January 11, 2024 Enforcement Committee Meeting

1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Public Comment
   The Committee will hear public comments on matters that are not on the agenda.
4. Approval of Draft Minutes from the November 9, 2023, and December 14, 2023 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. Briefings by the Richardson Bay Regional Agency (RBRA) and the City of Sausalito.
   The City of Sausalito’s and RBRA’s staffs will brief the Committee on each of the agencies’ progress implementing the settlement agreements executed in 2020 and 2021, respectively, to regulate illicit activities and conduct compensatory restoration projects in Richardson’s Bay.
   (Adrienne Klein) [415/352-3609; adrienne.klein@bcdc.ca.gov]
   Presentation // Staff Presentation
7. Hearing and Vote on a Recommended Enforcement Decision to Resolve Enforcement Case ER2000.004.00.
   The Committee will consider whether to support a recommended enforcement decision to enter into a settlement agreement to resolve a violation at 3025 Marina Drive, City and County of Alameda.
   (Adrienne Klein) [415/352-3609; adrienne.klein@bcdc.ca.gov]
   Presentation
8. Hearing and Vote on a Recommended Enforcement Decision to Resolve Enforcement Case ER2021.044.00.
   The Committee will consider whether to support a recommended enforcement decision to enter into a settlement agreement to resolve a violation at 5 Blanding Lane, Belvedere, Marin County.
   (Rachel Cohen) [415/352-3661; rachel.cohen@bcdc.ca.gov].
   Presentation
9. Adjournment

Meeting Minutes

Audio Recording

Transcript

Marie Gilmore, Chair: and this meeting of the Bcdc. Enforcement Committee is here by call to order. My name is Marie Gilmore, and I am chair of this committee

Marie Gilmore, Chair: for Commissioners, including those attending at Beale Street. Please ensure that your video camera cameras are always on, and please mute yourselves when you are not speaking. Our first order of business to day is to call the roll. Matthew, please call the Roll Commissioners. Please unmute yourselves while he does this, to respond, and then mute yourselves

Marie Gilmore, Chair: after responding.

Boardroom SX80: Good morning, Commissioner Bielyn.

Letty Belin, Commissioner: Here.

Boardroom SX80: Commissioner Eisen, here Commissioner Vasquez.

John Vasquez, Commissioner: here

Boardroom SX80: Chair Gilmour.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: here.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: So we have a quorum present, and are duly constituted to conduct business, and that brings us to item 3 on our agenda public comment period.

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 the agenda.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: and I believe, Margie, we have not received any general comments prior to the meeting.

Boardroom SX80: We did share. We received one, and it will be posted on our website.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Thank you very much

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

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Please raise your hand in the zoom application by clicking on the participants. Icon at the bottom of your screen.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: and look in the box where your name is listed under attendees. Find a small palm icon on the left. If you click on that palm, icon, it will raise your hand. or if you are joining this meeting by phone, you must Dial Star 9 to raise your hand, then Dial star 6 on your keypad to unmute your phone. When the host asks you in order to make a comment.

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

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

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

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

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

Boardroom SX80: Chair Gilmour, for online? We do not have, as well as in person.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Commissioner Vasquez. Is there anybody? Are there any members of the public that which to make general comments at your location?

John Vasquez, Commissioner: No, there are not.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Thank you.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Okay. The next item on our agenda. Approval of the draft minutes for I believe, is at the last 2 meetings.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Staff.

Boardroom SX80: Yes.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: thank you. So committee members, I would appreciate a motion and second, to approve these meet meeting minutes.

Letty Belin, Commissioner: Second, second.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: we have a motion from Commissioner Vasquez, and a second from Commissioner Bill in Matthew. Would you please call the role

Boardroom SX80: Commissioner Bielin?

Letty Belin, Commissioner: Aye.

Boardroom SX80: Commissioner Eisen.

Boardroom SX80: Hi, Commissioner Vasquez.

Boardroom SX80: chair Gilmour.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Yes. thank you. The minutes are approved.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: The next item on our agenda is the Enforcement report and the Enforcement policy manager, Matthew Trujillo will now provide the enforcement. Matthew.

Boardroom SX80: thank you good morning, chair committee members and greetings, while members of the public in attendance welcome, and also welcome to

Boardroom SX80: Michael in who is acting general counsel here to day while Greg is on vacation.

Boardroom SX80: First is a case update. Since our last meeting on November ninth, 2023. In the past 2 months we’ve opened 5 new cases. We resolved 7 cases, and as of today, there are 71 unresolved cases in the queue.

which is a net change of negative 2. Since my last report.

Boardroom SX80: Second, I want to note for this committee that we have issued extensions of time to both the city of Sausalito and to the Rbra, to remove 2 vessels from Richardson’s Bay.

These extensions of time were granted on a finding of good cause by the executive director, and they were both reviewed and approved by General by the general counsel prior to distributing

Boardroom SX80: the city’s extension, was granted through March 30, first 2024, and Rbra’s extension was granted through February 20, seventh, 2024,

Boardroom SX80: and that concludes my report. I’ll be glad to entertain any. Follow up questions about the status of the Enforcement program from the committee.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Thank you, Matthew. Do any members of the committee have questions for Matthew for comments?

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Okay, seeing none? Are there any members of the public who have comments or questions on the Enforcement report.

Boardroom SX80: There’s none. Joe Gilmore.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Okay, thank you very much. Well, that moves us on to item number 6,

Marie Gilmore, Chair: which is briefings by the Richardson Bay Regional Agency, or Rvra, and the city of Sausalito. On the anchor out abatement and eel grass restoration efforts in Richardson’s Bay.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: by both the Rb. Ra. And the city of Sausalito.

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

Brad Gross: Good good morning, chair, Giomore. This is Brad, Gross, executive director for Rvra with me today I have our harbor, Master Jim Malcolm and our eel grass representative Rebecca Schwartz Lessberg from coastal polis policy solutions. I’d I’d like to begin with a quick apology.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: You’re jumping the gun just a tag.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: I would also like to have the representatives for the city of Sausalito identify themselves for the record.

Catie Thow Garcia, CIty of Sausalito: Hello! I’m Katie via the city of sustainability manager.

Boardroom SX80: Clear.

Brandon Phipps, Community & Econ. Dev. Director, Sausalito: Good morning, Brandon Phipps, community and Economic Development director with city of Sausalito.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Joan, you’re muted

Joan Cox: Joan Cox, vice Mayor of Sausalito.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Thank you both city of Sausalito and our Bra representatives for being here. Welcome?

Marie Gilmore, Chair: And can I caution anybody? If you’re not

Marie Gilmore, Chair: being speaking directly, could you please mute yourself, cause I’m hearing some whispers or feedback. I’m not quite sure where it’s coming from, but if you can mute mute yourself if you’re not speaking, it would be greatly appreciated

Joan Cox: if I might, as we also have Robert Mooney with us, who is our field brass consultant.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Great. Thank you very much.

Catie Thow Garcia, CIty of Sausalito: Sorry to interrupt. I think we also should have a

Catie Thow Garcia, CIty of Sausalito: Brian Mather from the police department. I’m not sure if he was promoted, or if he is online. But

Catie Thow Garcia, CIty of Sausalito: I was told that he was coming

and

Catie Thow Garcia, CIty of Sausalito: let me confer with him. I’m not seeing him on the attendee list. Sorry about that.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Okay, thank you.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Okay, so at this point I’m going to invite Adrian Kline to give her introduction to this this presentation, Adrian.

Boardroom SX80: Let’s see.

Boardroom SX80: Good morning.

Boardroom SX80: everybody. Thank you very much.

Boardroom SX80: so I have a quick little Powerpoint, the purpose of which is really just to highlight in blue text, the settlement agreement terms which

Boardroom SX80: the RBRA. And then the city will expand upon so next slide, please.

Boardroom SX80: So this, these 21 points. Mark the the categories in the Rba Settlement agreement, and the 4 in blue, I believe, will be the focus of the Rba’s presentation today. Next slide, please.

Boardroom SX80: So this is direct text from the agreement regarding eelgrass, habitat restoration. And I’ll just give you a chance to read

Boardroom SX80: those 3 points.

Boardroom SX80: therefore.

Boardroom SX80: and the next slide is a continuation of this

Marie Gilmore, Chair: section.

Boardroom SX80: Go ahead, please. I oops! I think we skipped one.

Boardroom SX80: Go back one, please.

Boardroom SX80: Oh, I’m sorry. My my mistake.

Boardroom SX80: yes, forward!

Boardroom SX80: Thank you very much. So regarding management of vessels on the anchorage after 2019, the agreement required that they be removed by the middle of October of last year, and the Rbi requested and received a one year long extension, to meet this requirement, which was

Boardroom SX80: greatly influenced by the COVID-19 pandemic next slide, please.

Boardroom SX80: For vessels on the air anchorage prior to 2019 the floating homes were also to have been removed. The rba has been working hard to achieve this goal. For one, they requested, and received a 60 day extension, and you’ll be hearing the status of that today. That was through December fifteenth, and

Boardroom SX80: in early December they received, they requested, a hundred 40 day extension, and that, as was just noted by Matthew, was granted through February twenty-seventh. First, a different single houseboat. So they are very discrete requests to rectify discrete. So negotiations.

Boardroom SX80: or allow time for discrete negotiations. Next slide, please.

Boardroom SX80: and these will be the presenters who you have all met, so I’ll cede the floor to Brad Gross. Thank you.

