Staff report on houseboats and live-aboards Bay plan amendment no. 3-83

[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

Coastal Zone
Information
Center

Staff Report on
Houseboats and Liveaboards

COASTAL ZONE

INFORMATION CENTER

July 1983

GV
836
S73
1983

&an-Frandisco Bay Conservation and
Development Commission

STAFF REPORT
ON
HOUSEBOATS AND LIVE-ABOARDS:/
BAY PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 3-83f

C<'t LrN

SAN FRANCISCO BAY CONSERVATION
AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION

JULY, 1983

This document was prepared with financial assistance from
the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
under the provisions of the Federal Coastal Zone
Management Act of 1972, as amended.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

ix
FOREWORD

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION 1

CHAPTER II TRENDS AND FORECASTS 3

A. Numbers and Locations 3
B. Commission Permits for
Houseboats and Live-aboards 4
C. Boat Design, Size, and Cost 5
1. Design and Size 5
2. Costs 5
D. Violations 9
1.- Lack of BCDC Permits 9
2. Trespass, Building Code, and
Waste Discharge Violations 9
E. Forecasts 10
1. Demand 10
2. Housing Supply 12

CHAPTER III IMPACTS AND BENEFITS 13

A. Environmental Impacts 13
1. Water Pollution 13
a. Discharges and Impacts 13
b., Water Pollution Prevention 14
2. Sedimentation 15
a. Impacts 15
b. Prevention and Reduction' 15
3. Dredging 17
a. Impacts 17
b. Reduction and Prevention
of Impacts 18
4. Fill 18
a. Amount and Impacts 18
b. Reducing Fill Impacts 18
B. Social Impacts 19
1. Conflicts with Other Uses 19
a* Recreation 19
b. Habitat 21
C. Public Access 21
(1) Housing Impacts on
Public Acdess 21
(2) Reducing Housing Impacts
on Access 21
2. Demands for Services 22

C. Benefits 23
1 - Housing Benefits and Life Style 23
2. Improved Security at Recreational
Marinas 24

CHAPTER IV LIMITS AND RULES 25

A. Public Trust 25
B. Regulatory Authority and Policies 27
1. BCDC Rules and Policies
for Houseboats and Live-aboards 27
a. Permits Needed 27
b. Houseboats and Live-aboards
are Generally Impermissible 27
co Exception to Unapprovability 28
d. Current Bay Plan Policies
for Houseboats 28
2. Local Rules and Policies for Houseboats
and Live-aboards 29
a. Authority 29
b. Local Plans and Zoning 29
C. State Lands Commission' 31
1. Holds Ungranted Bay Lands 31
2. Reviews Local Management of
Granted Lands 31
3. Co-Trustee of Public Trust
for the Bay 32
D. State Water Resources Control Board
and Regional Water Quality Control Board 32
1. Regulates Waste Dischargers 32
2. Discharges from Houseboats 34
3. Pump-out Facilities 35
E. Federal Agencies .35
1., United States Army Corps of Engineers 35
a. Section 10 Permits for Houseboats 35
b. 'Section 404 Permits for Disposal
of Dredged Materials 36
co Removal of Navigation Hazards 36
2. United States Coast Guard 37
a. Establishing Anchorages 37
b. Certification of Boat Toilets 37

CHAPTER V. CONCLUSIONS AND PROPOSED FINDINGS AND POLICIES 39

A. Conclusions 39
B. Tentative Findings .40
C. Proposed Polley 41
D. Impact of the Proposed Policy 42
1. Effects of the Proposed Change
to-the Bay Plan 42
2. Consistency of the Proposed Change
with the McAteer-Petris Act 43

3. Environmental Impacts 43
a, Summary of Possible Adverse
Environmental Impacts 43
b. Alternatives to the Proposed
Change 44
a* Public Benefits and Mitigation 45

