June 21, 2023 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 May 30, 2023 , Enforcement Committee meeting (PDF)
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. Update to the Committee on the Simmons Island Habitat Restoration Project (Enforcement Case 1990.026.00).
   Representative(s) for the Port of Stockton, San Joaquin County, will update the committee on the project timeline, including the expected completion date, the progress to-date and the tasks remaining to complete this project and resolve the BCDC enforcement case. Last update: December 21, 2022.
   (Adrienne Klein) [415/352-3609; adrienne.klein@bcdc.ca.gov]Presentation (PDF)
7. Briefing to Committee on Regulations Addressing Late-Submitted Evidence
   Assistant Attorney General Shari Posner will present to the committee the applicable regulations of Title 14, Division 5, Chapter 13 of the California Code of Regulations that address the handling and consideration of late-submitted evidence at enforcement hearings.
   (Matthew Trujillo) [415/352-3633; matthew.trujillo@bcdc.ca.gov]Presentation (PDF)
8. Adjournment

Audio Recording

Audio Transcript

Is 9 30,

Marie Gilmore, Chair: 933, and this meeting of the BC. DC. Enforcement Committee is here by a call to order. My name is Marie Gilmour, and I am the chair of this Committee

Marie Gilmore, Chair: for Commissioners. Please ensure that the video camera is always on, and please mute yourself when you are not speaking.

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

Matthew Trujillo, Enforcement Policy Manager: good morning. Excuse me. Good morning, Commissioner Eisen.

Matthew Trujillo, Enforcement Policy Manager: Commissioner.

John Vasquez, Commissioner: Here.

Matthew Trujillo, Enforcement Policy Manager: Commissioner, rancho Commissioner, or sorry chair, Gilmore.

here.

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

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

Marie Gilmore, Chair: and thus far we have received no general comments. about anything

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

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

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

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

Marie Gilmore, Chair: After you called on. You will be unmuted, so that you can share your comments. Please announce yourself by first and last name for the record before making your comment

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

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Please keep your comments respectful and focus. We are here to listen to any individual who requests to speak.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: but each speaker has the responsibility to act in a civil and curious manner as determined by the chair.

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

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

Marie Gilmore, Chair: once again, this is a call for general public comment

Marie Gilmore, Chair: on items that are not onto

Marie Gilmore, Chair: on today’s agenda. So, Margie, do we have any hands raised by the public.

Margie Malan, BCDC HOST: We have no public comments here. Gilmour.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Thank you. Okay, so on to item number 4, which is approval of the draft minutes from the last meeting.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: We have all been furnished draft minutes from our last meeting held on May thirtieth, 2,023

Marie Gilmore, Chair: committee members. I would have. I appreciate a motion in a second to approve these.

Sanjay Ranchod, Commissioner: So moved

Rebecca Eisen, Commissioner: second.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: moved by Commissioner Ranchod, and second by Commissioner Eisen.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: okay, Everybody who’s in favor of this. Please raise your hand.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: notes ext extensions. Motion carries unanimously. Thank you.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Item 5 is the Enforcement report enforcement policy manager. Matthew Tre. Here will now provide the enforcement.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Matthew.

Matthew Trujillo, Enforcement Policy Manager: thank you. Excuse me, thank you. And good morning. Chair and committee members. There are 4 items to report out on today.

Matthew Trujillo, Enforcement Policy Manager: The first item, as usual, is a case update. Since my last report on April thirteenth, 2,023. I did not give a report on May thirtieth

Matthew Trujillo, Enforcement Policy Manager: because it was a special meeting, and we were trying to move things along. So in the past 2 months since April we received

Matthew Trujillo, Enforcement Policy Manager: 11 new cases, and we would all 14 cases. And as of today, there are 75 unresolved cases in the queue, which is a difference of a minus 4 from the last report.

Matthew Trujillo, Enforcement Policy Manager: That means we continue to make progress on drying down the backlog of cases.

Matthew Trujillo, Enforcement Policy Manager: The second is an update on our efforts to fill this current. Cpa, 2. Vacancy, we still receive no applications for the position.

Matthew Trujillo, Enforcement Policy Manager: rather no qualified applications. It was reposted this past week as an 18 month limited term position, and I also attempted to make it easier to find in searches by candidates who are looking for jobs outside of San Francisco County exclusively by including the names of the other 8 Bay area counties in the working title. And the location fields. So hopefully,

Matthew Trujillo, Enforcement Policy Manager: the idea is that when a potential job seeker is looking for something, maybe a little closer to home in San Francisco, maybe from Solano or San Mateo, one of those areas.

Matthew Trujillo, Enforcement Policy Manager: our job will start to show up in their searches if they do that. At that filtered search. The third item is an update on the se plain investments Llc. Matter that this committee requested that we bring back to them today.

Matthew Trujillo, Enforcement Policy Manager: However, after the May thirtieth special meeting of this committee Greg Sharp asked me to postpone further action on this matter until he returns with vacation at the end of this month. and so with the chairs support, we have postponed the hearing until at least August, and in the meantime,

Matthew Trujillo, Enforcement Policy Manager: Throughout the course of a July we will once more reach. Try to reach a fair settlement of the case. This time

Matthew Trujillo, Enforcement Policy Manager: under Greg’s direct guidance and direction, with the goal of being able to bring a stipulated order back to the for approval as opposed to a contested order, which is what we brought.

Matthew Trujillo, Enforcement Policy Manager: We’re we’re originally going to bring forward on the thirtieth, but we didn’t get to the last item. they drink fine. Would like to provide a brief update of the staff’s ongoing work with the city of Sauce Toledo on their e grass. Restoration project. Adrian.

Hmm.

adrienne klein: thanks, Matthew. Good morning, everybody. Happy summer solstice.

adrienne klein: We.

adrienne klein: The city of satellite settlement. Agreement requires tertiary briefings 3 per year and we just had a bit of a scheduling error. and we should have brought that forward to you today. We’ll bring it forward to you in August with on the same day that we bring the Rvr. A quarterly update. But I did want you to know that

adrienne klein: we so this phase that we’re at is that the city has prepared a draft eel grass restoration plan. They submitted a draft in June which we’ve reported to you of last year we gave them a response requesting revisions.

adrienne klein: We received that revised report on May Fourth, and have provided comments to the city on the report. They’re getting much closer. The initial draft was not settlement agreement compliant, and we have sent a copy of the letter to technical Experts and Resource agency colleagues.

adrienne klein: in compliance with the settlement agreement which requires the city to consult with. those parties for their input

Matthew Trujillo, Enforcement Policy Manager: that’s all I wanted to share. Thank you very much.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Thank you, Marth Matthew, Adrian. Rebecca Eisen.

Rebecca Eisen, Commissioner: Thank you, Matthew. I have 2 questions.

Rebecca Eisen, Commissioner: could you explain to us again? And I’m sorry for asking this if it’s been asked before. But what does limited term mean in terms of the hiring position we have.

Rebecca Eisen, Commissioner: and my second question has to do with the seaplane matter, and hopefully, yes, it can be resolved. But if it’s not resolved.

Rebecca Eisen, Commissioner:  let us know as soon as possible prior to that august meeting, because, if I remember, the materials, for that matter are voluminous, and we’ll all need the time to. Really, you know, do a deep dive on those materials before that meeting. If we need to resolve it ourselves without a settlement

Matthew Trujillo, Enforcement Policy Manager: understood. And I will definitely do that. Now, with with regard to that matter, and I’ll go in reverse order here. My! The ideal is that if we are able to come with with a stipulated agreement. Then we will bring it to you in August. However, if not

Matthew Trujillo, Enforcement Policy Manager: it will probably have to be pushed off of that day, so that we can dedicate an entire

Matthew Trujillo, Enforcement Policy Manager: meeting to to hearing these matters so that might push it. They’ll definitely would push it into September or beyond

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Can I just intercede here for just a second?

Marie Gilmore, Chair: let’s hope that things work out and you are bringing it to us in August. but we should make a quorum check

Marie Gilmore, Chair: well in advance of both of the potential August meetings.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: because I suspect that there are some commissioners who are going to have difficulty attending

Matthew Trujillo, Enforcement Policy Manager: understood?

Matthew Trujillo, Enforcement Policy Manager: and then the

Matthew Trujillo, Enforcement Policy Manager: a question about what does limited term mean?

Matthew Trujillo, Enforcement Policy Manager: So, as I understand it, not being an human resources. Expert.

Matthew Trujillo, Enforcement Policy Manager: it is there. There’s

Matthew Trujillo, Enforcement Policy Manager: kind of 2 ways that we to 2 tracks to to be hired on at Bcd

Matthew Trujillo, Enforcement Policy Manager: a job opening could either be for a permanent position. Which means that

Matthew Trujillo, Enforcement Policy Manager: you, you’re hired on your

Matthew Trujillo, Enforcement Policy Manager: You have a year of probation. Then, after that you’re considered a permanent employee with all the rights and privileges thereup.

Matthew Trujillo, Enforcement Policy Manager: Limited term means that it’s just. It’s a set term. So when you get hired, you know that you have in this case, for example, 18 months worth of work.

Matthew Trujillo, Enforcement Policy Manager: kind of guaranteed to you.