Brad Gross: Thank you very much, Adrian, and and my apologies. Chair Gilmore, for jumping the gun I had just signed in. I was having problems with my connection, and I was about to say that I apologize for no camera. But I’m going to leave it off

Brad Gross: just to protect this connection that that we have and that I’m able to present to this board. So, Adrian, will you be presenting? Put it posting our Powerpoint.

Brad Gross: I was counting on you to do that, Brad. Is that okay? Great? Thank you.

Brad Gross: If I

Boardroom SX80: we’re happy to do that. Just let us know that day or 2 before next time. Thank you.

Brad Gross: Not a problem. If

Brad Gross: let me share my screen. Sorry for that. Everybody. My apologies.

Brad Gross: Okay, good morning, everybody.

Brad Gross: Chair Gail Moore, Commissioners and members of BC. BC. Staff. As I said earlier, I am Brad Gross, and I have already. Introduced Jim Malcolm, our harbor master, and Rebecca Short Usberg will be presenting in conjunction with me today

Brad Gross: before I begin.

Brad Gross: I’d like to say that this presentation is dated by one month, as we were originally scheduled as everybody knows, to present on the December fourteenth, and I will update any items verbally. If there have been any changes

Brad Gross: as we have presented in the past, we couldn’t do what we do here without our many partners. You see their logos displayed on this slide one of the changes. I did realize when looking at this slide, that we fail to include coastal policy solutions, and Merkel and associates who are ha obviously have been working with us for for many, many years and helping us with our upcoming eographs program.

Brad Gross: I’m just going to go through some of these milestones that Adrian had identified. And you’ve all seen in the past.

Brad Gross: first of all,

Brad Gross: The petition for necessary Federal action has been completed and is on and going the removal of unoccupied. Most of these and the bright blue, have already been done the ones with later due dates you see, and that kind of I don’t know what to describe that color, that other blue color

Brad Gross: but the removal of unoccupied marine debris is done, and ongoing as vessels may become marine debris, we had we give them our immediate attention. We finalize the Environmental Protection and Management plan in 2021. No new vessels in the Eel Grass Protection zone is ongoing. There’ll be more discussion about that as we move on. The installation of moorings is on hold

Brad Gross: the initiation of the Eel Grass restoration studies was done in 2022. The removal of the post 2019 vessels. As Adrian pointed out, they received an extension, and to October fifteenth of 2024, and there’s some good progress that we’ll be talking about later on. What’s happening with those? The removal of the floating off floating homes off of all the point by October fifteenth.

Brad Gross: 2023, 2 were removed by the deadline, and one

Brad Gross: was actually the one that was provided. These initial 60 day extension was moved on a December eleventh to illegal floating home birth that leaves us one floating home, and that vessel has been through a citation process and a nuisance abatement process for removal. And Rbra has requested, and was recently granted one last

Brad Gross: one last extension to allow the owner to repair and relocate his vessel. That extension now goes through February 20 twenty-seventh, so our next presentation will have some more information on the the results of the extension, and where that vessel there lies, we anticipate it being out of the anchorage by the end of February.

Brad Gross: moving on complete admin actions update ordinances has all been done, and as we’ll show later in the presentation, we do have their Coast Guard response, which I’ve mentioned in the past, and we have a new supporting order received from Judge Oric on December first, which I will talk about further in the presentation

Brad Gross: beginning of the implementation of the 10 Year Adaptive Management Plan. That plan was due. This again. This slide is a month old. It was planned, was to be submitted on December fifteenth, and it was submitted on time and on schedule.

Brad Gross: Next item, no vessels in the Epz. By October of 2024 we are working on a signage program and rubber. Master Malcolm will talk about the notifications that we’ve given to the vessels and our plans moving forward, the removal of all occupied non safe and seaworthy vessels, and now has an extension to october of 24

Brad Gross: and all these vessels in this category have been provided with the 12 month advance notice, and again more of that by harbor. Master Malcolm.

Brad Gross: Applying for a morning permit

Brad Gross: the rest of these items have a due date by October of 2026, so they will be reported on in future presentations, but removal of all occupied safety, worthy vessels, removal of all vessels and occupants, and only transient seaworthy vessels in the anchor zone, all due dates of October of 2026.

Brad Gross: I’m gonna just go through and report on

Brad Gross: activities during this reporting period. I’m not going to go on the

Brad Gross: Pass reporting period. But this is the vessel buyback program. During this reporting period 5 vessels have been purchased and properly disposed of. One floating home was purchased and disposed of during this reporting period, bringing 8 total vessels, purchasedly and properly disposed of since the reinstatement of the program, in April of 2023,

Brad Gross: right around $40,000 has been distributed since the reinstatement of the program, and then just over $81,000 has been distributed, and 21 vessels have been properly disposed of since the program exception in 2022.

Brad Gross: This is the letter I was talking about from the coastguard where it talks about Cfr. Section 33 dash point 1 10.1 2 6 alpha, where the Coast Guard has delegated authority for the operational management to Richards of a regional agency.

Brad Gross: This is a an important slide that I would like to present. On an order received by George Ork on December first, 2023, Judge Orrick provided an order to dismiss without leave to amend a claim against Rbra with language that supports Rbra’s position and codes regarding Rvra, I’m sorry regarding Richardson Bay.

Brad Gross: Specifically, when Cfr. 33.1 10.1 2 6, Alpha was identified, the judge appined the following. the plaintiff argues or implies that Rbra’s anchorage ordinance is preempted by Federal law. He goes on to say that I agree that no regulation or Federal authority identified by the plaintiff, preempts the authority of Rbra to control anchorages in Richardson Bay. Instead, the Federal regulation he identified established Richardson Bay as a special anchorage and directs mariners to comply with Rbra’s permit scheme.

Brad Gross: and although this opinion is still subject to appeal, it mentions more than once regarding anchoring and living aboard on Richardson Bay that the United States Constitution does not confer a blanket right to anchor in Richardson Bay. Boaters do not have a constitutional right to unregulated long term anchorage in public navigable waters.

He goes on to talk about this particular plaintiff, who was planning to live on his vessel.

Brad Gross: where he says he admits that he intended to live on his boat in Richardson Bay, which is not allowed under Arbra code, and means that he would be denied a permit.

Brad Gross: He goes on to say, living aboard a houseboat or vessel anchored in Moore or moored in Richardson Bay is prohibited.

If

Brad Gross: I’m gonna leave you with that, well, I’ll be back after Eographs update from Rebecca Schwartz, Lessburg, and the anchorage update by our harbour master. So I’ll turn this over to Rebecca. Now, thank you.

Rebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Good morning, everyone. Thank you, Brad. Hello! I believe I’m know you all. But for those who I haven’t met, my name is Rebecca Schwartz, Lesburg. I’m the president of Coastal policy solutions.

Rebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: and I’ve been working with Rvra to advance their ill re their efforts to protect and restore Eel grass in Richard Simbay.

Rebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: So I’ll be sharing 2 main components today. The first is an update about the grant our Bra received from the Us. Environmental Protection agency to restore eelgrass, and the second is, I’ll be sharing results from our 2023 monitoring update that describes the Eelgrass monitoring efforts over the past year

Rebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: next slide.

Rebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: so, as you may remember, Rbra was awarded 2.8 million dollars from the EPA’s San Francisco Bay Water Quality Improvement Fund.

Rebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: and that award funds, the development of the Restoration and Adaptive Management plan that Brad mentioned, that was submitted to BC. DC. On December fifteenth.

Rebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: It also funds the restoration of 15 acres of eel grass by 2027, and the related ongoing adaptive management, monitoring and partner engagement outreach associated with that Restoration effort

Rebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: to implement this grant, RBRA.

Rebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Awarded consultant services to Co. Still policy solutions and Merkel and associates for project management, stakeholder engagement policy support, and for the actual on the ground, eel grass restoration. All of this is being done in collaboration with San Francisco State University’s Estuary and Ocean Science Center. Specifically, Dr. Kathy Boyer and her lab

Rebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: and Audubon, California. The sub awards for those project partners are in process

Rebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: next slide.

Rebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: So a little bit about the Restoration and adaptive management plan, which we call the ramp. As Brad mentioned, it was submitted on the fifteenth, and this is a technical document that describes a 10 Year Adaptive Management Plan for restoration of 75 acres of eelgrass and Richardson Bay.

Rebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Now those 75 acres are anticipated to be restored through a combination of active restoration. So actually planting eel grass. non planting, restoration actions, things like removal of marine debris that’s on the bay bottom.

and also

Rebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: anticipated natural recovery of the eelgrass bed.

Rebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: This plan is consistent with the San Francisco Bay Plan, the Richardson Bay special area plan and the California Ill. Grass mitigation policy.

Rebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: It does consider the beneficial reuse of dredge sediment. If backfill of mooring scars is required, although that is not recommended as a first line action in this area.

Rebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: and then genetic accounts for both passive and active restoration, and it builds on the results of the ongoing restoration studies that have been going on in the anchor scars over the past couple of years.

Rebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: The ramp itself, as a document may be periodically updated as we receive results from those restoration studies, other monitoring results or other adaptive management actions that become prudent

Rebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: next slide.

Rebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Now, I’d like to switch gears and talk about the 2023 monitoring update this update was given to the Rba. Board of Directors and the public. In the during the fall.

Rebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: and it’s a comprehensive report on all of the various

Rebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: monitoring actions that have taken place over the past year to really get a sense of what is going. The dynamics of the ill grass bed and its health.

Rebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: There’s a variety of monitoring activities that we’ve taken. The first is that I’ll describe is the side scan sonar survey.