Notes 46

FIGURES

Figure 1 BCDC Authorized Houseboats and Live-aboards 6

Figure 2 Inventory of BCDC Houseboat Marina Permits .7

Figure 3 Chronology of Houseboat Activities 11
Figure 4 PumP-out Facilities in the San Francisco Bay Area 16

V.i i

F 0 R E W 0 R D

This report, prepared by the staff.of the San Francisco Bay Conservation

and Development Commission, provides information on the history of waterborne

living on-San Francisco Bay, the role of the Commission in permitting

houseboats and live-aboards, the predicted trends, and the place of houseboats

in the Bay Area housing stock. Major impacts due to houseboats, including

water Pollution, sedimentation, dredging, fill, and conflicts with other uses,

are discussed. The report also discusses the benefits of and the rules and

restrictions affecting houseboats and live-aboards. The conclusion sets out

the major findings of the study and proposes changes to the Bay Plan policies

on houseboats and live-aboards. Information about the effect of adopting the

proposed findings and policies necessary to comply with the Commission's

regulations and to assure that this report can be used as the "functional

equivalent" of an environmental impact report is also included.

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION

Waterborne residences have been used for centuries and are found all
over the world. They include reed rafts on African lakes, junks in Hong Kong
Harbor, ships anchored off Greek and Caribbean islands, and barges plying the
rivers of England, Holland, and France.

. Comprehensive accounts of the inception, growth, and migration of
waterborne residences on the Bay are not readily available. However, it seems
probable that houseboats and live-aboards could be found in small numbers
beginning in the 18001s. By about 1880, a few recreational houseboats and
live-aboards were reported in Belvedere and along Corte Madera Creek. Those
on Corte Madera Creek were later pulled onshore, placed on pilings, and
converted to homes.

After the turn of the century houseboats and live-aboards, primarily
occupied by squatters, began to be reported elsewhere in the Bay. Newspaper
accounts from 1910 through 1930 indicate that a number of houseboats and
live-aboards were moored without permission along the Oakland-Alameda Estuary.
Most of these have since been removed.

During World War II, the number of houseboats and live-aboards
burgeoned, particularly on the San Francisco waterfront and along the southern
shoreline of Richardson Bay,.with the influx of shipbuilders. After the war,
writers, painters, and craftspeople, attracted to Sausalito, moved to the
houseboat community, building houseboats that looked more like sculptures than
houses. By the 1960!s houseboats had pretty much consolidated around Waldo
Point in Marin County, although a few could be found scattered in other parts
of the Bay. Live-aboards, on the other hand, continue to be scattered
throughout the Bay's many recreational marinas.

While most form a mental image when the terms "live-aboard" and
"houseboat" are heard, a myriad of structures and functions may be included.
Generally live-aboards refer to any unmodified boat on which people live.
They look like any other boat in the same class; they are self-propelled; they
have sufficient room for living, often containing staterooms, a galley, and a
head. Houseboats, generally larger than live-aboards, are not designed to
move frequently. One type of houseboat is the abandoned or former barge,
tugboat, ferry, or fishing boat used more or less "as is" for residential
purposes but sometimes substantially modified, often by adding a houselike or
trailerlike structure to a hull. The other, newer type of houseboat is a
structure initially designed as a floating home. These hougeboats are usually
boxlike but also may vary in shape with turrets, towers, and angles. Except
that houseboats float on the water, there is little to distinguish them from a
house on land.

A third type of waterborne residence, distinguished from the other two
only by location, is the so-called "anchor-out." These are houseboats or
live-aboards that are not moored at a marina or along the shoreline but are
instead anchored offshore and used residentially.

While houseboats, live-aboards, and anchor-outs are attractive to their
owners, they are oftentimes troublesome to others, detrimental to the
environment and may conflict with other public needs for recreation,
navigation, wildlife, and open space. The conflict between public and
private rights and desires has been particularly bitter and long-lasting in
Richardson Bay.