Matthew Trujillo, Enforcement Policy Manager: A at at which time

Matthew Trujillo, Enforcement Policy Manager: after after it’s virus. Rather. We re-evaluate whether we will continue to offer you employment, or we can at that time terminate your your employment.

Rebecca Eisen, Commissioner: so I’m wondering. I know we’ve had a lot of difficulty filling this position, or even getting any interest in this position.

Rebecca Eisen, Commissioner: And I’m not sure how the decision is made whether to classify it as a

Rebecca Eisen, Commissioner: well, I’ll tell you as an employment later. I never use the term permanent employment, but I guess with the Civil service. It’s a different matter. But I don’t know how that decision is made, whether it’s permanent or limited term. But is there any concern that calling it a limited term position discourages

Rebecca Eisen, Commissioner: interest.

Larry Goldzband: I’ll let Larry feel that question. He’s popped up. Can his hand is raised, Larry, if you want to. fill in good thanks very much. The reason this is a limited term position is because B. C. DC. Is afforded by the department of finance. Only a certain number of permanent employee boxes in our organization charge.

Larry Goldzband: and the and historically one of the one of the boxes in the organizational chart in enforcement is a limited term box

Larry Goldzband: and that is because we don’t candidly have the authorization for another permanent box.

Larry Goldzband: A permanent box costs money, as you know, over the life of the box, and we simply don’t have that authority from the Department of Finance, and we don’t plan. We don’t assume that we’re ever going to get it for enforcement. One of the things that has happened a lot during the past 3 to 5 years, when we really strengthen the enforcement program

Larry Goldzband: is that temporary employees or limited term employees move on in other parts of B. C. DC. To become permanent employees because we do have churn.

Larry Goldzband: and so, therefore, we do have the ability to move people, and for people to apply to be permanent employees. And then, as Matthew totally correctly says they go through a year’s probation, and then they become

Larry Goldzband: what are called permanent employees by the State of California.

Larry Goldzband: Yes, the the answer to your question is, yes, it is more difficult, probably, to hire a limited term person than a permanent person. because people want to know that they’re going to have a job after a year or 18 months. but we can’t do that

Larry Goldzband: because we don’t have the box to do it.

Larry Goldzband: And so we we have this, we basically have to hope for the best and be able to get somebody.

Rebecca Eisen, Commissioner: Okay.

Larry Goldzband: just keep trying. Then.

Larry Goldzband: and

Larry Goldzband: you know one of the things that that I think, Matthew.

Larry Goldzband: explain that I think he did really well, and that I tried to. We we had a little talk about last Thursday is, you know, we do have 8, 7, or 8 open positions. It’s everybody in the State is having difficulty filling open positions, whether they are primitive positions or limited term positions. and I know that that’s happening as well on the local and regional side as well.

Larry Goldzband: and so I would argue.

Larry Goldzband: based on no data whatsoever.

Larry Goldzband: that the difficulty in hiring and filling that temporary box is more due to the pay

Larry Goldzband: and the competitive nature of that kind of entry level position than it is to the 18 month position, the 18 month. That’s just me. And I could well be wrong.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Okay, thank you, Larry. any other committee questions

Marie Gilmore, Chair: seeing none. Do any members of the public have comments on the Enforcement report? Rg.

Margie Malan, BCDC HOST: I see. No.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: hey? Thank you.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: So we will move on to the next agenda item, which is a briefing on the Simmons Island Habitat Restoration project by anchor Qe. And they represent the port of Stockton

Marie Gilmore, Chair: at this time with the representative or representatives for anchor. Qa. Please identify themselves for the record.

Lynn Turner, Anchor QEA: Hello.

Lynn Turner, Anchor QEA: I’m Lynn Turner. I’m an environmental planner at anchor, Qa. And as mentioned, we’re here on behalf of the port of Stockton today. I just want to note that their representatives, Jeff Wingfield and Jason Cashman, generally do join us as well on these reports, but Due to vacations. We are giving the Update this time, but they they send their apologies, and then also with me as marine, I mean. Go ahead.

Marine Vie (Anchor QEA): Good morning. Everyone my name is Marine Va, I’m also with anchor Qa. Representing the port.

Marine Vie (Anchor QEA): and I will start sharing. Since I will be presenting I I’m just gonna share a screen

Marine Vie (Anchor QEA): and walk you through the presentation.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Okay, Atrian, did you have a few words that you wanted to say before we jumped into their presentation?

adrienne klein: Sure, thanks, Chair Gilmore.

adrienne klein: Should I provide a background? A, a one sentence. Summary of the project. And why this? Yeah. Okay, great. So, this is

adrienne klein: one of B Cdc’s oldest cases. So you recall that we were providing you regular updates on the the ones that predated 2,000 and

adrienne klein: this is one of the most complicated ones that great progress has been made so essentially the location of the

adrienne klein: well. I don’t want to take over

adrienne klein: anchor to his presentation, but it was dredge material from the port of Stockton. It wasn’t able, it was. It was allowed and authorized to be placed on this duck club in Solano County, and

adrienne klein: was never used for beneficial reuse purposes. And we are now. We now have a proposal to beneficially reuse the remaining material to promote habitat services and benefits on site and we’re getting really close to question of crossing the finish line, so I can provide more information afterwards. If it’s if it’s required

Lynn Turner, Anchor QEA: so close. We have been working on this for several years now, and it’s been very collaborative with the port of Stockton, the Rich Island Club. a whole stakeholder group, including so soon resource conservation district representatives from the core. B. C. DC. Adrian has been

Lynn Turner, Anchor QEA: immensely helpful in our efforts to get to a solution on this. So I’m going to pass it off to marine to give you our update in a little more depth.

Marine Vie (Anchor QEA): Sure. Are you able to see my screen, or is it that just the is? Is it the Powerpoint?

Marine Vie (Anchor QEA): Okay, great, perfect. So as as we said. the the purpose of this project is to

Marine Vie (Anchor QEA): report to the Enforcement Committee about this Simmons Island Habitat Restoration project.

Marine Vie (Anchor QEA): Oh. somehow I’m not able to move to the next slide.

Marine Vie (Anchor QEA):  I’m sorry.

Marine Vie (Anchor QEA): not sure what’s going on.

Lynn Turner, Anchor QEA: No worries. Let me know if you can’t get unstuck, and I can try

Marine Vie (Anchor QEA): the presentation outline will go over brief project backgrounds summary, and the construction schedule and then go over the requested permits and approval. Status

Marine Vie (Anchor QEA): So first the project background summary and construction schedule. So the project is located in Sassoon Marsh

Marine Vie (Anchor QEA): on Simmons Island. So basically dredge sediment from the Stockton Deepwater Ship channel. there’s regular dredging. It was placed on. So Simmons Island, between 1986 and 1996. the Duck Club was not able to use all this dredge material for exterior levy maintenance as it

Marine Vie (Anchor QEA): as the content of the the material was too sandy.

Marine Vie (Anchor QEA): a B Cdc Enforcement Act case was open in 2,007

Marine Vie (Anchor QEA): but parties were not able to reach an agreement on the design. there’s been renewed efforts for resolving this case in 2,019 and develop a collaborative solution. And finally, a design has been agreed upon.

Marine Vie (Anchor QEA): so the the overall purpose of this project is just to regrade the previously placed material. It is to improve and it expand wetland capabilities and and improve water management capabilities.

Marine Vie (Anchor QEA): So the applicant is the port of Stockton and the Rich Island Duck Club.

Marine Vie (Anchor QEA): The project sizes about 30 acres, and the volume of material to be moved 38,200 cubic yards. grading activities are

Marine Vie (Anchor QEA): and dissipated to take about 2 months

Marine Vie (Anchor QEA): and would happen during summer 2024 in one construction season. So there’s been a small change on the construction schedule, and this is because

Marine Vie (Anchor QEA): all permits haven’t not been received to this point. So construction was slated to a cure in 2,023. But it’s now moved to summer 2024. And this is because there’s just a small window during which the the project can be can be constructed. so it’s moved to a summer of next year. so

Marine Vie (Anchor QEA): this is one construction season, and it. It is anticipated to take during the drier months. As I was saying, that the window is is quite small.

Marine Vie (Anchor QEA): in terms of the requested permits and approval status. So we’ve we’ve gone over this table on the previous meeting a few, probably 6 months ago. there’s updates on the status of approval from each of the agency. So I’ll go over those right now. So all applications were submitted to the agencies. In September of 2,022

Marine Vie (Anchor QEA): for the core permit. It is a nationwide permit. 27 that is anticipated. we had. We’ve had the ongoing discussions with the core project manager, and recently a side visit was conducted on June fifteenth. This side visit included the confirmation of the Wetland delineation that was prepared for this project.

Marine Vie (Anchor QEA): and the core project manager. agreed with the delination. So we do anticipate. that was kind of the wrapping up item to be it to, so that the permit would be issued. So we do anticipate that permit to be coming very soon.

Marine Vie (Anchor QEA): The core also consulted with under Section 7 of the endangered species that it consulted with us fish and wildlife. we got a biological opinion that was issued it on a on May 24

Marine Vie (Anchor QEA): of this year.