The survey was completed by Merkel and associates

Rebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: during the summer of 2022.

Rebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: And this really looks at the in the health of the bed overall. So not just in the area where boats are anchoring and not just in the sanctuary or restoration areas, but really the the overall bed.

Rebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: And there’s a few things that we can take away from these results. The first is that we have the same general pattern of eel grass covering Richardson Bay as previous years. So we see the core of the bed. In the central bay

Rebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: it is present, but less dense in the shallows. and there’s some evidence of wasting disease.

Rebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: and it as expected. It is absent from the deeper parts of the bay. basically anywhere deeper than about 5 feet mean lower low water, and that’s consistent with what we know about the light limits of eel grass in the San Francisco Bay Area.

Rebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Now, if we look at the overall acreage.

Rebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: we’re see and and how dense it is, we can see a couple of things. The first is that we have just over 950 acres of eel grass, and that’s

Rebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: a good increase from the previous

Rebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: size cancel in our survey that was completed, which I’ll talk about in a moment.

Rebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: but ignoring for a second the total acreage. What I wanted to talk about is the cover class. So that gives us a sense of how dense the eelgrass bed is, and that’s a proxy for eelgrass health

Rebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: in the image. On the left hand side of the screen you see Richardson Bay. The green area is all the area that’s covered in eel grass, and essentially the darker the green, the more dense the eel grass is.

Rebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: So, even though we have 950 acres or so of eel grass.

Rebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Less than half of that eel grass

Rebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: is in the 40 to 100% cover class. So less than half of it is in that really dense

Rebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: cover class and over a quarter is in the less than 5% cover class.

So it’s important to look at, not just the total acreage, but also how dense and healthy the Yalegrass bed is

Rebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: next slide.

Rebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: So again, I mentioned that binary change. If we look at 2019 versus 2022, we see that 13% increase in the total acreage which is within normal bed variability next slide.

Rebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: But if we take a closer look at that change again on the left hand side, both the the green and red and tan areas, that’s all eel grass cover. But essentially, what we’re seeing is that there are some areas of the eel grass bed that have expanded.

Rebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: And there’s some areas that have declined

Rebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: the areas that are in tan, orange and getting into that red color. Those are areas where we’ve actually seen a decrease in the old grass cover

the portions of their green and getting into the darker greens. That’s where we see expansion.

Rebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: What we can see here is a general decline in that nor in that northern reach, as we’re getting up into the Audubon sanctuary, and that’s likely due to thermal stress. The water up there is more shallow, it gets warmer, and it pushes the eel grass beyond its thermal limits.

Rebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: That red area in the core of the bed is where?

Rebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Oh, no, not yet. Is where we’re seeing evidence of eelgrass wasting disease next slide.

Rebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: So as we look at our results through time, we have these sides canceled on our surveys 6 times since 2,003.

Rebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: The biggest change that we saw historically, was the 2,009 to 2,013, and overall absolute cover is generally increasing, but variable over the past 20 years.

Rebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Now 20 years may feel like a long time to have data. And it’s a great data set to be working with. But it’s actually not very long in the context of an eel grass bed that can persuade me persist over hundreds or thousands of years.

Rebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Now, the reason I was really digging into the cover class and the areas where we have changes increase or

Rebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: expansion or contraction of the eel grass is that it gets to what we call the 100% cover equivalency. Basically, what that means is that looking at the total acreage of eel grass that we have.

Rebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: if all of it, if we collapsed it down so that all of it was at a hundred per cent. Covered. What acreage would we have then?

Rebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Now, if we look, and and that is a better indicator of the bed health, because that can tell us things about eel grass, bed assumed productivity, biomass, and other metrics, things like carbon storage.

So that is the dashed black line in the graph on the left-hand side.

Rebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: And again we have that same variable but generally increasing patterns since 2,003. But where is the total acreage from 2019 to 2022 increased.

Rebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: The 100% cover equivalency decreased.

Rebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Basically, what is telling us is that we’re getting mixed messages and mixed signals from the eelgrass bed, about how it’s how the how it’s doing from a health and productivity perspective

Rebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: next slide.

Rebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: the the second way that we’ve monitored. The bed is through aerial photography and Gis analysis. This has been done by Audubon, California, and has been repeated several times over the past several years

Rebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: as opposed to the side scanned sonar which takes, gets a comprehensive map of all of the eelgrass in Richard Simbay. The aerial photography is really designed as a damage assessment. So we just photograph the area where eel grass and anchoring co-occur so that we can get a better understanding

Rebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: of how much eel grass is damaged by anchor scour, and how much recovery we see within those scars

Rebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: as a reminder. Anchor scour is the damage that we see to the eel grass from Anchor’s Change, another ground tackle

Rebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: and these methods were

Rebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: verified, and by a peer reviewed journal that was published, peer reviewed journal article that was published in 2019. And so we’ve been repeating the methods for several years since

Rebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: next slide.

Rebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: This is this may be a familiar image to many of you. This is an example of the aerial photography that we receive. From these the aerial views that we receive from this photography. Now, hopefully. Then, if you go to the next slide.

Rebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Yes, that’s what I wanted to happen. What we’re doing is

Rebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: looking specifically in roughly, the area that is circled in blue here, because that’s the area where we have both eel grass and anchoring. And so if when we zoom in to here, we’re then able to say

Rebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: how much of the eelgrass has been damaged from acre scour, and you can see examples of what we call crop circles in this image, depending on the clarity that you have on your screen. Basically the darker areas within this blue circle

Rebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: or blue polygon. Those darker areas are eel grass and the circles that you see of lighter area within there. Those are the anchor scars or the crop circles that we’re talking about.

Rebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Next slide

Rebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: we can. On the left is a more close up view of what we’re able to see in that photography. And the anchor scars that we’re able to document

Rebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: on the right hand. Oh, not yet on the right hand side

Rebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: we’re looking at anchor scour. So basically, if we add up the acreage of those of all those circles, how much damage do we have?

Rebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: We have results from 2017, 2021, and 2022.

Rebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Our methods provide both a low and high estimate for total anchor scour

Rebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: back in 2017, which is the first time this method was done, we saw between 50 and 85 acres, or 8, sorry 50 and 84 acres

Rebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: in 2021. That high estimate was even higher.

Rebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: And then in 22, we’re really seeing a plateau of the damage.

Rebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: which is great news over all. We’re not seeing

Rebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: robust recovery yet overall in the bed, but we have it, but we have seen

Rebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: a plateau in the damage, which is great news. We’ve at least stemmed the tide of ongoing anchor scour. Next slide a couple of notes about these damage assessments. In 2022 there was an area of unknown damage to the bed, and it’s suspected that was a harmful algal bloom.

Rebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: and that limited some of the interpretations we could make of the data next slide in 2023. The assessment actually wasn’t possible

Rebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: because there was what’s called a macro algal mat, basically, a large

Rebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: film of algae over the eel grass bed that was obscuring it from view.

Rebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: And now these photographs cannot be taken at any time of the year, so we couldn’t just wait for that to go away, because the photographs have to be taken during the summer, when the eel grass is at its maximum extent. It is a perennial plant. It grows and dies back each year, so we need to take it during the summer.

and it has to be taken at an extreme low tide.

Rebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: so unfortunately, that Macro Algolat happened during those windows of when we could have taken the photograph, so we were not able to do the survey in 2023,

Rebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: next slide.

Rebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: some additional findings that I wanted to share. So what we have. In these photographs here.

Rebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: on the left hand side we have some examples of where we’ve seen recovery within anchor scars. So on top are the images from 2021, and on the bottom are the images from 2022. The green circles on the left are the same in each photograph, and you can see we can see robust regrowth of eel grass within specific eelgrass scars

Rebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: on the right hand side.

Rebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: It’s the same years of images, but these are examples of scars where we have not yet seen recovery.

Rebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: So this is again, both good news, but also mixed news. The good news is that

Rebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: again, we’re demonstrating that as vessels are removed from the eograss protection zone we can expect for the eelgrass to recover.

Rebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: But if you’ll notice, on the left hand side, where we do see recovery, those circles in 2021. They don’t have boats in them. We don’t know exactly what year those vessels were removed, so from 2021 to 2022

Rebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: seems on our end as one year of recovery. But those scars actually could have been recovering for several years, whereas on the right hand side, where we don’t see the recovery in 2021. The boats are still there in 2022. They’re not there. So what this suggests is that it takes more than one year for the anchor scars to recover.

Rebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: which is good data for us to have, because we don’t. Actually. there’s there’s not a lot of documented cases that can tell us how long we should expect it to take for these scars to restore themselves next slide.

Rebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: The last area of monitoring that we’ve been doing is our water bird monitoring, and really the goal for this was to see where in Richardson Bay large groups of birds are doing what are codes called rafting, which is when large groups of birds together rest on the base surface, and they can rest in groups of up to 10,000 birds.

Rebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: The reason we’re looking at. This is because we wanted to know as we change the pattern of where boats are anchoring in Richardson Bay. Are we also seeing a change in the pattern of where birds are using the bay.

Rebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: What we’ve seen here. So on the left hand side, these are all of the drone.

Rebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: These are the I’m sorry. On the left hand side. It’s the results from the 6 drone surveys that we did during the 2022, 2023 monitoring year.

So each of those image 6 images represents one survey. The red dots are where we see the rafts of birds.

Rebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Now we, similar to previous years. We continue to see rats primarily along the northern and eastern shorelines. So so far we have not seen any change in how birds are using the bay

Rebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: next slide.

Rebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Okay, that was a lot of data, a lot of graphs, a lot of information, some major takeaways from that information.

Rebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: So the good news is that the damage to eel grass from anchor scour appears to have plateaued. and we continue to see evidence of eel grass recovery

Rebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: the less good

Rebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: the overall health of the bed is questionable because we’re seeing an increase in that very sparse cover class.

Rebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: These are likely due to things like thermal stress, wasting disease, algal competition all things that are expected to increase with climate change. So the biggest takeaway from this is that, given these known stressors that are going to continue to

Rebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: stressed the eel grass in Richardson Bay. protecting and restoring the bed is more crucial now than ever.

Rebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: I believe I now hand it over to Jim, but I will also be here at the end to answer any questions.

RBRA: Morning. Thank you very much, Rebecca. My name is Jim Malcolm, the Harbor master for Richardson Bay Regional Agency going to talk this morning about our vessel census and status of vessels out on the anchorage to open our vessel census. We are currently our vessel. Census continues to drop.

RBRA: We are as of December. We are sitting at 43 vessels. There has actually been. There has been a change to this, but it went down by one and went back up by one. So we still sit at 43 vessels for January next slide, please.

RBRA: I’ll now go through the milestones individually, and kind of discuss our trending for each milestone. Our first one is the post 2019 vessels as Director Gross had mentioned. In August we had, we were at 14 of those post, 2,019 vessels. We currently in December. We are at 7, and probably by the end of the week we’ll be sitting at 6. Post 2,000 vessels

RBRA: for our floating homes again, as Director Gross have mentioned. In A. We were 2 in August, and now we are down to our one remaining floating home.

RBRA: our vessels in the Ap. In the eel grass protection zone 53. And we’re present last July 42 in August. And now we are down to 35

RBRA: and this is efforts through both vessel removals and efforts to

RBRA: move vessels out of the eel grass protection zone into the actual anchoring zone. This will

RBRA: be this number will continue to drop as we move forward on our signage project. And yeah, actually mark out where the anchorage is, and we continue on our efforts towards relocating, reap both relocating vessels into the actual anchorage out of the eel grass protection zone, and remove vessels from the anchorage and remove vessels from the Bay completely.

RBRA: Our our October fifteenth, of 2,026 deadline for all occupied safe and seaworthy vessels removed. There were 10 last June or 10 in June of 2022, 7 in August of 2023, and that number remains steady at 7.

RBRA: Total vessels on the water. We were 57 last last July 48, and August, and as I mentioned, 43,

RBRA: and then, in addition to that, we have our th vessels that are present legally present under a 30 day permit. We have that numbers actually change since December. We now have 6

RBRA: 30 day permits. However, 3 of those have overstayed their permit, and are in various mechanisms of enforcement to have those vessels depart

RBRA: next slide, please.

RBRA: 6. As I mentioned, the this is the part of our efforts to work with the vessels that are over staying there. 30 day permits 6 citations were issued as of last December, that numbers actually increased to 7

RBRA: 7 citations issued 3 initial.

RBRA: 2Â s and one third. Actually, that has increased by another. Third note, third citation for a vessel. All of the citations that have been issued so far are for the Rba code section for entering in excess of 72Â h.

RBRA: 2 nuisance abatements, 2 nuisance abatement processes have been commenced one is on our one remaining floating home, which we’ve put a stay on while the

RBRA: responsible party for that floating home as their extension to remove the vessel, and another nuisance abate. Note. Nuisance, abatement. Notice will be going to a hearing next week.

RBRA: All vessels are due to vacate the anchorage. By October fifteenth, 2024, with the exception of the 7 safe and seaworthy vessels all vessels that were due to vacate were issued a 12 month advance notice last October.

RBRA: The a copy of the notices on the slide here.

RBRA: Our plan is to prepare another notice for January, and then, as we progress into the summer, the the number of notices

RBRA: will increase in frequency

RBRA: as vessels, and then hopefully, all vessels will also, the number of vessels on the anchorage will decrease as we increase our both enforcement efforts and notice

RBRA: and education efforts towards where vessels can legally anchor, and which vessels are to be removed.

RBRA: Finally, for enforcement, our planning is underway as director. Gross message mentioned for our signage and posting for the anchorage. 5 signs are to be to place on existing piles.

RBRA: We have already identified the owners of those piles and have been in touch with them. and installation of one new pile and 3 floating buoys will be put in place to mark the actual bounds of the legal anchorage.

RBRA: Plans are also underway to create the permit and submit to Bcd staff

RBRA: permits are not yet submitted. The effective date for the permits will be this October and then all vessels in the Egrass protection zone as I mentioned, did receive a 12 month notice to vacate, and they’ll be receiving another mo another notice

RBRA: this month.

RBRA: Next slide, please.

RBRA: and that concludes my portion. And now I’m gonna turn it back over to Director Gross, however, similar to Rebecca. I will be remaining for the end of the presentation for any questions.

Brad Gross: Thank you, Jim. And thank you again, Commissioners.

Brad Gross: I’m gonna talk about our housing program now, and how this all ties in with the vessels in the anchorage and the eel grass improvements that we’re planning, as I’ve stated in the past our housing program is comprised by 4 components funding temporary housing support

Brad Gross: case management and marina participations. And I’ve talked about all this in the past and just gonna go through it really quick our funding. 3 million dollars was received in March of 2023, with thanks to Senator Mcguire for his support. The program began seeking applications in May of 2023, and to date there’s been over a hundred $80,000 expended into the program.

Brad Gross: moving on Rbra rent housing authority contract was approved. We discussed their prefunding of $30,000 last time we met with another $86,000 provided to health and human services.

Brad Gross: The contract between Health and Human Services and Episcopal community services for case management was approved in August of 2023 and Ecs. Has established a well received landside meeting dates in Sausalito.

Brad Gross: and recently began there on the water outreach effort. I think the last time we talked. We were still looking for that full time case worker, and that full time case worker with Ecs did begin employment very successfully, I might say, in October of 2023.

Brad Gross: Regarding the Marina’s activities during this reporting period one marina is now committed, and one marina has withdrawn participation. We are still seeking marinas, not just in the Sausalito area, but surrounding areas that are interested in assisting our bra and our programs to relocate the qualified vessels to Marinas.

Brad Gross: This, at a previous meeting this committee approved an extension for the post 2019 vessels that I mentioned earlier and harbor Master Malcolm mentioned, and as part of that approval of that extension we

Brad Gross: committed to providing this slide, and this is a spreadsheet of tracking their progress. As you can see.

Brad Gross: all but 3 vessels are either gone or engaged in some forward fashion in the program. So I wanna thank the committee. The Commission again for the extension, because it’s proved to be very successful. We are working to get the last 3 folks engaged, and the a few of these. I I’m not privy to the names of the people who have received vouchers, but a few of these people I do know on this slide have vouchers and are actively seeking housing right now.

Brad Gross: the temporary housing voucher program. There are 4 persons that are now housed. This again. This slide is a month dated there are 10 persons that are participating. I know that number is now 11, which includes the 4 persons that are housed. 5 persons are in the queue to participate

Brad Gross: with 2 persons that have a voucher and one pending as of last month. But as of today, there are actually 6 people with vouchers that are actively seeking

Brad Gross: housing.

Brad Gross: What that important to us is that those 6 people relate to 6 more vessels being off the anchorage by the time. These soon after these folks get their housing, and 4 vessels have been purchased via the vessel buyback program. Once those 6 people with vouchers are housed, we anticipate getting those vessels which would bring us up into double digits vessels turned in via the vessel. Buy back program.

Brad Gross: Now, this is a new slide. You haven’t seen this one before but this slide, and I’d like to explain it quickly. The the top 2 lines represent the vessels and the floating homes in the anchorage.

Brad Gross: The bottom 7 lines represent our different supported programs like floating homes turned in persons, house persons and process and remaining floating homes, vessels turned in, total vessels of loading homes turned in, and persons with with vouchers.

Brad Gross: and, as you can see, all the lines representing the ve. The vessels along the top are trending down.

Brad Gross: and program related. Lines of vessels and floating home surged in persons with the vouchers. And most importantly, persons housed are all trending up

Brad Gross: and over the next few months we will see these lines eventually intercept and ultimately completely switch sides, top to bottom, which would be representing more successes in our programs. This is a very exciting trend that we’re seeing. And at our next presentation, I think, this. This slide will be very telling.

Brad Gross: with that I want to

Brad Gross: close, and I’ll acknowledge this committee and BC. DC. Staff for their flexibility to work with us and our Bra, and to explore

Brad Gross: creative and common sense solutions to achieve our common goals. I’m convinced that this type of innovative and collaborative work will prove successful in the end. Thank you very much for your time and letting us present our latest achievements. If there are any questions

Brad Gross: myself. Our master, Malcolm and Rebecca Short Lustburg would be glad to answer them. Thank you very much.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Thank you very much for that very comprehensive

Marie Gilmore, Chair: presentation

Marie Gilmore, Chair: and I think I’m gonna ask the committee if you will hold all your questions. Until we hear the city of Sausalito. I know that was a lot of information. But I know you guys probably took great notes.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: So Adrian, do you have an introduction for the city of Sausalita.

Boardroom SX80: Thank you. Chair Gilmore. Again. It is brief and follows the identical format.

Boardroom SX80: So maybe, Brad, if you unshare your screen, please and

Boardroom SX80: If I could kindly ask Mtc. To share Adrian.

Boardroom SX80: Chair. Goma, we have. Barbara Salzman would like to speak.

barbara salzman marin audubon society: Well, I just had.