CHAPTER II: TRENDS AND FORECASTS

Not only has the number of houseboats and live-aboards in the Bay
increased steadily but the original, primarily recreational use has shifted to
full-time residential.,-Duck hunters, fishermen, and summer vacationers rarely
occupy today's houseboats and live-aboards. Recently, the numbers of artists,
writers, and craftsmen who were prevalent during the 19501.s and 1960's have
.also declined.-.-.Due@to escalating houseboat costs and mooring fees more recent
occupants are relatively affluent. The more fanciful houseboat design of the
past is now being replaced by standardized, boxlike, and'larger structures.

A. Numbers and Locations

Today there are an estimated 600 houseboats and 2,000"to 4,000
live-aboards in San Francisco Bay. Most of the houseboats are in Richardson
Bay, which now contains approximately 425 houseboats and between 70 to 120
anchor-outs. L.iveaboards are mostly scattered throughout the many
recreational marinas in the Bay, including Sausalito, Berkeley, San Leandro,
Oyster Point, Redwood City,-and Martinez.

Because houseboats are.distinctive and do not often move, accurate
information.is.available,-on-their locations and numbers from:aerial
photographs and field,coUnts. 'Live-@-aboards are more elusive, blending easily
among the 19,000 recreational boats in--the many marinas-around the,Bay. The
estimate of,2,000 to 4,000 live-aboards.is derived from,the Regional Water
Quality:Contr.ol Boardl,s.(RWQCB) estimate' that 10 to 20 percent of-all.-.
recreational berths are occupied by live-aboardsl/.

Most houseboats are moored in SDecial, houseboat marinas. Four
are in Richardson Bay: Kappas Yacht Harbor with 117 berths; Waldo Point
Harbor with 265 berths; Yellow Ferry Harbor with 22 berths; and.Commodore
Properties with 11 berths. In Alameda, the Barnhill Marina contains 30 berths
for houseboats and in San Francisco, the Mission Creek Harbor contains-20
houseboat berths. Except for Commodore Properties, the houseboat marinas
predate the Commission's creation in 1965, although the Commission has granted
permits to expand and modernize them.

In addition to those moored in houseboat marinas, houseboats are
moored elsewhere in the Bay. About 100 are moored near the Waldo Point,
Harbor. One recreational marina in Sausalito has 9 houseboats. About 12 are
moored at the Napa Street Pier in Sausalito; a few are found at Red Rock
Marina in Richmond; and 6 are moored at Point San Pablo Yacht Harbor in
Richmond Some,houseboats are also used as yacht sales offices along the
Oakland- lameda Estuary. A few others are scattered* elsewhere in the Bay.

-3-

Live-aboards are found at virtually all of the primarily
recreational marinas in the Bay Area. Major marinas with known live-aboards
are Berkeley (40 authorized berths for live-aboards), San Leandro (11 berths,
none authorized), Martinez (12 berths, none authorized), and Oyster Point (35
to 38 berths, none authorized). There are also a number of live-aboards
moored offshore in Richardson Bay, along Alviso Slough, and at the the
Sausalito Yacht Harbor.

The 70 to 120 anchor-outs, mostly live-aboards but including some
houseboats, are found in Richardson Bay in the vicinity of the Kappas, Yellow
Ferry Harbor, and Waldo Point Marinas. As the number of boats constantly
fluctuates, no firm number can be established. Occasionally anchor-outs will
be spotted near the Berkeley Marina and elsewhere in the Bay. A comparison of
iV3 and 1981 aerial photos shows an increase in the anchor-out fleet, perhaps
a doubling, in that time. Traditionally, the number of anchor-outs increases
with the warm weather of the late spring and summer. During the winter some
occupants move their boats to warmer waters, moor them in a marina, or haul
them onshore.

B. Commission Permits for Houseboats and Live-aboards

Of the 600 houseboats estimated to be in the Bay, the Commission
has authorized berths for 424. The remainder either predate the creation of
the Commission or are unauthorized. Five BCDC permits (Nos. 4-71, 5-71, 6-71,
t4-73, and 26-76) authorized construction of houseboat facilities in Marin
(@punty. For the most--part, houseboats to be moored at those facilities
isted prior.to BCDC'juri:sdiction.

