questions we’ve talked about, and

John Vasquez, Commissioner: Matthew was here, and Adrian was here, and who was the 3rd person Matthew

John Vasquez, Commissioner: at that time.

Matthew Trujillo: Skylar, I believe.

John Vasquez, Commissioner: Oh, yeah. And so it was a very small group, tasked with a whole lot of work.

John Vasquez, Commissioner: And you know, over the last 18 months they’ve had more help. And the one thing the audit showed was that

John Vasquez, Commissioner: that we were behind because we didn’t have enough help.

John Vasquez, Commissioner: and I think it kind of backfired on the person to call for it, because it ended up getting us more people, and they’re requiring us to look at our procedures

John Vasquez, Commissioner: because the group was just trying to keep just treading along, trying to keep up with, as

John Vasquez, Commissioner: The violations came in, and it was termed everything was termed a violation. Not so much a, you know. A minor issue such as a sign has fallen down, or something like that. But the whole, all those issues about making sure that there was a deed restriction on that. All that got all the compliance part, all the follow up, all came out of that and

John Vasquez, Commissioner: you know, I think good work came out of that because of that audit, and I think you have a good team in place, and as they move along over the next 18 months, and they’ll begin to refine that process. And we, I think we will find less and less cases coming to the committee, they will be will be done with all the old cases. It was something like over 300 at 1 point. Yeah, to be this far along. It’s pretty remarkable. And

John Vasquez, Commissioner: having one been one of them that sat through all that, I

John Vasquez, Commissioner: I’m

John Vasquez, Commissioner: very surprised and pleased that we got as far as we did.

John Vasquez, Commissioner: But that audit proved to be

John Vasquez, Commissioner: difficult to deal with, but also proved to show that we were trying to do the work. We just didn’t have the people to do it.

John Vasquez, Commissioner: anyway. Thank you.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Thank you, John. As another person who was here during that audit.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: I I have to say that I think

Marie Gilmore, Chair: it did not turn out the way the person who called for it came out.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: but I think in the long run it was very, very beneficial to Bcdc. And particularly enforcement. As John said it, it helped us get more staff and

Marie Gilmore, Chair: really kind of focus on what it was that we needed to do, and I think Staff has responded

Marie Gilmore, Chair: just incredibly well.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: to the findings from that that audit report, and I think really took things to heart, and

Marie Gilmore, Chair: in a relatively short period of time for a government agency has done

Marie Gilmore, Chair: remarkable job of getting us to where we are today. So I just want to say congratulations to staff

Marie Gilmore, Chair: And before I forget, do we have any public comments.

Boardroom SX80: No hands raised. Here, Gilmore.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Okay, so that was the open and the close of the public comment period. Anybody else have any comments?

Marie Gilmore, Chair: I just. I just have one

Marie Gilmore, Chair: sort of a comment question for Staff.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Can we? Once, you guys finalize your internal procedures for the compliance program? Can we either see them, or have a discussion on them, because I think

Marie Gilmore, Chair: it’s very helpful that we sort of understand, for one of a better word, the flow chart of how things kind of go from permit to compliance to enforcement. As we’re instituting these these new programs and procedures.

Boardroom SX80: Sure thing.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Okay. Great.

Boardroom SX80: 1. 1 more piece of good news that I don’t know has been shared with you yet. A lot of violations happen because Ecdc is relatively small agency, and a lot of members of the public people have not heard of us. But we recently were able to get a. A new employee who will hopefully

Boardroom SX80: proselytize and

Boardroom SX80: help at the very least. Local communities understand? Bcdc and Bcdc’s authority and jurisdiction and hopefully

Boardroom SX80: help

Boardroom SX80: help. People understand how they can

Boardroom SX80: prevent

Boardroom SX80: enforcement cases by

Boardroom SX80: staying in compliance. In the 1st place.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Well, that is excellent news. So hopefully, we will see that

Marie Gilmore, Chair: as a result of all of these efforts, a decrease in not only compliance cases, but also enforcement cases which at the end of the day is what we all want. So

Marie Gilmore, Chair: any other comments?

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Okay, seeing none. I’m going to entertain a motion and a second to adjourn the meeting.

John Vasquez, Commissioner: Nobody wants to leave.

Rebecca Eisen, Commissioner: Move.

John Vasquez, Commissioner: Second.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: All right. Any objections to that motion? By Commissioner Eisen, and the second by Commissioner Vasquez? Any objections?

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Alright. This meeting is adjourned. Thank you, everybody. Thank you. Staff.

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.