Boardroom SX80: You’re muted chair.

Boardroom SX80: chair. Gilmore, you’re muted.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: I’m sorry. Is Miss Salzman part of the presentation? Or is this public comment.

Boardroom SX80: public comment, public comment.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Okay, we’re gonna hold public comment until later. We’re gonna go through the city of Sausalito’s presentation, and then we’ll take questions and comments from committee members, and then we will take public comments. So that’s kind of the way I see the scope

Marie Gilmore, Chair: alright. So Miss Klein, would you please give your introduction to the city of Sausalito’s presentation, please?

Boardroom SX80: Yes, I’d be happy to thank you very much.

Boardroom SX80: Good morning again, Adrian Klein.

Boardroom SX80: So next slide, please.

Boardroom SX80: Again. These are the 10 sections of the city of Sausalito settlement agreement between BCDC.

Boardroom SX80: And I believe the focus of their presentation today will be on vessel removal and eel grass, habitat mitigation and damage next slide, please.

Boardroom SX80: Most relevant is that

Boardroom SX80: the city requested and received an extension mentioned earlier today by Matthew

Boardroom SX80: to remove a the largest of the anchor outs known as the Fedora

Boardroom SX80: from December 30, first to March thirty-first. For reasons similar to those described by the Rba this will promote voluntary resolution. Next slide, please.

Boardroom SX80: This

Boardroom SX80: image outlines the settlement agreement, provisions relating to illgress, habitat mitigation, and damage avoidance.

Boardroom SX80: I’ll give you a chance to just glance through that.

Boardroom SX80: And if that’s enough time next slide, please.

Boardroom SX80: And this is a summary of the actions by the city and BC. DC. On this eel Grass Restoration plan. Most relevant is that in the summer and the fall we received an excellent draft eelgrass Restoration plan, provided some comments on 2 occasions and also received input from third party experts.

Boardroom SX80: We’re continuing as we do with the Rba to meet monthly we are.

Boardroom SX80: The city is preparing to submit its I believe, final eel grass restoration plan. Soon. We’re in agreement on the majority of the components of that plan

Boardroom SX80: with some discussion around the total acreage that will be

Boardroom SX80: planted, and whether the agreement

Boardroom SX80: goal of one to 2 mitigation to one acre impact is a requirement. and I believe the city may address that, but we just wanted to

Boardroom SX80: share that

Boardroom SX80: question. That’s on the table with you. Thank you very much. I’ll turn this over. I would expect first to councilmember Joan Cox, who will then go ahead, I believe, and introduce her staff. Thank you very much.

Boardroom SX80: and we could unshare the VCDC. Presentation to allow the city to share its presentation. Thank you very much.

Joan Cox: Thank you so much. Adrienne, and good morning, Chair Gilmore and members

Joan Cox: of the Enforcement Committee. This is our triannual update to the Enforcement Committee. My name is Joan Cox, and I’m the vice mayor for

Joan Cox: Sausalita.

Joan Cox: Here’s an outline of the topics that we will cover today. We’ll start off with our waterfront management update

Joan Cox: provided by sassy police

Joan Cox: the department Brian Mathers. Then we will have a report on our regional cooperation in housing presented by our community and economic development. Director Brandon.

Joan Cox: Then our resiliency and sustainability manager Katie throw Garcia will provide an update on the eel grass habitat mitigation and damage avoidance plan and I’ll include some comments there and then we will close and

Joan Cox: be available for questions. So with that I’ll turn it over to

Joan Cox: Brian matters.

Brian Mather: Good morning, everybody. Thanks for having me.

Brian Mather: So I’ll go over a brief review of our waterfront management. So currently we have 5 total vessels in our anchorage. Right now, what? That’s actually a reduction from the last meeting or triannual update, I believe. We had.

Brian Mather: We had 5 legacy and and one extra. So there were 6. So next slide, please.

Brian Mather: if we have a slide next slide.

Brian Mather: anyway. So what we have is for legacy anchor routes. We actually ended up one of our legacy members ended up

Brian Mather: getting ill. And so we’ve removed that person from the water, and we’re working on housing for that person currently. The

so the main issue or the main focus right now is the vendor, as you see, and that’s why we asked for the extension

Brian Mather: and it was granted. So we appreciate that. So we’ve been in communication with the owner. We’ve been trying to work with the owner. There’s been some delays in the cooperation with the owner. And so we’ve been actively and currently are still actively working on the enforcement piece of that, and are hoping to have that done within the next

Brian Mather: month or so. But you know, with whether finances staffing for marine assets and everything else, it it’s a pretty complicated venture, because it’s a very large boat.

Brian Mather: So we’re we’re doing 2 things trying to get cooperation still from the owner and also working on the enforcement end of it, if if that needs to take place.

Brian Mather: So that’s the the end of our update. As far as our waterfront management. We haven’t had any. We had 2 vessels come in in the last month we were able to get them to move on within the 72Â h period, in accordance with our State ordinance.

Brian Mather: So that’s where we stand at this moment. If there’s any questions after, I’ll be standing by for any questions.

Joan Cox: thank you. And with that we’ll turn to Brandon Phipps, our community Development Director.

Brandon Phipps, Community & Econ. Dev. Director, Sausalito: Good morning, Chair, Gilmore, Dcdc. Members and members of the public as Vice Mayor Cox mentioned. My name is Brandon Phipps, Community and Economic Development Director. With so solido. Glad to be addressing you today to provide a brief update in connection with Section 3, a per agreement related to regional cooperation and the development of resources, and taking, if necessary, actions to support housing opportunities for anchor outs and Richardson Bay.

Brandon Phipps, Community & Econ. Dev. Director, Sausalito: Regarding ad use. The city recently updated its adu ordinance to comply with State adu law. More specifically, this item was approved with recommendations by the planning Commission in July was adopted by City Council in October.

Brandon Phipps, Community & Econ. Dev. Director, Sausalito: The Community Development Department continues to track new housing policy at the State level and may be required to make additional updates to our ordinance this year in order to continue to be compliant, and we certainly intend to do that as required.

Brandon Phipps, Community & Econ. Dev. Director, Sausalito: Additionally, I’ll just briefly speak to this. On January 5 of this year the city of Sausalito released a public comment draft environmental impact report for the implementation of our housing element programs. And this document has been prepared to address

Brandon Phipps, Community & Econ. Dev. Director, Sausalito: potential environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the proposed project, that being our housing element, but particularly as related to the rezoning and selected opportunity sites at higher densities, and this is all required under the California Environmental Quality Act.

Brandon Phipps, Community & Econ. Dev. Director, Sausalito: So the draft Eir will be circulated for a 45 day review period, during which comments on the draft Eir may be submitted to the city, and I hope this goes without saying. But the city welcomes any comments from the Bcd. On the public comment Draft Eir, which is posted to our website. And I am happy to

Brandon Phipps, Community & Econ. Dev. Director, Sausalito: provide any personal contact information or follow up with individual BC. DC members. If there are any questions, that will do it for my update this morning. Thank you all for your time today, and I will now pass the mic to our illgress. Consultant Robert Moody, who will discuss excuse me, I will pass the mic to Katie. Back. Garcia. Go ahead, Katie. Thank you.

Catie Thow Garcia, CIty of Sausalito: Thank you so much. Brandon. I’m here to present the the city’s progress on illgrass habitat mitigation and damage avoidance. In the blue text on the left you can see the the status updates which Adrian also presented which which have been presented to the Enforcement Committee prior to this meeting today in the text,

Catie Thow Garcia, CIty of Sausalito: on in the red. You will see our our updates from the most recent Enforcement Committee meeting, which took place on August 20 third, where we provided an update

Catie Thow Garcia, CIty of Sausalito: on October eleventh we received A. BC DC. Response to expert review on our draft Eelgrass restoration Plan.

Catie Thow Garcia, CIty of Sausalito: Following this, South, Ludo submitted a summary of future eel Grass Restoration Plan efforts on November twenty-seventh, which included the city’s offer of additional protection measures rec recommended by regional experts. As far as this. This is the brief update on eel grass habitat from my end, and I will. I will pass it on to Vice. Mayor Cox.

Brandon Phipps, Community & Econ. Dev. Director, Sausalito: vice Mayor, I think you’re on mute. Excuse me.

Joan Cox: thank you. Thank you, Katie.

Joan Cox: so I would like to address the issue that Adrian Klein made mention of during her introductory comments, and that is the requirement of the settlement agreement. So the settlement agreement with the city of Sausalito States

Joan Cox: quote goals in the plan will include compensatory mitigation at a ratio of no less than 1.2 to one mitigation area to impact area. So the settlement agreement says, goals in the plan will include

Joan Cox: on these and and indeed,

Joan Cox: that is important. Because the it’s important that it’d be a goal and not a requirement, because it may actually be be infeasible.

Joan Cox: So

Joan Cox: on July 31, 2023 regional experts, lawyer and Merkel, as well as coastal policy solutions opined that the 1.2 to one mitigation ratio could be infeasible to attain. Given Richardson Bay’s Natural Geomorphology and ability to support ingress.

Joan Cox: It was therefore suggested that the settlement agreement be revisited.

Joan Cox: And so, on August seventeenth, 2023, I requested that Pcdc. Council provide a written analysis of Bcd. C’s position

Joan Cox: without ever providing us with that analysis. BC DC. Staff on December thirteenth, for the first time, announced that the 1.2 to one ratio in the settlement agreement is a requirement and not just a goal.