Marine Vie (Anchor QEA): and then in terms of section 106,

Marine Vie (Anchor QEA): the core had requested a cultural resources assessment assessment, and this we submitted the the report on December 23. there’s also a sequel compliance. So California environmental quality at compliance. So the the port was the lead agency for sequel compliance, and they’ve issued or they they have filed a notice of exemption.

Marine Vie (Anchor QEA): On June fifteenth

Marine Vie (Anchor QEA): for the water board. We anticipate a section 4, one water quality started vacation to be issued very shortly. The Application was again submitted. In 22 there was a notice of incomplete application. received on December fifteenth, we submitted a response letter. On January thirtieth. We also hailed a meeting with both the Water Board and the Cdc.

Marine Vie (Anchor QEA): On that March first of this year to discuss additional questions they had. So The only out sending item was the notice of exemption filed

Marine Vie (Anchor QEA): for the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board to issue their permits. that has been, as I was saying, in the previous slide that’s been submitted on June fifteenth. So we do anticipate that approval, coming very soon, too.

Marine Vie (Anchor QEA): And this in terms of the B Cdc Mars development permit. similar timeframe as the Water Board so application was submitted in September of last year we submitted a response to B. Cdc’s notice of incomplete letter in December of last year, and we held the same meeting with the Water Board and DC. DC. On March first

Marine Vie (Anchor QEA): to discuss additional questions, and the B. Cdc. Permit cannot be issued until the

Marine Vie (Anchor QEA): they see the water board permit.

Marine Vie (Anchor QEA): So once we have the water board permit, we will send that on to the B Cdc. Reviewing team, and they should issue their permits. not long after that, we hope.

and then the last approval is the Delta stewardship consistency, determination.

Marine Vie (Anchor QEA): and that was obtained in December 2022. So we’ve been making progress over over the years, over the years of the month and and over the years, too, because there’s been a lot of collaboration to get to this point. so we we do anticipate permits. Come coming very soon. and We will keep

Marine Vie (Anchor QEA): you posted as we receive them.

Marine Vie (Anchor QEA): That concludes my presentation, and if there are any questions we’d be happy to take them.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Thank you very much. This was a a very informative and complete briefing. So do any enforcement committee members have any additional questions either for our our guests or for sa.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: and can we stop sharing the screen, please, because I can’t see.

Marine Vie (Anchor QEA): Yes.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: thank you, Commissioner Eisen.

Rebecca Eisen, Commissioner: Thank you. Thank you for the presentation. Could you just educate me as to what a cultural resources assessment is.

Lynn Turner, Anchor QEA: Yeah, absolutely. so a cultural resources assessment usually is is is under section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. And so there’s specific guidelines under which those are issued, and they look at

Lynn Turner, Anchor QEA: the potential for encountering any historic, archaeological or tribal resources in a specific area. So an archaeologist, and and sometimes other experts in those other areas depending on the risks assess whether there have been

Lynn Turner, Anchor QEA: previous discovery in a specific area, and then they’ll they’ll provide that information to the agencies that are asking for it, and they assess the potential for discovery of any you know, for an inadvertent discovery to happen during construction. This area is very low risk. Just so, you know, I think it’s just sort of a.

Lynn Turner, Anchor QEA: you know. It’s a pretty standard. Check the box. exercise, and if there is a higher potential, then we also develop things like more detailed inadvertent discovery plans, so that

Lynn Turner, Anchor QEA: there’s a specific set of steps during construction. Were there to be any discoveries

Lynn Turner, Anchor QEA: regardless, we have set steps set out. you know, a lot of the historic and cultural resources are not

Lynn Turner, Anchor QEA: publicly available information about where they are found for me, probably for obvious reasons, so that people don’t go out hunting, basically. So that information is kept on more

Lynn Turner, Anchor QEA: professional sites that are accessed by archaeologists and agencies. And so those reports are not usually published. so that we don’t. And you know, in differently release any information ourselves.

Rebecca Eisen, Commissioner: So just so I understand when you’re talking about things that might be inadvertently located. Are you talking about things like burial grounds or artifacts, or what?

Lynn Turner, Anchor QEA: if it is an area that maybe had historically had other people’s living there. Then they assess the potential for

Lynn Turner, Anchor QEA: discovering remains or cultural artifacts or or things like that. so it it’s, you know, location specific, what’s included in that. But again, this area very low risk, all of the material that we’re going to be regrading is previously placed dredge material. We’re not going down into the native soils at all.

Lynn Turner, Anchor QEA: All of this is just the dredge material that came out of the Sacramento over deep watership channel. So I’m sorry. The the the the previous judging. So

Lynn Turner, Anchor QEA: yeah, I think there’s a very low risk of any inadvertent discovery.

Rebecca Eisen, Commissioner: A and one other question I have, I know. at B. C. DC, we have

Rebecca Eisen, Commissioner: started up a program. I think the acronym is Britt

Rebecca Eisen, Commissioner: to accelerate or to coordinate various efforts to get permits from multiple agencies to streamline the process. I don’t know if this project is eligible for that, or whether it’s a participant in that program. I’m wondering if you know that.

Lynn Turner, Anchor QEA: Oh, go ahead, Adrian

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Adrian.

adrienne klein: Well, I didn’t mean to pre empty. Lynn. If memory serves we.

adrienne klein: This may have been under way before Britt existed. Commissioner Eisen and I do believe that we checked with Skylar Olson are Britt.

adrienne klein: go to person, and we determined that it wasn’t appropriate.

adrienne klein: But if you have different information, please feel free to share.

Lynn Turner, Anchor QEA: Yeah, no, that that that sounds right, and we were.

Lynn Turner, Anchor QEA: We were hoping to construct this summer. So I think we just sort of went with the

Lynn Turner, Anchor QEA: readily available past at that moment.

Rebecca Eisen, Commissioner: Okay? And then I just have one last question on the construction window that you mentioned was very small. What are the constraints on when you can construct that.

Lynn Turner, Anchor QEA: Yeah, there are a few overlapping constraints. Some of them are species related, and then also, you know, remote marine mentioned, it needs to occur during the dryer months. the other piece of this is that because this is an active duck club, and most of these adjacent areas in sustain. Marsh, you know, are these active duck clubs. So we need to complete before the start of waterfowl season. you know, all these clubs kinda do

Lynn Turner, Anchor QEA: construction around the same time, so that there aren’t risks of people out there hunting at the same time. so I I think it’s it’s book ended by a few things. Some of them are our species windows, species work windows, and then some of them are

Lynn Turner, Anchor QEA: you know, the timing of when they all fled up to start waterfall season.

Rebecca Eisen, Commissioner: Okay, thank you. Thank you for all of that.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Thank you. Do any other commissioners have questions.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Okay, we can take public comments on this item, which is item number 6 on the agenda.

But first, Margie, have we received any written public comments on this item.

Margie Malan, BCDC HOST: We did not check a little more.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Okay, thank you. Okay. Once again, if you would like to provide comments at this time, you will need to raise your hand by clicking on the participants. Tab in zoom

Marie Gilmore, Chair: or by phone, by dialing. Star 9 to raise your hand and star 6 to unmute yourself. Margie will then announce you and invite you to comment. Comments are limited to 3 min, and Margie will keep track of the time, and this is a request for comments. Only on item 6.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Do we have any public comment?

Margie Malan, BCDC HOST: there’s no hands raised. Chail. Gil, more.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Okay, well, thank you and thank you to the anchor Qa. Team for presenting today and answering our questions. Oh, I see a hand from Adrian before we end this item.

adrienne klein: Oh, thank you. Chair Gilmour. Just

adrienne klein: since it’s you know, best. Efforts were made to achieve get all the permits this year. But we were not. That wasn’t possible.

adrienne klein: There’s one item left to file the BC. DC. Application. That’s the Regional board certification. So the permits will be in place. Well, in advance of the 2024 summer construction schedule.

adrienne klein: when would the committee like to hear? Back? maybe through Matthew we could let you know when the be DC. Permit is issued, and then

adrienne klein: just, you know, get back to, if any

adrienne klein: events occur that change the construction schedule and maybe report back through through Matthew when

adrienne klein: constructions about to start, and then maybe anchor Q. A. A. Could let you know when the project is completed and how it went. That’s just a proposal.

adrienne klein: It can be flexible.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Well, I I think that makes a lot of sense. what is other committee members think

Rebecca Eisen, Commissioner: it sounds like a good schedule to me.

adrienne klein: Great. Thank you very much.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Okay, so so that’s a go. Thank you. Everyone.

Lynn Turner, Anchor QEA: Thank you for having us. Thank you.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Okay.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: So we are on our last item, item 7, which is a briefing to the Committee on Regulations. Addressing late submitted evidence

Marie Gilmore, Chair: and Assistant Attorney General Sherry Posner will now present to the Committee the applicable regulations of Title 14. Division 5,

Marie Gilmore, Chair: chapter 13, of the California Code of Regulations that address the handling and consideration of late submitted evidence at Enforcement.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: and I just want to say, thank you. Sherry, for putting this together and take it away.

Shari B. Posner, CA Dept. of Justice: Thank you. Chair. Gilmore. Can everyone hear me? Okay.