The -permits, -issued -for houseboat -marinas allowed -existing
houseboats to remain,-.subject-to conditions providing for significant public-
Z;gefits. For-example.- most of the Richardson Bay houseboat'marina sites had
ed, unsightly shorelines, and none provided public access. The permit
conditions prevent further water pollution from houseboats, assure safety,
improve shoreline appearance, and provide new public access. Very little fill
was allowed, about one acre of fill for new houseboat docks and considerably
less than an acre for creating an attractive shoreline, public access paths,
and landscaping. In the permit for the Sausalito Yacht Harbor fill was
allowed for parking for the recreational boaters, not houseboat or live-aboard
parking.

Outside Richardson Bay, permits for houseboats and live-aboards
were issued in San Francisco, Sonoma County, Alviso, and Berkeley. Permit No.
7-76 was issued to the Port of San Francisco for the clean-up of a marina
containing houseboats located in Mission Creek. This permit opened 35,400
square feet (0.8 acre)'of new Bay surface and provided for new public access
on the shoreline. The construction of the public access, however, has been
hampered by property arrangements between the Marina and the Port. One
authorized houseboat is moored at Port Sonoma at the mouth of the Petaluma
River in Sonoma County, and one has been authorized but not yet moored at the
Alviso Marina.

-4-

Only one BCDC permit, issued in 1979, authorized live-aboards (No.
The City-of Berkeley requested a permit to provide additional security
at its recreational marina, which was suffering from vandalism to boats
,throughout the large, dispersed facility.

No permits for anchor-outs have ever been issued.

Figure 1 shows the location of the houseboat marinas and houseboats
authorized by BCDC. A summary of all houseboat and live-aboard marina permit
activity is in Figure 2.

C., Boat Design, Size_,_ and Cost

Design and Size

In the Bay live-aboards are generally sailboats, but there are
also a few cabin cruisers and former fishing boats and tugboats. The most
common size of sailboat used as a live-aboard is 27 to 36 feet in length.
Recently, however, larger boats, 40 to 50 feet in length with about 250 to 300
square feet of living-space, are being used as live-aboards. Larger
live-aboards are commonly equipped with a living-dining area, two bedrooms
(staterooms), kitchen (galley), bathroom (head), running water and
electricity.' Smaller live-aboards have less living space, often with a
combined cooking, eating, living and sleeping area, and a bathroom.
Live-aboards generally look. like any. other recreational boat.

-Houseboats.are generally larger than live-aboards, often two
or more stories' 'in. height,(16..to_20 feet, above-the water line) and with 500 to
3,POO.square. feet,of living sp a.ce. One Iof the most enduring features of
houseboats,hasbeen the uniqueness of design. Early,houseboats were often.,
made.f.romlcolnver.ted*commerciaI vessels and barges with living units added on
top. Others were almost sculptural units defying categorization. While maty
newer houseboats are blooky and bulky, sometimes described as floating
trailers, many still have the individual decorative touches that distinguish
them from conventional craft. This may not last, however. The recently
adopted Marin County codes and standards for houseb *oats will undoubtedly
result in less design diversity as new houseboats are built and older ones
remodeled.

2. Costs

Houseboats usually.float on a reinforced concrete hull costing
about $15 per square foot or a wood and fiberglass hull costing about $11 per
square,foot. However, pontoons and styrofoam blocks may also be used for
flotation, usually at less cost. Overall costs of a new houseboat on a
concrete hull, including appliances, are about,$80 per square foot. Existin-
F_
houseboats currently for sale in Marin County range in price from $35,000 for
a tWO-story, one bedroom unit to $199,000 for a two-story, two bedroom, two
bath unit. Living space ranges from 500 square feet to 3,000 square feet for
the larger, multi-storied houseboats.