Joan Cox: as stated in the executed settlement agreement. It’s it baffles me that

Joan Cox: the sentence in settlement agreement States goals in the plan will include, and that BC. DC. Staff is now taking a position that this is a requirement in contravention of what regional experts opine is feasible.

Joan Cox: So converting a goal into a requirement appears to be setting the city up for failure.

Joan Cox: And this is very puzzling to me, because we have a long history of cooperation and rapid progress toward meeting BC. DC. Goals, and we would prefer to continue to work collaboratively, moving forward.

Joan Cox: It also is notable to me that this

Joan Cox: goal is not in the settlement agreement with Rbra.

Joan Cox: I noticed that this morning, during Adrian Klein’s presentation that language does not appear in their settlement agreement. So why is BC. DC. Turning a goal into a requirement and insisting upon that goal only against the city of Sausalito, and not

Joan Cox: the Rvra. So

Joan Cox: II hate to close on a challenging note. But this is an issue of great concern to the city.

Joan Cox: And with that that concludes our presentation, and we’re available to answer any questions.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Thank you very much. The this committee thanks Ra. And the city of Sausalito’s representatives for the briefings. For being here and the time that it took to craft presentations.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: So at this point, do any of the Enforcement Committee members have

Marie Gilmore, Chair: questions for either staff or for our guests.

Boardroom SX80: I don’t see any.

Boardroom SX80: No questions. Actually, Chair Gilmore. Commissioner Eisen.

Boardroom SX80: Okay, Commissioner Eisen, I can’t. I can’t see her on the screen. So it’s difficult. That’s the problem with showing up in person actually less visible.

Boardroom SX80: Ii have a number of questions I did try to take notes as you suggested. Chair Gilmore, but stick with me as I go back through the slides.

Boardroom SX80: So with respect to the the

Boardroom SX80: requests for extension that we’ve been told about today.

Boardroom SX80: I am wondering, and I guess I would go back to Director Gross. I’m going all the way back to the beginning of the slides. I think I heard from Adrian that the reason for those requests was to promote voluntary resolution. I think that was the phrase Adrianism. Yeah.

So I am wondering what? What exactly that means. What are we trying to reach some kind of a settlement agreement

Boardroom SX80: in lieu of some kind of enforcement action. With respect to a couple of these vessels

Brad Gross: for the question, I appreciate it, and no, we are not looking for a settlement. We are actually, we’re looking for a a conclusion. We’re looking for an amicable conclusion, which is, I’ll give you an example of the first floating home who was, provided a 60 day extension. He worked diligently, and was able to

with the assistance of the flexibility of this committee.

Brad Gross: Get into a legal liverboard slip with this loading hall.

Brad Gross: the next floating home that we’re working on. He claimed. We. We went through the citation process. We went through the abatement process. We are ready to move forward with a warrant if necessary, but I thought it was,

Brad Gross: a a better solution to give him one more opportunity to get his boat relocated, or turn it into our bra for proper disposal as opposed to

Brad Gross: going through legal action, II have to tell you, and it’s no secret rvra is a very small agency with a very small budget with very high insurance costs all related to litigation.

Brad Gross: Because of the actions that we’re taking. We will take those actions, but it’s makes more sense to us to

Brad Gross: give folks ample opportunity to abide by the regulations. Ultimately

Brad Gross: this last vessel that got the extension and the other vessels got the extension

Brad Gross: will be removed hopefully those folks will be housed. But

Brad Gross: A perfect example is that if if we force people out of our anchorage.

Brad Gross: they end up being a liability to somebody else. They move somewhere else. I could tell you that some of the the vessels that were really recently removed from saw Slato anchorage on the 72Â h notice simply made it over to our anchorage, and one of them

Brad Gross: is on a 30 day. Permit one of them’s getting a citation. So it’s become our problem. And we don’t want to. We don’t want to incur that type of oppression and any other agency. So working with these, with the committee and these extensions, I believe, allows us, and allows the voters ample time to take the correct actions.

Boardroom SX80: Yep.

well, I totally appreciate that these are in enormously complex

Boardroom SX80: but what I’m trying to understand, because we’ve heard now reports of regularly, and each time there are sort of more and more

Boardroom SX80: discussions about extensions, but on the milestone slide one of the original slides. It’s the one with the black oyster catchers on it.

I’m wondering if there is

Boardroom SX80: any anticipation that there will be more requests for extension beyond the ones that have.

Boardroom SX80: Just been provided.

Brad Gross: That’s a great question. And and with in all honesty, we are sitting with

Brad Gross: over 30, about 35 people who qualify for housing voucher program.

Brad Gross: We have 6 factors out right now. We have, according to our colleagues from health and human services. And we’re in housing authority.

Brad Gross: They’re figuring we’re going to be able to get another 13 of them house within the year. As I told this committee, and anybody who will listen, we’re figuring they can house about 2 a month. So and all, honestly, yeah, we’ll probably be back in close to 2,024 to say, look, we’ve got a successful program. We’ve house 20 people. We remove 20 boats. We have a dozen left. We’re going to need some more time with them.

Brad Gross: And I’m hoping that the this committee will see the wisdom in providing extensions if they’re required. As long as we are proving that the program is successful, it’s really just as you know. The officers from Salsa said. It’s a time money staffing issue. Convincing

Brad Gross: landlords to take these folks, which isn’t really a problem. It’s just really a a timing and processing to get these people through the system. If we had.

Brad Gross: you know, we were, we were allotted 3 million dollars. If we were allotted 6 million dollars we would have been able to bring in double the staff and put and house double the people. But we’re working diligently. We’re working successfully. It’s all proving to be working. So we’re hoping that if we do come that this committee will see the wisdom and providing another extension if required.

Boardroom SX80: And II recognize that there’s a balancing act that goes on in terms of you know what what you achieve by an extension versus what you lose by an extension. But from what I understand from the eelgrass presentations both from the Rbra and Sausalito, is that as these vessels continue to sit out there, we continue to have

Boardroom SX80: consequences to the eel grass which themselves require money and time to restore, and to get back to where we should have been, especially at this

Boardroom SX80: critical time in our history, where we have to do everything we can to capture carbon. So I’m hoping all of that is being balanced as we move through this problem. And along those lines. I’m wondering with respect to the Fedura. So now I’m sort of switching to Sausalito for a second. How long has it been that we have been

Boardroom SX80: working with this particular owner?

Joan Cox: When did we start that process. We’ve been working with this owner since since I’ve been involved in 2,017 and perhaps longer.

Joan Cox: Can provide an update. It it the last I understood. It looks as though we actually may have to

Joan Cox: it it when it’s not entirely here, we may actually have to undertake removal

Joan Cox: through the enforcement process. But I’ll let Lieutenant another address. That group.

Brian Mather: Yes, Vice Mayor, that’s accurate. You know we we’ve been engaged in some lengthy conversations, and you know it’s turned into

Brian Mather: the owner and the rep representatives not responding and getting legal aid. And and so there’s some stall tact, tactics involved in that. So you know, the city side at this point is enforcement. We’re hoping that maybe during the enforcement period that

Brian Mather: they wake up and decide to actually take custody of their boat and and take care of it. But then, you know, like our bra says, you know, we run the risk of them moving that boat just into to their jurisdiction. We don’t want that, and we’re not gonna allow that. So it’s a delicate situation. With resources, and also taking people’s property and litigation. And what could happen after that? So we’re trying to do this right?

Brian Mather: And that’s why we requested that extension is we gotta make sure we do this right for all parties involved and not rush into this. I know we, the books, been here for 26 years. So

we’re not trying to do this hastily. Here, we’re just trying to do it right so.

Joan Cox: And I will say, you know, we undertook the expense of doing a survey of the boat to see whether the boat is still salvageable. At this point the boat is actually considered to be marine debris under the definition. And so but we’ve made every effort to identify creative solutions. At this point.

Joan Cox: Given this looming deadline we’ve into the enforcement approach.

Boardroom SX80: Yeah, I mean, if you’re saying that we have been trying to resolve this for 6 going on 7 years now, yeah, it really does think sound like the time is

Boardroom SX80: ripe for moving to a different strategy than trying to get voluntary cooperation. But

Boardroom SX80: at the last the last question I have, and I’m I’m sorry to hear.

That a dispute has arisen between Sausalito and our staff, because we have commented on each and every one of these presentations

Boardroom SX80: about the thoroughness and the cooperation, and how pleased we are at how things are moving. So I it’s concerning that we’ve had maybe the first of our sort of bumps in the road together. I’m I don’t know enough about this issue to ask even intelligent questions, but it seemed to me

Boardroom SX80: that when we set forth the 1.2 to one goal in the settlement agreement in the agreement

Boardroom SX80: that there must have been some basis for thinking that was possible. So one of the things I would want to know, maybe as we move forward is what has changed to make that now sound like it’s impossible.

Boardroom SX80: because at at least a couple of years ago it sounds like it was considered feasible enough to set it as a goal. So that’s just a comment. I’m not really expecting a response. But that

Boardroom SX80: is something that I think you know needs to be explored for for our committee. That’s all I have, Mr. Chair Gilmore.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Thank you, Commissioner Eisen. Any other committee members

Marie Gilmore, Chair: have questions or comments

Marie Gilmore, Chair: I wanna weigh in on that last point about the the settlement agreement. And I think this is going to be right for

Marie Gilmore, Chair: either a future briefing by staff or the next time. Our scheduled briefing with the city of Sausalito.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Not only do I wanna know, along with Commissioner Eisen is what’s changed between the time we entered into the agreement. And now that makes this infeasible.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: But I would like to hear from the the experts, or or get more information on their expert opinion as to why it’s infeasible. And also Staff’s response to that.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: I just basically like to have a discussion. So we can understand a little bit more clearly.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: The the facts of the situation. So that’s all I’m gonna say for now. And obviously I don’t expect

Marie Gilmore, Chair: a comment. Now this is for a a future meeting.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: So, having said that, I’m going to ask if there’s any public comment on this item, I know we had one hand raised earlier.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: So first of all, is there anybody in in the room

Marie Gilmore, Chair: that would like to speak?