Shari B. Posner, CA Dept. of Justice: okay, I assume we can.

Shari B. Posner, CA Dept. of Justice: This is Sherry Posner from the Attorney General’s office. just minor correction. Not that it’s a big deal, but maybe it’s a sounds a Tad, like a promotion. I’m not an Assistant Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General, of which there are many many of us.

Shari B. Posner, CA Dept. of Justice: and I just want to thank Staff up front particular Matthew who helped put the slides together for me because I am My

Shari B. Posner, CA Dept. of Justice: powerpoint skills are primitive

Shari B. Posner, CA Dept. of Justice: and which really translates to non-existent

Shari B. Posner, CA Dept. of Justice:  And I just want to say good morning to everyone who is in attendance.

Shari B. Posner, CA Dept. of Justice: so

Shari B. Posner, CA Dept. of Justice:  just do a little preface. I’m here today just to go over the the rules that apply to the Enforcement Committee’s determination to accept late evidence. Late submitted evidence when there’s an enforcement hearing. There are a lot of other

Shari B. Posner, CA Dept. of Justice: nuanced rules in the regulations regarding hearings that involve other kinds of evidence. I’m not going to be covering that today

Shari B. Posner, CA Dept. of Justice: I’m not going to focus on the timing of the submittal. There are an infinite number of situations that could probably come up

Shari B. Posner, CA Dept. of Justice: So we’re not really going to be talking about hypotheticals or actual cases that have been will be our before the Enforcement Committee.

Shari B. Posner, CA Dept. of Justice: so I’m just going to be working from the general premise that that anything submitted

Shari B. Posner, CA Dept. of Justice: after the staff prepares its violation, report and complaint. and the statement of defense forms which the respondent provides.

Shari B. Posner, CA Dept. of Justice: completed and submitted, and with the idea being that those could potentially be late unless some other rule applies.

Shari B. Posner, CA Dept. of Justice: and then, if they are untimely, how they’re handled.

Shari B. Posner, CA Dept. of Justice: So one of the things I think that kind of, and I’ll ask Matthew to go to the next slide.

Shari B. Posner, CA Dept. of Justice: I think the question may be in everyone’s mind. Why is this important?

Shari B. Posner, CA Dept. of Justice: Well, because section 1, 1, 327 J. Which is up on the screen, provides that is part of the hearing process.

Shari B. Posner, CA Dept. of Justice: The Enforcement Committee shall rule on any objections to the admissibility of any evidence or the acceptance of late evidence.

Shari B. Posner, CA Dept. of Justice: The Committee is also responsible to identify any evidence submitted, but rejected because it was not filed in a timely manner. For example, if someone’s statement of defense is late.

Shari B. Posner, CA Dept. of Justice: or it otherwise violates the rule regarding the acceptance of late evidence. It doesn’t satisfy the criteria of being accepted as late evidence.

Shari B. Posner, CA Dept. of Justice:  there is also a requirement next slide

Shari B. Posner, CA Dept. of Justice: 1, 1, 3, 2, 4, which is the provision that relates to the material being distributed before the enforcement. Hearing

Shari B. Posner, CA Dept. of Justice: that provides that if there is anything that is submitted with a statement, a defense form that has been filed in an untimely fashion.

Shari B. Posner, CA Dept. of Justice: It should be noted when the materials are distributed.

Shari B. Posner, CA Dept. of Justice: So I. I just wanted to point that out as well. so let’s go to the next slide.

Shari B. Posner, CA Dept. of Justice: This is the the, the the croc city issue. So what should the Enforcement Committee consider in determining whether to accept light evidence? For that we look to Section 1, 1, 328 of the regulations?

Shari B. Posner, CA Dept. of Justice: This section provides that the Enforcement Committee shall not accept

Shari B. Posner, CA Dept. of Justice: any statement of the defense form or any written evidence not filed in a timely manner.

Shari B. Posner, CA Dept. of Justice: unless one, the person seeking to introduce the evidence, made all reasonable efforts to obtain and submit the evidence in a timely manner.

Shari B. Posner, CA Dept. of Justice: but was unable to do so, and would be substantially prejudiced if the evidence were not admitted.

Shari B. Posner, CA Dept. of Justice: and then to the second point, no other party would suffer substantial prejudice by its admission. So, when faced with evidence

Shari B. Posner, CA Dept. of Justice: that could be that is, untimely and someone it wants it to be admitted into the record. And there is an objection.

Shari B. Posner, CA Dept. of Justice: The committee needs to look at these factors.

Shari B. Posner, CA Dept. of Justice: they might need to ask the individual or party submitting the evidence to provide some at least background information

Shari B. Posner, CA Dept. of Justice: to satisfy one, and whoever is opposing the evidence to satisfy to or there

Shari B. Posner, CA Dept. of Justice: and it. But but basically it’s a pretty narrow set of criteria.

Shari B. Posner, CA Dept. of Justice: And then the the the last component that I wanted to just go over is who has the final say on the acceptance of

Shari B. Posner, CA Dept. of Justice: material that is later on timely to determine whether or not, it can be accepted under the criteria of 11328, and that’s you. The Enforcement Committee, under 11,329 next slide, please.

Shari B. Posner, CA Dept. of Justice: As Section D says, the chair of the Enforcement Committee or the Enforcement Committee here shall have the final authority to determine whether any evidence whose admissibility is challenged by objection, shall be admitted into evidence and become part of the record.

Shari B. Posner, CA Dept. of Justice: So

Shari B. Posner, CA Dept. of Justice: that’s why there, we’ve had situations where this has come up and chair? Gilmour asks. You know there’s a there’s a discussion, and after those deliberations there’s a motion

Shari B. Posner, CA Dept. of Justice: we need a clear record at the end of day, of what evidence is or is not in the record. And if there is untimely evidence, there needs to be the determination of whether or not whether or not it’s going to be accepted under 11,328. So it’s clear for that record.

Shari B. Posner, CA Dept. of Justice: now, I will say

Shari B. Posner, CA Dept. of Justice: that kind of brings us back to the first section I was talking about. But but what I wanted to say is, there are some, and I don’t think exceptions is quite the right word, but there are some situations in which

Shari B. Posner, CA Dept. of Justice: the regulations indicate that evidence, for example, would not be

Shari B. Posner, CA Dept. of Justice: considered like meeting. It wouldn’t fall under the rubric of your having to make a determination under 11 3 to 8, and I’ll give you a couple examples under the rules.

Shari B. Posner, CA Dept. of Justice: Let’s say, in the statement of defense. So Staff has already submitted its violation, reporting complaint, and a statement of defense comes in with a declaration of a potential witness. If staff wants to cross-examine that person who submitted the declaration staff. Can that can be noted? And the fact that that’s happening after the staff violation reporting complaint is done is not a situation in which the the cross-examination that comes in is considered late in any way.

Shari B. Posner, CA Dept. of Justice: Another example would be, there is the executive director has the discretion under 1, 1, 3 to 2 F. To extend the time for someone to submit their statement of defense. So if they’ve gotten that kind of extension, then the statement of defense is not late.

Shari B. Posner, CA Dept. of Justice: Anything they submit with it is not like

Shari B. Posner, CA Dept. of Justice: Another example would be under 1, 1, 3, 2 7 f. And I think, Matthew, we have that one if you want to turn to it.

Shari B. Posner, CA Dept. of Justice: This actually relates to oral testimony. So it’s not written evidence, but it is called out in the section on late evidence, and that basically says that if in the hearing the committee decides, it needs oral testimony

Shari B. Posner, CA Dept. of Justice: because it’s essential to resolve an unresolved factual issue, that oral testimony would not be considered late evidence. And finally, if

Shari B. Posner, CA Dept. of Justice: the if there’s any desire to cross-examine A declarant or a declaration provided by Staff as part of its violation report.

Shari B. Posner, CA Dept. of Justice: If that’s indicated that the statement of defense, that cross-examination at the hearing that would not be considered late evidence either. So those are some things that the rules sort of point out.  so I mean, that’s that’s

Shari B. Posner, CA Dept. of Justice: pretty much my presentation.

Shari B. Posner, CA Dept. of Justice: I’m happy to answer any questions. Obviously I can’t really respond to hypotheticals again, like I said in the beginning, I can’t respond to cases that have been before us or are before us. I have some limitations on what kind of advice I can obviously give

Shari B. Posner, CA Dept. of Justice: in terms of retaining privileges with the committee, but that being said, I’m happy to discuss any of the rules that we put up, and I can have Matthew back on the slides.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Thank you very much. Sherry for the presentation. And he one of the questions that I had I’m not going to speak for everybody else. Is that for those of us who come from a A A non BC, DC world.

Marie Gilmore, Chair:  if something is late, it’s just late and it doesn’t get considered. So one of my big questions going into this was When we got the record from staff There were occasions when we saw exhibits marked as late submissions, but we still saw them. So this explains why we saw them.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Okay? Because, like, I said, I’m coming from a different

Marie Gilmore, Chair:  arena, where, if something is late, it’s just late, and and the body just doesn’t see it or it. It isn’t accepted. So I wanted an answer to that question. So I think maybe that kind of started the ball rolling.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: I see Commissioner Vasquez with his hand up.