5- 7
265 Hous boat
4-71 Nr
7Houseb 5-79
@Cl Liveaboards

11 Houseboa

6 16
hous:-@boat-

16-76
9ouseboat-

7-7/6
00 Houseboats
7\4-
@4-Hous
I tjou @seboa

ID S Ao IS WE BCDC AUTHORIZ1,D HOUSLBOATS AND LIVEABORPS
--------------- J@
San Francisco Say Conservation FIGUNE I
and Development Ckx@ssion

FIGURE 2

mENroity OF BCDC HOUSEBOAT MARINA PERMITS

Permit Applicant/ Houseboat Total Total Public Public Access
Number Marina Name Location Berths Berths Access on Fill Amount of Fill and Use

4-71 George Kappas Gates 6+6 112, 117 272 1.64 acre 1.64 acre -0.3 acre - Docks/ marina facilities
Kappas Yacht Waldo Point -1.64 acre - Minor fill for improving
Harbor Marin County shoreline appearance

5-71 Lewis E. Cook, Jr. Gates 4+4 112 265 265 No figures 1.09 acre -0.58 acre - Docks/marina facilities
Arques Marina Waldo Point -1.09 acre - Minor fill for Improving
Marin County shoreline appearance

6-71 Miriam Tellis Gate 5 22 22 No figures 0.06 acre 0.06 acre - Minor fill for improving
Yellow Ferry Harbor Marin County shoreline appearance

14-73 Commodore 240 Redwood 11 11 No figures 0.15 acre 0.15 acre - Minor fill for improving
Properties Highway, shoreline appearance
Merin County - Airport use (prevent
flooding at heliport)

7-76 San Francisco Mission Creek, 20 55 0.87 acre None Note: Increased Bay surface by
Port Commission San Francisco 0.81 acres
Mission Creek
Harbor

26-76 Sausalito Yacht Sausalito, 9 625 0.25 acre 0.04 acre 0.12 acre - Docks/marina facilities
Harbor Merin County 0.04 acre - Public access

Live-aboards, with less living space than houseboats, are also
expensive and comparable to the cost of a house. Although many older
live-aboard boats are smaller, newer live-aboards are in the 40 to 50-foot
range. These larger boats contain many conveniences and the facilities of a
well-appointed small home. They can cost from $125,000 to $200,000. Used
boats in this category may be purchased in the $85,000 to $90,000 range. The
trend in boat sales in the past few years has been toward the larger, more
expensive boat that is well equipped for both living and pleasure cruising.

In addition to paying for the boat itself, boat residents
usually pay the cost of renting a berth. Houseboat owners pay monthly
berthing fees of roughly $300, up from $150 in 1970. Liveaboards must pay the
standard berth rental based on the size of the boat, plus an additional amount
based on increased'usage of the marina facilities. These fees can be up to
$7.50 per foot per month, for a total cost of about $300 per month for a
40-foot boat..

Recently there have been proposals to sell berthing rights for
recreational boats. Under these, the boat owner must buy a long-term lease,
license, or other right to the area where the boat is berthed. In the future
such rights may also be offered to occupants of houseboats and live-aboards.
Although three such proposals, Portobello in Oakland, Emery Cove Marina in
Emeryville, and Pier 39 in San Francisco have been locally approved, only
Portobello has actually sold units, so the market has yet to be well defined.
However, two of the marinas proposing such sales have estimated the
prospective costs.@ Marina Bay in Richmond expects to sell berth rights for
$550 per lineal foot to those-whoalso purchase a condominium in*their
-adjacent residential:development,-and $850 per lineal,foot to other boaters.
Pier 39 in San Francisco has-advertised its berths for $570 to $1',700 per
lineal foot. -Berths 40 to 50 feet in length would thus cost between $32,000
and $50,000. Of course the effect of this financing arrangement is the
creation of a property-right which can subsequently be sold for whatever price
the market will bear. The required large initial payment and the personal
loan for financing the purchase may cause berth costs to increase beyond the
financial capability of many Bay Area residents.