Boardroom SX80: Non, chair, Gilmore.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Okay, so then let’s go to the commenter

Marie Gilmore, Chair: who attended this stage previously.

Boardroom SX80: we have an online public comment from Barbara Salzman.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Okay. go ahead. I believe you have 3Â min to speak.

barbara salzman marin audubon society: Barbara Saulson. I represent them more in Audubon society, and I first like to commend Rebecca for her good presentation. And also say that I assume that we could just contact you for a copy of the record report, because, yeah, we I don’t have that

barbara salzman marin audubon society: and secondly, about the RA presentation. There was a mention. I don’t think we need to spend a lot of time on this, but there was a mention of going to other marine is in the vicinity for a possible relocation.

barbara salzman marin audubon society: and that does raise some concern for me because I it was my, it’s been my understanding that Marina is a really only allowed to have liver boards or or people living on their boats for protection purposes. And it’s very limited. So I do have to raise. It’s a question of how how realistic that is as a as a

barbara salzman marin audubon society: a relocation

barbara salzman marin audubon society: potential moving forward because II wouldn’t. You wouldn’t be wanting to move people as to other marine is where it’s not legal, of course.

barbara salzman marin audubon society: And thirdly, with regard to to Sausalito and the the the apparent change here in in requirements.

barbara salzman marin audubon society: You know, I’d like to point out the source of lead, though it’s really been in the forefront of moving this along. They they they took the initial action, and they are continuing our small city and they’re continuing to make in my view efforts and I would hope that this would be clarified and the the good point made by the city that it’s now changed to a requirement.

barbara salzman marin audubon society: II if II find it

barbara salzman marin audubon society: You know, unexplainable. Why, why, that’s taking place, and so maybe something’s going on that I don’t understand. But I’ve been involved in this a long time, and I do think that it’s not fair to have 1 one jurisdiction ha! Having to make certain requirements that are pretty

barbara salzman marin audubon society: owner is, and and the other jurisdiction, I mean, I want success for everybody but the other jurisdiction not having to

barbara salzman marin audubon society: have that requirement. So I hope you consider that.

barbara salzman marin audubon society: Thanks a lot.

Boardroom SX80: Thank you very much.

Boardroom SX80: Do we have any other?

Boardroom SX80: Sorry, that’s all we have here, Gilmore.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Okay, thank you. One last chance for any committee members to make a final comment or question.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Okay, seeing then, once again, I want to extend the committee’s thanks to both the Rba and the city of Sausledo for very comprehensive and informative presentations today. Thank you very much. And enjoy the rest of your day.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Thank you.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Okay. So now we move on to Item number 7.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: It is a staff presentation, and a vote on a post recommend recommended decision to adopt a settlement agreement to be entered into with Roger Stan Bridge, of Alameda, City and County.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: If this committee votes to adopt the recommended Enforcement decision, which includes the proposed settlement agreement, it will be put up for a vote of approval or rejection by the full Commission at its January eighteenth.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: 2024, meeting, which is scheduled to be held online and in person at the Metro Center, which is located at 3 75 Beale Street, in San Francisco City and county, and that meeting begins at 10’clock.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Okay, after the staff gives her presentation, I will ask, respondent to affirm its agreement with the terms and conditions of the stipulated order.

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

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Okay, at this time. Will. The representative or representatives of the respondents. Please identify themselves for the record.

Boardroom SX80: Margie, just this is Adrian Klein. Just inform me, Mister Standridge had been online, but he is working. So it seems that we’ve lost him at this point.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Okay, thank you for that. But clearly he has been notified of the meeting and he was here.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: So we will. Go ahead and proceed with policy enforcement analyst Adrian Klein. Will give her her presentation.

Boardroom SX80: Thank you. Chair. Gilmore. May I have the item? 7 slide? Thank you very much. Next slide, please.

Boardroom SX80: So as per usual. This will be quite brief, but we’ll run through location timeline of events. Summary of the violation and staff recommendation to the Enforcement Committee next slide, please.

Boardroom SX80: So the site addresses 3 0 2 5 Marina. Drive in the city and county of Alameda the Red Arrow is pointing roughly to the address on the Alameda shoreline next slide, please. Zooming in a second Google Earth image

Boardroom SX80: next slide, please, when you’re ready. Thank you so much. There may be a little lag. So this red arrow is now pointing to

Boardroom SX80: 3025, Marina drive.

Boardroom SX80: and you can see a single boat dock with a white boat. The single boat dock is the

Boardroom SX80: subject of this proceeding. Next slide, please.

Boardroom SX80: So as you will have read in the staff, recommended Enforcement decision. There was a an existing boat, Doc, that was replaced in 2,000 by a former owner, who submitted, but never filed as complete a permit application. The BC. DC. Staff did not pursue resolution of this violation. Between

Boardroom SX80: the year 2,000

Boardroom SX80: and the present in 2018, Mr. Roger Standrich Pre. Purchased this property, and in 2021 BC. DC. Or 2022 BC. DC. Staff, initiated communications with Mister Sandridge to have him either remove the unauthorized Doc or submit

Boardroom SX80: a complete permit application so that we could retroactively authorize the existing structure.

Boardroom SX80: Mr. Standridge was not surprisingly surprised to be hearing from us and to to learn of this unauthorized structure. So, despite the fact that he was initially not particularly responsive, recently he’s been very responsive and cooperative.

Boardroom SX80: so we did. He wasn’t responsive to our initial enforcement communication, so we escalated to commence a formal enforcement proceeding. This hearing is the culmination of that he did respond to the violation report, and indicated that he would like to settle rather than have a contested order, and we were able to reach those terms which I will describe. So next slide, please.

Boardroom SX80: So this is just a single violation. For the failure to obtain a permit to replace a smaller replacement. Dock. So it is less bay fill than had been previously in place for a legitimate water oriented use of the bay next slide, please.

Boardroom SX80: So the terms which we have negotiated, and both both Staff and Mister Standard Degree to our to either by the middle of February, remove the unauthorized doc and gangway, and submit photographic evidence or submit a filed application for the existing structures, and to pay a $2,000 penalty which Mr. Sandridge Hand delivered to the office yesterday.

Boardroom SX80: and that concludes the staff presentation with that recommended recommended

Boardroom SX80: decision for the committee.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Thank you, Adrienne. Normally. This is where we would ask the respondent to

Marie Gilmore, Chair: affirm that he agrees with the terms and conditions of the proposed settlement. Agreement. However, he’s not here, but I wanna point out again for the record that he has signed the settlement agreement.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: However. It does not become effective until the full Commission votes on it on January eighteenth, 2024.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: So, having said, all of that do any members have questions for Adrian at this point.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Okay, not seeing any. Margie, do we have any public comment on this item?

Boardroom SX80: We do not hear Gilmore

Marie Gilmore, Chair: and I believe we didn’t have any written public comment prior to this correct

Boardroom SX80: correct.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Okay, great. So at this point in time, I’ll need a motion and a second to approve

Marie Gilmore, Chair: the settlement agreement.

Boardroom SX80: Move the staff recommendation.

Letty Belin, Commissioner: Second.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Okay. So

Marie Gilmore, Chair: the it was a new spot.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: So it was moved by Commissioner Eisen and seconded by Commissioner best kids.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: and Matthew, would you please call the roll?

Boardroom SX80: Yes, Commissioner Bieland.

Letty Belin, Commissioner: Aye.

Boardroom SX80: Commissioner Eisen. Aye.

John Vasquez, Commissioner: Commissioner Buscis. Yes.

Boardroom SX80: Chair Gilmour.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Yes.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: okay, so this item is concluded, and I wanna remind everybody that the Commission is scheduled to hear and vote on this recommended Enforcement decision at its February first.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: So February first, or January eighteenth meeting. Excuse me. Chair. W. Would you mind for the record stating the

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Oh, I’m sorry, unanimously

Boardroom SX80: thank you. And

Boardroom SX80: the next

so you’re asking, when is the next Commission meeting this?

Boardroom SX80: Ph.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: yes. The next Commission meeting is the eighteenth. Is this gonna be heard on the eighteenth

Marie Gilmore, Chair: or February? First cause? I have 2 different notes here.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Oh, goodness, I’m sorry about that. Let me make sure I get the right date out

Marie Gilmore, Chair: for public and for the record.

Boardroom SX80: Let me get pull up that information for you. If you’ll

Boardroom SX80: indulge me for a moment.

Boardroom SX80: It’s it’s it’s on the agenda.

Boardroom SX80: I’m sorry, having trouble accessing the agenda. So I just wanna make sure I give you the correct information

so

excellent. Tell me

Boardroom SX80: I’m sorry I can’t. I can’t pull it up, but I think it’s it. I just was told by Margie. She believes it’s perhaps February first, in fact.