John Vasquez, Commissioner: so that would mean that we’d have to at least hear it before we decide whether we can

John Vasquez, Commissioner: accept it. Yeah, how do? How do we?

John Vasquez, Commissioner: If I think I’m sorry? Go ahead.

Shari B. Posner, CA Dept. of Justice:  and

Shari B. Posner, CA Dept. of Justice: I’m not. And when you say here it you mean the case, or or here quote the evidence, or or more often than not, it’s actually written evidence, and and yes, I mean

Shari B. Posner, CA Dept. of Justice: to a certain extent you do have to

Shari B. Posner, CA Dept. of Justice: look at it to determine whether or not it might meet the criteria under 11,328, and I do believe that the committee could ask again questions like what we might call in courtroom and offer a proof like. Why was it submitted late.

Shari B. Posner, CA Dept. of Justice: or, you know, doesn’t meet any of these criteria.

Shari B. Posner, CA Dept. of Justice: Why wasn’t it submitted before? Were you unable to split it before?  Would it be substantially prejudicial? But I mean

Shari B. Posner, CA Dept. of Justice: in terms of

Shari B. Posner, CA Dept. of Justice: hearing it. I don’t believe that it needs to be the determination about whether or not it’s part of the record would be done before you deliberate.

Shari B. Posner, CA Dept. of Justice: and and then you would be deliberating on what is in the record. But there’s no way to avoid

Shari B. Posner, CA Dept. of Justice: the the the need to at least assess it on a superficial level for lack of a better word. That’s probably not the right word, but on an evidentiary level to determine whether or not it comes in under the the rule under the 11 3 to 8 rule, and and that does happen in in regular court, and and in what these are which are quasi judicial hearings where people are concerned about, we call ringing the bell, but it does happen where information is presented and someone objects, or it has to be determined upfront whether or not it even comes in

Shari B. Posner, CA Dept. of Justice: because I think in this instance it’s not just about an objection. It’s late evidence. There needs to be a determination whether or not it’s part of the record regardless.  So I hope that answers your question. I I think that there’s just no way to to avoid that.

Shari B. Posner, CA Dept. of Justice: it’s just part of the process.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Rebecca.

Rebecca Eisen, Commissioner: Okay, so, Sherry, I’m a little confused. I was trying to read those sections as fast as I could while you were presenting.

Rebecca Eisen, Commissioner: but I thought I read that the determination as to whether the evidence is late.

Rebecca Eisen, Commissioner: and therefore the determination as to whether or not they could have reasonably found it, and whether it’s prejudicial

Rebecca Eisen, Commissioner: is made by the chair of the committee, not by the committee itself, and not necessarily in a public hearing.

Rebecca Eisen, Commissioner: So that’s what I was wondering if. if you know there’s the complaint. There’s the response.

Rebecca Eisen, Commissioner: and then the staff, I assume, quote objects

Rebecca Eisen, Commissioner: to the late filed evidence. and

Rebecca Eisen, Commissioner: I don’t know if the staff then asks for a

Rebecca Eisen, Commissioner: a statement as to why they couldn’t have presented it earlier, and whether it’s whether why it’s not prejudicial.

Rebecca Eisen, Commissioner: And then Marie could decide it before we ever hear that matter, and then what would be posted

Rebecca Eisen, Commissioner: on the public? you know, the materials that would be posted would simply be whatever. has been concluded by our chair.

Rebecca Eisen, Commissioner: it would be the complaint, the defense, and if she decides that they’ve met the criteria, the late evidence. But if she decides that they haven’t, we’d never see that

Rebecca Eisen, Commissioner: as a body. so

Rebecca Eisen, Commissioner: I could be totally wrong, and how I read that so quickly. But

Rebecca Eisen, Commissioner: But the impression I got is that that is exclusively the province of the chair to decide.

Rebecca Eisen, Commissioner:  So I’m I’m happy to respond.

Rebecca Eisen, Commissioner: Yeah.

Shari B. Posner, CA Dept. of Justice: I if you, we and Matt, you could put up the slides again if that helps

Shari B. Posner, CA Dept. of Justice:  So the first slide I mean this is where I think it all starts is the is 1, 1, 3, 2, 7 j.

Shari B. Posner, CA Dept. of Justice: And that is that part of the hearing procedure is that the committee or the Commission well, in this case is the committee, because we have a committee. She’ll rule on any objections to the admissibility or the acceptance of late evidence. And then, Matthew, I’m sorry to make you jump. But can you go to 11, 3, 2, 9,

Shari B. Posner, CA Dept. of Justice: and that’s where it says the chair or the Enforcement Committee? She’ll have the final authority, determine whether any evidence

Rebecca Eisen, Commissioner: challenge. Now, again.

Shari B. Posner, CA Dept. of Justice: you know these regulations. You you have to kind of take them in as a whole.  that refers to a evidence that is objected to. But I still believe that when you read that in combination with 11327 J.

Shari B. Posner, CA Dept. of Justice: It’s referring to any evidentiary issues, and one of those could be

Shari B. Posner, CA Dept. of Justice: the submission of late evidence. Going back, Matthew, to 11328.

Shari B. Posner, CA Dept. of Justice: I believe that if evidence is late.

Shari B. Posner, CA Dept. of Justice: I’m not even sure there has to be an objection. It has to be determined whether or not it comes into the record. And that’s where these determinations are considered. This criteria is considered by the Enforcement Committee.

Shari B. Posner, CA Dept. of Justice: and I do think again, it may require, it may be on the face of the information that it’s you’re able to tell that.

Shari B. Posner, CA Dept. of Justice:  it doesn’t meet these criteria, or particularly the first criteria, but it might require asking questions. I think every situation would be different. But it’s my reading of the regulations that this this all happens as part of the hearing, because obviously any objections or

Shari B. Posner, CA Dept. of Justice: argument in favor or against the evidence being admitted as late evidence, because it satisfies in the committee’s determination. The rule has to be part of the record. The official record.

Rebecca Eisen, Commissioner: Okay, can you go to the slide just immediately before this? Because I thought it said.

Shari B. Posner, CA Dept. of Justice: I’m not sure. I mean, I’ve been jumping around in the slides because I know where they are. But are you referring to

Shari B. Posner, CA Dept. of Justice: the one.

Shari B. Posner, CA Dept. of Justice: the very first one Enforcement Committee chair? It? Says the the oh, I’m sorry. That’s it, says the chair or the Enforcement Committee chair.

Shari B. Posner, CA Dept. of Justice: Right? Oh, I see what you’re saying.

Rebecca Eisen, Commissioner: The enforcement right here, not the committee, the chair of the committee

Shari B. Posner, CA Dept. of Justice: right? Right? The final authority. Well, I guess that that would be.

Shari B. Posner, CA Dept. of Justice: I care what you’re saying on that. I I guess I I was reading it in cut tandem with J,

Shari B. Posner, CA Dept. of Justice: which talks about the Enforcement Committee.

Shari B. Posner, CA Dept. of Justice: so that’s that’s why I was reading it as something that’s typically made as a decision by the Committee.

Shari B. Posner, CA Dept. of Justice:  Hmm.

Rebecca Eisen, Commissioner: yeah, that’s a that that seems kind of contradictory. So because I was sort of envisioning when I saw Enforcement committee chair

Rebecca Eisen, Commissioner: that the chair, before we have a record or a hearing, would have made that determination, and then we would. It would either be part of the record that we would consider or wouldn’t depending on her, her decision.

Shari B. Posner, CA Dept. of Justice: Well, I think I’m I’m pretty clear on the fact that that unfortunately that can’t happen because of the otherwise there’d be no record And and the person who ultimately, if someone were to challenge the enforcement.

Shari B. Posner, CA Dept. of Justice: the ultimate decision in the case, because obviously it goes from the Enforcement Committee to the Commission. But if there’s any sort of legal challenge there’d be no record. And it’s and to me that

Shari B. Posner, CA Dept. of Justice: this is a public hearing process. So again, looking at these rules in total in context, that’s my understanding of the of the way it’s been done, and and I believe it’s the way it should be done. you know, kind of have to work with these regulations.

Shari B. Posner, CA Dept. of Justice: like anything else.

Shari B. Posner, CA Dept. of Justice: so I I was reading those 2, 11, 3, 2, 9 and 11, 3, 2, 7 together.

Rebecca Eisen, Commissioner: So I I also noticed that in this 11

Rebecca Eisen, Commissioner: I mean, all of this section of the code is applicable to public hearings right

Shari B. Posner, CA Dept. of Justice: to enforcement hearings

Rebecca Eisen, Commissioner: to enforcement here. And so I also notice that in 11, 3, 2, 9, e.

Rebecca Eisen, Commissioner: It says, in determining whether to admit testimony or exhibits over objection.

Rebecca Eisen, Commissioner: the chair or the Enforcement Committee chair shall consult with you.

Shari B. Posner, CA Dept. of Justice: Well, I believe that again I the way I read the late evidence rule is, I’m not sure it requires an objection. If the evidence is late or untimely. There needs to be determination about whether it comes in.

