Sections 66632(f) and 66651(d) of the McAteer-Petris Act require the Commission to issue permits for activities that are consistent with the provisions of the Act and the San Francisco Bay Plan. Section 66651(d) also allows the Commission to incorporate special area plans, such as the one for Richardson Bay, into the Bay Plan. Section 66652 allows the Commission to amend the Bay Plan. Thus, the Bay Plan and Richardson Bay Special Area Plan policies have the full force and effect of law.

The Bay Plan policy limiting live-aboard berths to ten percent of the total berths in a marina was adopted after a long public debate and much input from the boating and marina community in the mid 1980s. The Commission concluded that having residents living in a recreational marina would provide additional security for recreational boating, a primary trust use. Therefore, the Commission decided a limited amount of residential use on live-aboard boats could be considered ancillary to a water-oriented use and consistent with the public trust. The Commission decided that the best way to define "ancillary" administratively was to establish a numerical standard for the amount of residential use.

To establish this standard, the Commission’s staff surveyed existing marinas and yacht harbors in the Bay and found that on average less than five percent of the berths in the marinas were used by live-aboard boats. To ensure that no existing live-aboards would have to be evicted, the Commission chose a percentage that was double the existing figure, which was still a percentage that could be reasonably supported as being truly ancillary. The Commission also indicated that it would allow more than the ten percent in certain cases, particularly when the live-aboard boats were existing as of the time the policy was adopted, so as to avoid any existing live-aboard residents being evicted.

The Commission also adopted a regulation (Section 10128) defining a live-aboard boat as "a boat that is not a transient boat, that is capable of being used for active self-propelled navigation, and that is occupied as a residence as that term is defined in California Government Code Section 244." Government Code Section 244 establishes seven criteria for determining place of residence. One of the criteria provides that a person can have only one place of residence at any one time. So if someone lives on a boat during the summer, but has another official residence, the boat would not be considered by BCDC to be a live-aboard boat. Transient boats, sometimes called cruisers which are used as permanent residences by people on extended sailing excursions, are also considered by BCDC to be a type of recreational boat. The vessels covered by the BCDC definition of "live-aboard boat" are those that used as full-time permanent residences, so even with ten percent restriction, harbormasters can allow additional residents if they are on transient boats or are not permanently living on their vessels.

Is the anchor-out abatement strategy proposed by BCDC staff limited to Richardson Bay, or does it apply to the entire BCDC jurisdiction?

The Richardson Bay enforcement strategy which the Commission considered, but did not adopt on August 2, 2001, was limited to Richardson Bay.

Are you aware of the distrust that exists among the floating home, live-aboard and anchor-out communities toward the BCDC? Would you care to comment on it?

Yes, I am aware of it and I deeply regret it. I think the distrust also extends beyond the communities you have mentioned to include the general recreational boating community. This is truly unfortunate because I believe that boaters who love sailing on the Bay, and people who enjoy living along the shoreline of the Bay should find a natural ally in a government agency charged with protecting the Bay.

I believe the distrust exists in large part because boaters find it so difficult to accept the provision of law that stipulates that under certain circumstances, a boat can become Bay fill. Since this provision seems to fly in the face of common sense, boaters fear if BCDC thinks some boats are Bay fill, BCDC can declare all boats to be Bay fill and ban them all. I too would distrust a government agency with this kind of sweeping power to alter reality. Obviously, BCDC doesn’t have this power. But there is no denying that there is a great deal of confusion and misunderstanding about BCDC policies on boating.

There are also some really creative and frightening urban legends about BCDC’s alleged terrible treatment of boaters even though the Commission has always supported boating in San Francisco Bay. BCDC has not denied an application for a recreational marina in the past quarter century. The marina permits BCDC has approved have resulted in thousands of berths being built which have provided access to the Bay for countless boaters. The Commission has also fostered the development of small boat, kayak, and sailboard facilities in marinas and other public access and recreation areas. And the Commission played a leadership role in streamlining the process to get permits for dredging and provided a special provision so small dredgers, like recreational marinas, could continue to dispose of dredged material in the Bay.

The focus of the Commission’s enforcement actions against boats has always been on vessels that are polluting the Bay, posing navigational hazards or trespassing on someone else’s property. Often these vessels are derelict and abandoned. Sometimes they are anchor-out boats, which often have no way of getting rid of waste other than to dump it overboard, create hazards to other boaters, and are either trespassing on private property or using public lands for private residential use in violation of state law. BCDC’s intention is not to evict anchor-out residents and make them homeless. The Commission’s objective has always been to have anchor-out vessels moved into marinas that can provide the boat dwellers with sewer connections, fresh water, electricity, fire protection and other amenities. Typically, when the Commission takes enforcement action against a vessel, it is as part of a collaborative effort with local government to resolve a long-standing problem caused by an unsewered houseboat, a grounded or sunken boat or an unauthorized anchor-out boat. In addition to BCDC’s partnership with the Richardson Bay Regional Agency, the Commission has collaborated with the City of Redwood City and San Mateo County in the Operation Aqua Terra efforts in Redwood Creek, with the City of San Jose and a host of other agencies in Alviso Slough, and with various other local agencies working to get rid of sunken boats throughout the Bay.

Despite this limited focus of BCDC’s vessel enforcement program, some people seem to believe that BCDC wants get rid of anybody who chooses to live on a boat. Perhaps this belief is fueled by the fact that BCDC is currently involved in litigation with the Waldo Point Harbor houseboat marina in Richardson Bay over the marina’s expired permit. But BCDC’s objective in this lawsuit is not to get rid of the houseboats. Rather the Commission is trying to stimulate the marina to apply for a new permit so the houseboat residents who are renting berths will have the security of being in a legal marina.

Moreover, the BCDC restrictions on live-aboard boats in recreational marinas apply only to people who use their boats as their primary residence. If someone lives on a boat during the summer, but has another official residence, the boat would not be considered by BCDC to be a live-aboard boat. It would be a recreational boat. Therefore, BCDC’s restrictions do not impact sailors who live on their recreational boats, whether overnight, for a weekend, a month’s vacation or during a round-the-world cruise. Transient boats or cruisers which are used as permanent residences by people on extended sailing excursions, are also considered by BCDC to be a type of recreational boat. Even with BCDC’s restrictions, many harbormasters allow additional residents if they are on transient boats or are not permanently living on their vessels.

So under BCDC’s policies, most people who choose to live on their boats can do so without any fear of running afoul of BCDC. The Commission supports all forms of boating on the Bay and focuses its enforcement efforts on vessels that cause pollution, are navigational hazards or are trespassing.

In an attempt to overcome the confusion about BCDC’s boating policies, over the next few months our staff is planning to meet with anchor-out residents, live-aboard boaters, floating home dwellers, recreational boaters and anyone else who is interested in the Commission’s policies on boating. The purpose of meeting is to get a better understanding of all perspectives and to determine how boaters and BCDC can work together to protect the Bay we all love.