Boardroom SX80: which makes sense. At this point. I am pulling up the agenda right now.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: and it is

Marie Gilmore, Chair: okay. I can confirm that it is not on

Boardroom SX80: commission meeting. February first. Yes, okay, so it’s on the February First Commission meeting. I just got confirmation from rachel. Thank you, Rachel.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Okay, so

Marie Gilmore, Chair: So for the court reporter strike all references to this being held on January eighteenth. The correct date is February first, 2024. The meeting will be held at 3 75 Field Street in San Francisco at 10’clock.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Alright, thank you. Everybody. Item, 8 is a

Marie Gilmore, Chair: vote, a hearing, and a vote on the recommended Enforcement decision to resolve enforcement case er 2021 0 4 4.0 0.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: So our next agenda item is a staff presentation and a vote on a proposed recommended decision to adopt the settlement agreement to be entered into with Carl

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Yohans Meyer, of Tiburon, Marin County. If this committee votes to adopt the recommended Enforcement decision, which includes the proposed settlement agreement.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: It will be put up for a vote

Marie Gilmore, Chair: of approval or or rejection

Marie Gilmore, Chair: by the full commission at its February first, 2024, meeting, which is scheduled to be held online and in person

Marie Gilmore, Chair: at the Metro Center, located at 375 Beale Street. in San Francisco City and county, starting at 10’clock.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Excuse me, Matthew wants to speak.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: No, actually, I put my hand out. Sorry I wanted to make sure that you gave the right date there, too. It’s also going to be February first.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Thank you.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: So after the staff presentation, I’m going to ask the respondent to affirm. It’s agreement with the terms and conditions of the proposed agreement.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Then I will allow public comment on this item, and afterwards the committee will hold our discussion and vote on Staff’s recommendation.

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

John Sharp: Yes, good morning. I’m John Sharp. I’m the attorney for Mr. Johan’s Meyer the owner of 5 blending lane in Belvedere. Not Tiburon.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Oh, thank you very much for that clarification. Thank you for being here today, and welcome. So I will. I will now invite enforcement analyst Rachel Cone to give her opening remarks. Rachel.

Boardroom SX80: Thank you. Just one moment while I share my screen.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: And

Boardroom SX80: does that look okay for everyone.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Yes.

Boardroom SX80: okay.

Boardroom SX80: So good morning chair, Gilmore, committee, members and all in attendance today I’ll present Enforcement case number er 2021 dot 0 4 dot 0 0

Boardroom SX80: for which the respondent is Mr. Carl H. Johansmeyer, represented today by Attorney John Sharp, and thanks Mr. Sharp, for being here.

Boardroom SX80: I will begin by familiarizing you with the location of the violation, followed by a timeline of events, and then end by summarizing the violation and finally presenting the staff’s recommendation.

Boardroom SX80: So there are 2 images on this slide. The one on the left is a zoomed out vicinity map, and the one on the right focuses in more closely on the location of the violation. There is a red PIN on each image at 5 Blanding Lane, Belvedere Island, Marin County.

Boardroom SX80: and the home is close to the southern tip of Belvedere island and faces east.

Boardroom SX80: This is a photo of the property from the lower shoreline area taken facing west, and there’s a yellow oval outlining the specific location of the violation.

Boardroom SX80: On this slide the image on the left side of the screen shows the violation more closely. The respondent has represented that there was a fence surrounding this property for the past century, and they needed to replace an 11 foot 2 inch long. Section of a 6 foot tall wire fence in approximately 2021

Boardroom SX80: that 11 foot 2 inch long. Section is the section that the respondent needed. Bcdc authorization prior to placing.

Boardroom SX80: And I’ll now take you through the timeline of events in this case. So in May of 2021 BC. DC. Enforcement staff received a report from City of Belvedere Staff, alleging that unpermitted fencing had been installed on the property of 5 Blanding lane within BC. DC’s 100 foot shoreline ban jurisdiction

Boardroom SX80: BC DC. Opened enforcement case er 2021 dot 0 4 0 0, and made initial contact with respondents authorized Representative Attorney John Sharp.

Boardroom SX80: between May and June of 2021 respondent, and Mr. Sharp informed Staff that they were meeting with consultants and a surveyor, and had hired an architect, indicating that they were beginning to put together initial application materials to seek and obtain after the fact permit for the fence replacement.

Boardroom SX80: In September of 2021 city of Belvedere staff and a surveyor conducted a site visit at 5 Blanding Lane, and reported their findings to BCDC. Staff, who were unavailable to attend that day.

Boardroom SX80: City staff confirmed that fencing had been placed on Mr. Johan’s Meyers property without permits. So with this information, in October of 2021 Bcd. C. Staff issued a notice of violations to Mr. Johan’s Meyer, initiating a standardized fine process which gave him 35 days to either remove the unpermitted fill, or to seek and obtain a permit for the fence before standardized fines began accruing.

Boardroom SX80: In March of 2022, Mr. Sharp submitted an incomplete region. Wide permit application on behalf of the respondent, seeking after-the-fact authorization for defense.

Boardroom SX80: Then, between October 2022 and October 2023, Enforcement staff made several attempts to urge Mr. Johansmeyer to complete his Permit application and on October thirteenth, 2,023, staff notified the respondent that the executive director was rescinding the opportunity to resolve the violation, using the standardized fines. Process after determining that the respondent had not made a good faith effort to resolve the violation.

Boardroom SX80: On October thirtieth, 2023 staff mailed a violation report and complaint for administrative civil penalties to the respondent.

Boardroom SX80: and finally, on November thirtieth, 2023 respondent and staff agreed to resolve this enforcement matter via the proposed settlement agreement.

Boardroom SX80: So to summarize the one violation is for the failure to obtain a Bcd C. Permit prior to placing fencing in Bcd. C’s 100 foot shoreline ban jurisdiction, and this is in violation of section 6, 6, 3, 2. A of the Mccoyer Petras Act

Boardroom SX80: to resolve this case. Staff recommends that the Enforcement committee vote to recommend that the Commission authorizes the executive director to execute the proposed settlement agreement, which requires respondent to

Boardroom SX80: one pay $2,500 in administrative civil liability within 30 days of executing the agreement, and 2 by February 2820, 24. Either remove the unauthorized fence and submit photographic evidence of the same, or submit their filed application, seeking after the fact authorization for the fence. And that concludes the staff’s presentation, and I will stop sharing my screen.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Thank you very much, Rachel. At this point, Mr. Sharp, I’m gonna ask you if your client agrees to the terms and the conditions of the proposed settlement agreement. Yes, my client does, and I am authorized to state that he’s prepared to execute the agreement.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Great! Thank you.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Do any Enforcement Committee members have any questions for either staff or for Mr. Sharp.

Boardroom SX80: Commissioner Eisen.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Go ahead.

Boardroom SX80: Thank you. So just so that I’m understanding we sent a notice in March 2022, that you have 35 days to fix this problem.

Boardroom SX80: And now. a year and a half later. we’re settling it. Is that okay? What? What was happening in between then? Because.

Boardroom SX80: what I’m worried about is the agreement says that they have to remove the fence or submit

Boardroom SX80: the application which they said they were going to submit, and really never did. So what happens if on February 2820 24,

Boardroom SX80: I mean, we have. I don’t know how much effort has been put into this. We’re getting $2,500 out of it.

Boardroom SX80: What happens if yet again, the respondent decides that they are going to neither remove the fence nor submit the proper application.

Boardroom SX80: So that would then mean that the the settlement agreement goes away, and we would commence formal enforcement through and and

Boardroom SX80: require action through an order. Additional penalties we can seek, because 2,500 is not really going to be sufficient at that point. In time I would have to get back to you on that I’m not exactly sure. And how that would work.

Boardroom SX80: Well, I think the Commission may want to know that before they vote on that, because an awful lot of effort is being put into getting somebody to do what they really should have done a year ago.

Boardroom SX80: so

Boardroom SX80: that’s that’s all I have.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Thank you, Rebecca. I think you bring up a very good point. I think, as part of the presentation to the full commission

Marie Gilmore, Chair: given given the history, I mean no disrespect. But given the history of this I think the Commission should be informed as to if there’s non compliance, what the next steps are, and what penalties could conceivably be levy for non-compliance?

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Are there any other questions or comments by commission members, committee members? Excuse me.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Okay. Seeing then, Margie, do we have any public comments?

Boardroom SX80: He no public comment.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: And did we? I don’t believe we had any written comments prior to the meeting.

Boardroom SX80: That’s correct.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Okay, so one last time for committee members, any final comments or questions.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Okay, so at this point in time, I would like a motion to approve the Executive Director directors recommended enforcement decision regarding proposed settlement agreement.

Letty Belin, Commissioner: Someone

Marie Gilmore, Chair: I didn’t hear who moved.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Okay, we have a motion by Commissioner Billen, and a second by Commissioner Vasquez. Matthew, would you please call them Wrong

Boardroom SX80: Commissioner Bielin.

Letty Belin, Commissioner: Yes.

Boardroom SX80: Commissioner Eisen.

Boardroom SX80: Yes, Commissioner Busque.

Boardroom SX80: Chair Gilmour.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Yes.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: so the motion passes unanimously. 4 0. And this item is concluded. The Commission is scheduled to hear and vote on this recommended Enforcement decision at its February first, 2,024 meeting.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: and that will be held at feels 375 Deal Street in San Francisco at 10’clock committee members, I will entertain a motion and a second to adjourn our meeting.

Boardroom SX80: So moved

John Vasquez, Commissioner: second.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: moved by Commissioner Eisen, seconded by Commissioner Vasquez. Thank you very much. Everyone. Have a good day. We are adjourned.

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.