Shari B. Posner, CA Dept. of Justice: In the broader context, there could be objections to other evidence. But that being said,

Shari B. Posner, CA Dept. of Justice: if there’s a need to consult with with the Attorney General during a live hearing, obviously for legal advice that can’t be done. So there could be a hypothetical situation where the hearing would have to be continued.

Shari B. Posner, CA Dept. of Justice: there would have to be a closed session.

Shari B. Posner, CA Dept. of Justice: And then you know that hearing could continue after that closed session. obviously, if the consultation is just saying.

Shari B. Posner, CA Dept. of Justice: what should we do here? I can

Shari B. Posner, CA Dept. of Justice: always provide the advice that you can ask for that offer approved from the person who wants this late evidence in

Shari B. Posner, CA Dept. of Justice: ask some questions. Why is it being submitted now? Why wasn’t it submitted before

Shari B. Posner, CA Dept. of Justice: those kinds of things? I? I don’t think that would be advice in a public forum, but

Rebecca Eisen, Commissioner: beyond that that kind of consultation, I don’t think could happen at the open hearing.

Rebecca Eisen, Commissioner: The enforcement chair shall consult with the deputy Attorney General.

Shari B. Posner, CA Dept. of Justice: Right? But that’s into the over objection.

Shari B. Posner, CA Dept. of Justice: So late. Evidence in itself is not. There’s not necessarily there’s there may not. It doesn’t have to. The objection isn’t the issue. The issue is, it’s late. So we’re making that determination.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Yeah, can I just jump in here for a minute.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Sure. so I I think the thing that we are forgetting, and before we go too far down this rabbit hole

is that

Marie Gilmore, Chair: the decision, whether or not to let in late evidence has got to be done on the record to provide the respondents the opportunity to challenge that at a later date, if they so wish to right.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: So if you read

Marie Gilmore, Chair: all of these regulations together, you come to the conclusion that you have to do this in public so that they can challenge it.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: You can’t. I can’t.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: in consultation with Sherry off the record, come to a decision as to whether or not. This evidence is late.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: then come to an open public hearing and say, Oh, I’ve determined the evidence is late. Let’s move on, because that gives the respondents

Marie Gilmore, Chair: nothing to challenge. I mean, there, there’s there’s no record there as to why the the evidence was not submitted. I was not submitted into the right.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: And I think I think that’s the the overall thing that we need to keep in mind is is what’s on the record for going forward. And also, the other thing is

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Whatever determination we make gets moved to the full commission.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: they need to have an understanding of why we came to the decision that we did as to whether or not to let in this late submitted evidence. And if it’s just me saying on the record, no, it’s it’s it’s not it. Move on. There’s no.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: there’s nothing there for them to to consider.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: I think Brent has

Shari B. Posner, CA Dept. of Justice: that that that that

Shari B. Posner, CA Dept. of Justice: I appreciate your Gilmore pointing that out. and that’s an excellent point. again, you know, it’s really about having the the full record. there again, there are instances when the record is

Shari B. Posner, CA Dept. of Justice: pretty clear on its face, and I I recall incidents in some instances where Chair Gilmore and in the past other chairs we’re able to upfront. Say.

Shari B. Posner, CA Dept. of Justice: make a comment, and obviously everyone had an opportunity to respond to that. So you know it. Sometimes it doesn’t take a lot to make that determination, and there isn’t a lot of back and forth with the parties, because it’s clear on the face of the information. But again, everything has to be taken

Shari B. Posner, CA Dept. of Justice: on a case by case basis, and we have to look at the regulations in total to make sure that we’re

Shari B. Posner, CA Dept. of Justice: following the the hearing procedures and providing fair hearing.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Okay, Brent.

Brent Plater: I’m wondering if it might be of benefit to try and not make this excuse me in either or So

Brent Plater: we we, I think we generally see a couple of kinds of late submitted evidence. There’s the kind of late submitted evidence that comes, you know, days, or even weeks before the hearing. And there’s other kinds where it’s just presented the night before, or even during a hearing, perhaps for the instances where we have at least, you know, several days to consider the late submitted evidence.

Brent Plater: There might be an opportunity for the Chair to consult with the Attorney General on those kinds of submissions, and just get a sense, if there’s any evidence along with the submission to determine if there is criteria worth the committee evaluating as a whole

Brent Plater: about their admissibility of that late submitted evidence. while still retaining the vote on the public and not just making it solely during that consultation process that might happen at the end. That might also provide the Attorney General with the ability to have a closer look at the the submission as a whole so that

Brent Plater: the committee doesn’t necessarily have to put itself in this bind where it has to read the evidence to understand if any of the criteria apply for admitting these late submissions.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: We have Larry, Larry. I I’m I’m gonna noodle on that one rent, Larry.

Larry Goldzband: I I I I only want to ask one question really of sharing

Larry Goldzband:  it goes to what

Larry Goldzband: Commissioner Eisen was asking about? Essentially the ruling of the chair.

Larry Goldzband: Is it the case that

Larry Goldzband: the enforcement. A member of the Enforcement Committee could always appeal the ruling of the chair and ask that the committee vote on that issue.

Shari B. Posner, CA Dept. of Justice: Yes, I mean, I think so. I mean I

Shari B. Posner, CA Dept. of Justice: yes, I believe that’s true, and I don’t think there’s any reason why the chair can’t ask for everybody’s opinion on it, even if theoretically, the chair could all could make it.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Well, I

Marie Gilmore, Chair: the answer to the question is, yes, and I think that’s what we have done in the past

Marie Gilmore, Chair: right, and we’ve come to some sort of a a consensus that yes, this is coming in or no, this isn’t coming in And have moved forward on on that basis.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Matthew.

Matthew Trujillo, Enforcement Policy Manager: thank you. I I believe there’s a need to give a little more clarity to the committee here.

Matthew Trujillo, Enforcement Policy Manager: kind of about, you know, since these questions are a bit about process, I just want to clarify that when it comes to the regulations

Matthew Trujillo, Enforcement Policy Manager: 11, 3, 2, 8 is really the only one that talks about actual late evidence and how it’s dealt with. However. because I I believe that what I’m hearing is this this idea that

Matthew Trujillo, Enforcement Policy Manager: maybe 11, 3 to 9 applies only to late evidence. It actually doesn’t. This is admissibility of evidence, generally speaking.

Matthew Trujillo, Enforcement Policy Manager: and specifically to Commissioner Eisen, D. And E are specifically to speaking to evidence whose admissibility is challenged.

Matthew Trujillo, Enforcement Policy Manager: and then he is. If the chair decides over objection that. Well, yes, I heard it the objection of say, staff, or responded, But I’m still gonna admit the evidence

Matthew Trujillo, Enforcement Policy Manager: before doing so. Sh! The chair would consult with the Deputy attorney, deputy attorney General. But again, admissibility of evidence. Generally speaking, now, we don’t usually follow this specific step. What we do is we. We generally tend to throughout the process.

Matthew Trujillo, Enforcement Policy Manager: admit all evidence. We bring it. We we we invite, you know, evidence supported or brought in by the statement of defense evidence brought in or accompanying the notice of violation. Even stuff submitted late. We bring it in and we don’t generally object to it unless there’s a need

Matthew Trujillo, Enforcement Policy Manager: But if there was a need, this is, that’s when this these 2 I need to object that when these 2 provisions would apply.

Shari B. Posner, CA Dept. of Justice: I hope that I will say Matthew again. Thank you for that clarification. I think that’s correct, I mean, and I I apologize if I created any confusion.

Shari B. Posner, CA Dept. of Justice: in that I again, 11329, is about admissibility and objections. The determination about whether or not evidence that is late or is late submitted, needs to whether it comes in. That’s an independent issue

Shari B. Posner, CA Dept. of Justice: without an objection having been made. There has to be a determination of whether or not it’s going to be part of the record. someone could make an objection if the determination is that it becomes part of the record and

Shari B. Posner, CA Dept. of Justice: or and doesn’t like that, or vice versa. And then we get into 11329. So I apologize if I made that confusing because I really wanted to focus just on

Shari B. Posner, CA Dept. of Justice: late evidence. there might be a point of time where it might be good to have an overall presentation about. you know, different aspects of the enforcement hearing process. this is just one little snapshot on one issue.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Yeah, I I would agree with that, especially since, and and not just for us. But I think it would be useful for the entire Commission, since we have so many new Commissioners. Sanjay.

Margie Malan, BCDC HOST: actually Commissioner as in first.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Oh, I’m sorry that that’s fine. I I I’d like to hear from Sanjay, because I’m still kind of

Rebecca Eisen, Commissioner: getting my thought.

Sanjay Ranchod, Commissioner: thanks.

Sanjay Ranchod, Commissioner: I appreciate it. You. You bring this to our attention and helping explain it for us. So so appreciate that.

Sanjay Ranchod, Commissioner: The the rule is stated. There is that light submitted evidence is inadmissible

Sanjay Ranchod, Commissioner: right? And then there is an exception to the rule, which is what we’re talking about.

Sanjay Ranchod, Commissioner:  I hope that it it’s an opportunity to also make the parties the respondents aware of this rule.

Sanjay Ranchod, Commissioner: Right? They they should have a very clear understanding that late submitted evidence is not going to be admitted.

Sanjay Ranchod, Commissioner: So get your materials together and get it in on time. We’re serious about these deadlines. Yes, this

Sanjay Ranchod, Commissioner: code section provides for a limited exception. If these circumstances are met. that’s an exception. So

Sanjay Ranchod, Commissioner: I feel like we could spend a fair amount of time continue to discuss this, but as a practical matter.

Sanjay Ranchod, Commissioner: I I wanna I I think it’s an opportunity to also, in the process of educating respondents about our procedures, and some are more sophisticated with, you know, more experience counsel than others

Sanjay Ranchod, Commissioner: that especially if they’re not represented by Council, who are experience practicing for us, that we remind them of these rules so that they can do their best to to get their materials in and comply with the the rules that blind everybody.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Sanjay, I think that’s a really good point, because I’ve had some conversations where one of my biggest concerns is having the exception swallow the rule.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: And if that ends up happening. Then what’s the point of having the rule saying that you know you can’t submit late evidence. So that’s a yes, I totally agree with you, Rebecca.

Rebecca Eisen, Commissioner: Okay, so it’s coming into focus. Better for me. So what I was originally concerned about, and my first question was going to be.

Rebecca Eisen, Commissioner: how do the respondents

Rebecca Eisen, Commissioner: object or appeal from a decision by the chair that their late evidence can’t come in. And now you’re saying that that’s not the issue, because it will. The decision about the late evidence will be on the record.

Rebecca Eisen, Commissioner: the chair will have consulted with Council of Need be, and that’s what they would respond to, but at to Sanjay’s excellent point, I think, since we’re gonna see this late evidence.

Rebecca Eisen, Commissioner: I I thought initially that maybe the rule was there so that we didn’t ever have to see this late evidence. Which could, you know by us in our decision? but if we’re gonna see it.

Rebecca Eisen, Commissioner: The respondents should know that the only thing we want to hear from them

Rebecca Eisen, Commissioner: is why they didn’t find it earlier. And

Rebecca Eisen, Commissioner: why isn’t there prejudice to bringing it in. Now, that’s all. We don’t want to hear any argument about how important it is, etc. We just want to know why they didn’t bring it to a sooner. And why isn’t it prejudicial? And

Rebecca Eisen, Commissioner: So then, you know, that’s the record that they can appeal from if they want to. So

Marie Gilmore, Chair: well, that’s exactly right. And I think that goes back to Sherry’s comment about that being the offer of proof. Yeah, okay, so I don’t know

Marie Gilmore, Chair: sherry before John.

Margie Malan, BCDC HOST: John.

John Vasquez, Commissioner: Oh.

John Vasquez, Commissioner: Maria, I I think you’re correct. I think we should have a presentation to the rest of the Commission, so they understand the processes we’re going through.

John Vasquez, Commissioner: because I remember we had one that came back to us 3 times, because

John Vasquez, Commissioner: the the

John Vasquez, Commissioner: the individual went and spoke to the entire commission, and and got a little bit of sympathy from them. And so it came back and forth, and

John Vasquez, Commissioner: I I think if we can better state why it that we didn’t hear that evidence, or that it wasn’t presented. And as

John Vasquez, Commissioner: I was stated earlier, you know, this sophistication of some of the folks that are coming

John Vasquez, Commissioner: may not be as good as others. So making that plea to the entire Commission

John Vasquez, Commissioner: 10 following

John Vasquez, Commissioner: years that are sympathetic towards that that particular individual. So I I think the better we can state our case. We are us being the Co. The Enforcement Committee to say, Here’s the procedure that went through. Here’s the things. Here’s the determination. Yes, sir.

John Vasquez, Commissioner: it was submitted late, and we reviewed it, but it didn’t. I shouldn’t say it wouldn’t change our minds, but Certainly didn’t add any more to the case. But I I think the rest of the commissioners, knowing that how this, how this part of the

John Vasquez, Commissioner: The Cdc works is important, because

John Vasquez, Commissioner: that one we heard 3 times ended up being the same decision 3 times

Marie Gilmore, Chair: right? Right? and I think, also the the corollary to that, not not talking about evidence. But if there is a case presented before the Enforcement Committee, and we, as Enforcement Commissioners have a hard time following it. Then that means, in my opinion, that the Commission

Marie Gilmore, Chair: is going to have an even greater difficulty following it. So I I think we’re kind of the you know the canary. I don’t want to say in the coal mine, but yeah, share it.

Shari B. Posner, CA Dept. of Justice: I just wanted to make. I I’m not sure.

Shari B. Posner, CA Dept. of Justice: that terrorizing that you you stated it wrong. I just want to make sure that it’s clear that the offer is on the side of prejudice. It’s sort of 2 sides. The person presenting the evidence who definitely has to explain

Shari B. Posner, CA Dept. of Justice: that they need all reasonable efforts to get it in before, and we’re unable to do so. They get to make an argument as to why it would be substantially prejudicial if the evidence were not admitted. and and and then anyone, the on any other party, would have the opportunity to

Shari B. Posner, CA Dept. of Justice: explain why they would to stop, suffer substantial prejudice. If it isn’t so it’s like a balancing, basically on that on that particular issue.

Shari B. Posner, CA Dept. of Justice: But and I. And again, I wanna I wanna

Shari B. Posner, CA Dept. of Justice: say that the the that I think the way to look at this I was trying to use avoid using the word exceptions in large part, just because sometimes it’s they’re baked into statues, but I think, describing this as saying that yes, this evidence is late, and the exception is bringing in is a really tapped and perfect way of sort of describing it. and then baked within this are provisions that I explained before that say, okay. If it’s, for example, a situation where you all need oral testimony. Then that’s

Shari B. Posner, CA Dept. of Justice: baked into 11328. That’s not considered late because you’d made the determination based on the issues before you, that there’s unresolved facts, and you need that. So there’s a lot of layers to it.

Shari B. Posner, CA Dept. of Justice:  I think generally. Again, you know, a presentation may be on in general about the enforcement here

Shari B. Posner, CA Dept. of Justice: process the formal

Shari B. Posner, CA Dept. of Justice: process, and and how the you know hearings go to the full Commission would be helpful, because again, they’d have some more appreciation for all the nuances that the committee is dealing with and the 2 terminations it makes, because technically, when it goes to the full Commission.

Shari B. Posner, CA Dept. of Justice: they’re not supposed to reway any of these things.

Shari B. Posner, CA Dept. of Justice: and there are a lot of new. I believe. I I can’t keep track a lot of new commissioners.

Yeah, yeah.

Marie Gilmore, Chair:  going back to a point that I think Sanjay made about

Marie Gilmore, Chair: you know, respondents filing their statement of defense. And and whether or not. They have experienced attorneys used to deal with BC. DC. Question for staff.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: When we send out the violation report and we send out the the form that they’re supposed to fill out with the statement of defense.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Do we send out with that? any of these regulations dealing with evidence?

Matthew Trujillo, Enforcement Policy Manager: I mean is that part of the package?

Marie Gilmore, Chair: all the regulations, or just

Matthew Trujillo, Enforcement Policy Manager: the part dealing with evidence, because the Chapter Chapter 13, which is the enforcement

Matthew Trujillo, Enforcement Policy Manager: Po. regulations.

Matthew Trujillo, Enforcement Policy Manager: so that the evidentiary or the evidence and late evidence regulations are included in that

Matthew Trujillo, Enforcement Policy Manager: that both

Marie Gilmore, Chair: excellent Larry.

Larry Goldzband: Thank you. Chair Gilmour. 2 things. Number one.

Larry Goldzband: Happy to put on the commission agenda a review of what I will call the enforcement process, the lack of a better term

Larry Goldzband: and We’ll work with Greg and Matthew to figure out when the best time for that is.

Larry Goldzband: I think that will depend to some extent on number one.

Larry Goldzband: What cases the Enforcement Committee for sees coming to it, and when.

Larry Goldzband: and number 2,

Larry Goldzband: knowing that July and August is vacation time for many folks, you know. Perhaps September would be the best time. But I I want to make sure that we don’t.

Larry Goldzband: that that that we don’t put ourselves in a bind by doing it too late. So we’ll need to work with Matthew and Greg on that timing.

Larry Goldzband: My recommendation. And this is the second thing for that that presentation

Larry Goldzband: is to. And I know you don’t like hypothetical cases.

Larry Goldzband: not to use a hypothetical case as a case. but simply go chronologically about how the enforcement process works

Larry Goldzband: and literally starting, probably Matthew with, You know the the the call that I get on Saturday afternoon that something is wrong that I then send to Matthew on. You know it. It’s literally starting, then, going through the process that you all use to develop case

Larry Goldzband: going through the process that you use to determine

Larry Goldzband: the validity of a case. And then what the Commission’s role is

Larry Goldzband: I I I think, doing it chronologically, is probably the best way to do it.

Larry Goldzband: And I don’t think that you have to get into this kind of discussion that you just had today. I think what you can do is say with regard to evidence. Here is how the Enforcement Committee looks at evidence, and here is what the Commission can and cannot do with it. I don’t think you want to necessarily get in the weeds, but I think you want to simply be able to say, You know, here’s the process we use.

Larry Goldzband: So this is literally off

Larry Goldzband: the top of my head. and and as you all know, there’s nothing else on the top of my head, so there’s nothing filtering it whatsoever.

Larry Goldzband: But it is something that we’re happy to do, and that I think that Matthew, you and Greg, as you develop it, probably need to make sure that you develop it with members of the Enforcement Committee, so that you all have a chance to discuss it and see it and make your comments and edit to your heart’s content before it goes to the Commission.

Larry Goldzband: Happy to talk about this at any time, of course.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Thank you, Larry Sherry.

Shari B. Posner, CA Dept. of Justice: I just wanted to also point out, and staff. If I get this wrong, please correct me. But going back to the question that Sanjay raise, and

Shari B. Posner, CA Dept. of Justice: Rebecca raised about the other side. Knowing what these rules are and what’s provided to them. appendix, I is the statement of defense form in the regulations.

Shari B. Posner, CA Dept. of Justice: and there is a lot of stuff in capital letters at the top of that. I believe that form in that format is provided to

Shari B. Posner, CA Dept. of Justice: the respondent

Shari B. Posner, CA Dept. of Justice: and in the very first big block capital of paragraph at the bottom, it says that fairly. It talks about me providing the materials

Shari B. Posner, CA Dept. of Justice: to the commission and staff, and doing it in a timely way, unless, of course, they have some extension, and it says that

Shari B. Posner, CA Dept. of Justice: you will wave the opportunity to raise any defense or mitigating factors, or to introduce any evidence that the Enforcement Committee, your Commission can refuse to consider it, and and any statements and evidence that you submit at a later date.

Shari B. Posner, CA Dept. of Justice: So there is that preface at the beginning of Appendix. I mean again it. You know we know from experience.

Shari B. Posner, CA Dept. of Justice: People do, anyway, submit light evidence. And and as a result.

Shari B. Posner, CA Dept. of Justice: the committee has to

Shari B. Posner, CA Dept. of Justice: make the determination about whether or not it comes in. But that being said I always thought that was a a powerful statement to that, said Appendix. I

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Rebecca.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: you’re muted

Rebecca Eisen, Commissioner: hopefully. for all of your sakes. This is my last question. But so, assuming as that has happened a couple of times in the past, where this late evidence is

Rebecca Eisen, Commissioner: is part of the record that we’re looking at, and the fact that it is late evidence is part of the record that we’re looking at once we get to the hearing

that what

Rebecca Eisen, Commissioner: are we going to take that up at the very first of the hearing? You know they have tried to present late evidence, and then

Rebecca Eisen, Commissioner: have them try to demonstrate to us in the hearing that they did everything they could to get it in earlier, etc. And then we have

Rebecca Eisen, Commissioner: what? A motion or something to rule on that question, and then we go forward. After that. Ha! How to? Exactly will that work? Or maybe it will be different case by case. But

Marie Gilmore, Chair: well, you want me to take that sherry.

Shari B. Posner, CA Dept. of Justice: I I was, I would say yes, I mean I feel like that. Ha! That has been how you chair Gil More, have handled it. trying to decide upfront what is before us?

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Yeah. Because I remember we had

Marie Gilmore, Chair: a while ago. A very long discussion about late submitted evidence, and I think it was one of the first times that it had been submitted to this committee so generally, that’s the first thing that we would make a determination on And typically.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: I haven’t asked for a motion because we’ve been able to come to consensus on it.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: But if for the record to be clear, I need to do that, then I’m happy to do that but I I I am very clear. I try to be very clear as to whether or not it’s coming in or not.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: So

Marie Gilmore, Chair: any other questions from Commissioners.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Oh, correct

Brent Plater: not a question. Just wanted to summarize some of the instruction that I’m hearing to make this process a little easier on the committee members. If that’s okay.

Brent Plater: So the the first thing I think I’m understanding is that you are not expecting us to raise an objection to late submitted evidence, because the default rule is that anything that is late will not be included, and instead that we’ll be moving on to evaluating the object. The the evidence, the respond is submitting to demonstrate why an exception should be provided.

Brent Plater: Just wanted to make sure. That’s clear. You’re not expecting to do that for

John Vasquez, Commissioner: that’s my understanding.

Brent Plater: I that’s what I’m hearing as well.

Brent Plater: The the other question I will. The other question I have is about how you’d like us to proceed is that sometimes there are late submissions, or even, you know, arguments that are being presented for the first time at the hearing. And I wanted to know, and I did. That would essentially fall on me to provide some objection on the record to those statements or arguments that have been heard. I just wanted to kind of how you’d like me to do that if you’d like me to do that like

Brent Plater: as the as arguments being presented. Do you want me to

Brent Plater: wait until you calling us to? Then object?

Brent Plater: If you have a you don’t have to answer this right now, but just to consider how you might like that to to occur if it were to help

Marie Gilmore, Chair: right off the top of my head

Marie Gilmore, Chair: is that if the respondent starts making some sort of oral argument, or gets into an oral discussion about evidence that Staff has not seen or heard before.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: I would like to know that sooner rather than later

Marie Gilmore, Chair: because I would prefer to stop the respondent and have a discussion as to why this was not presented earlier, and and

Marie Gilmore, Chair: and then have the committee make a determination as to whether or not this

Marie Gilmore, Chair: new verbal evidence can come in

Marie Gilmore, Chair: and then we kind of proceed, based on

Marie Gilmore, Chair: whatever happens at that point in time. I just. I just don’t want to get so far down the road.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: The respondent has been speaking for 10 min. It’s now part of the record.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: and then we go back and say, Oh, no! Disregard all of this, for whatever reason. So that’s kind of my preference, and you know we’ll find tune it because every case is different.

Does that? Does that help?

Brent Plater: Yes, yes, that’s helpful. So I I can raise my hand, or something at the very least, and give you the opportunity to interrupt and call on me, or, you know, take it as a case by case in that way.

Brent Plater: Okay, that makes sense to me. And then the last thing just wanted to get some clarification on is this idea of prejudice? because there’s a couple of ways that we could be thinking about it over here. So, for example, if we get a late submission that demonstrates that there is not a violation whatsoever.

Brent Plater: It was just a fact that was overlooked until the last moment. you know, I I think we have some obligation to to end the prosecution once we have that evidence in front of us.

Brent Plater: the thing that might be difficult is that if we get that information. You know the day of the hearing. and often, you know, sometimes, especially in the heat of the moment, some fact that you did not know about before had not been presented before, seems more damning than it is. If you have to look at it in the in that instant.

Brent Plater: rather than have some time to reflect on it, so you know I would almost, you know. One way I think about the prejudice is that if it would require us to delay the proceeding in order to evaluate it.

Brent Plater: Well, that’s almost a type of prejudice in and of itself, and that what should happen perhaps at that moment is that the committee continues through its deliberations, and then staff then has some obligation to review before it goes to the full committee a full commission to determine if that you know

Brent Plater: this positive evidence. it means the prosecution needs to be ended.

Brent Plater: Something like that. I’m just trying to sort of imagine the you know how we just functionally address these cases where some, you know, there’s

Brent Plater: some amount of prejudice is really just about not having a chance to evaluate. There’s another form of prejudice, whereas, like you’re going to lose your case, and you should lose your case if this comes in and trying to make sure we have, like different ways to address those 2 different kinds of of evidence.

I

Marie Gilmore, Chair: I don’t have a response for you on that right now I think you bring up valid points. But once again, everything is sort of a case by case

Marie Gilmore, Chair: basis. And I think this is something that we are going to have to work through committee on and staff

on a case by case basis, because right now, I don’t think

Marie Gilmore, Chair: we’ve had something like that happen frequently enough that we have enough data to be able to determine, you know. Let’s do this. Let’s do that. so I I think we should all keep it in the back of our minds, and then just

Marie Gilmore, Chair: kind of see how it plays out. That’s, you know.

Brent Plater: that makes sense to me, and I think Sherry will tell you. I just tend to worry about these things endlessly, for not a lot of reason, even though they never come up so I take that with a it’s a good reinforcement of the message. I appreciate it. Well, you’re a lawyer, that’s what we do.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Okay, any other committee comments.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: alright. So we are going to take public comments on this item, which is Number 7 on the agenda. And Margie, have we received any written comments on this?

Margie Malan, BCDC HOST: We did not. Ch, though more

Marie Gilmore, Chair: okay. And are there any hands raised by the public?

Margie Malan, BCDC HOST: No hands raised?

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Okay.

Marie Gilmore, Chair:  so do any enforcement committee members have any final comments or questions.

Okay, I just want to.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: thanks, sherry for this presentation. And I want to thank staff. I thought this and committee members. I thought this was a really good and a very productive discussion. and hopefully it has provided some guidance for us as as we move forward.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: And answered the questions that you have as of the moment. But I thought it was a job really well done, and I thought it was a really great example of working collaboratively. So thank you, everybody. your thoughts and comments were very much appreciated.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Okay? And so with that I’m looking for a motion and a second to adjourn the meeting.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Everybody, I was. Gonna say, don’t everybody talk at once?

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Okay. Moved by Eisen, seconded by Vasquez.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: Alright. Thank you, everybody.

Marie Gilmore, Chair: 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.