Probably due to these high costs and the lack of available
choice berthing locations, very few houseboats are now being built. Those
that are under construction are being built by individuals. Because
individual construction more frequently leads to building code violations
constituting safety and health hazards, local governments have recently
attempted to assure that houseboats will meet standards. For example, Marin
County now requires a permit before beginning construction of a houseboat.
Only a few such permits have been issued because one must show proof of a
'Legal berthing space before a permit can be issued. Small, non-code
structures, however, can be put together rather qui3kly. This is one resson
why unauthorized houseboats and live-aboards proliferatp in popular areas like
Richardson Bay.

-8-

D. Violations

1. Lack of BCDC Permits

The mooring of houseboats, the placement of dock s, walkways
and other marina structures used by houseboats or live-aboards, and changing
the use of a recreational boat to a live-aboard are all activities requiring a
BCDC permit. At the present time there are estimated to be over 150
unpermitted houseboats moored in the Bay. Many are moored in the Waldo Point
area of Richardson Bay; several are anchor-outs offshore of that area; several
are at or near the Napa Street Pier in Sausalito; a few are moored in Alv.iso
Slough. Many houseboat violations are complicated by legal suits.
Investigations are.currently;underway by local governments and the BCDC
enforcemenf staff on most of the others.

Residential use on many of the estimated 2,000 to 4,000
live-aboards in the Bay predates the Commission's jurisdiction, so no BCDC
permit is required for these vessels. A few others (40) are also moored at
berths for live-aboards specifically authorized by BCDC. But a substantial
number are moored at various, primarily private, recreational marinas. These
live-aboards do not have but need a BCDC permit because the residential use
started after the Commission obtained jurisdiction.

No survey has been done to determine the exact number of
unauthorized live-aboards because of:the difficulty of getting accurate
information. Live-aboards are nearly indistinguishable from recreational
craft at marinas.@:A slight'increase in shoreline traffic and increased
activity,in-the evenihg.are-usuallyl-the"6nly signs thait-some sailors are
living on their.boats*,-';-'1t -is'als6:easy-to convert-a 1ive-aboard to-a
residence or back again'to-a recreational use. .-A 1981 survey of the Sausalito
waterfront-estimated that there are 145 live-aboards,with 190 residents,
among the 1,500 berths in the City..Z/ No BCDC permits have been issued for
live-aboards in Sausalito. To date, little enforcement action has been
directed toward live-aboards.

The anchor-outs are located largely in Richardson Bay in Marin
County. No BCDC permit has ever been issued for an anchor-out.

2. Trespass, Building Code, and Waste Discharge Violations

Houseboaters and their surrounding communities have been at
odds for some time. Houseboaters have tended to moor wherever they like,
build whatever they like without regard to codes or permit requirements, use
waste systems that health and waste specialists find threatening to public
health and polluting to the.Bay, and, on occasion, refuse to pay rent to
marina owners. Local communities periodically attempt to evict squatters,
prevent waste discharges, and obtain compliance w5th building codes.

-9-

Examples of building code violations in Marin County include
installing a new hull under an existing houseboat, adding on rooms, And
remodeling interiors--all without permits. Many of these modifications do not
meet building code standards. The Department of Public Works staff says that
once a violation is detected, compliance is very high. However, detection is
difficult and constant inspections are time-consuming and expensive to the
taxpayer.

Many houseboats are not hooked up to sewers as the County
requires And these boats likely violate health and water standards by
discharging wastes into marina basins or, in the case of Richardson Bay, in
that Bay. As of the end of April 1983, only 225 of the 400 authorized
houseboats in Richardson Bay were hooked up to shoreline sewers. These boats
are at marinas authorized about 12 years ago. The remainder are not connected
to sewers and likely discharge directly into the Bay. One member of the Marin
County Department of Public Works is assigned to inspect waterfront structures
regularly and assist property owners in designing and installing appropriate
waste systems. However, the process is a slow one, and there is continued
resistance to the County's waste discharge requirements.

At the present time live-aboards are not required to be
connected to sewers, but untreated wastes are, nevertheless, prohibited from
being deposited in marina basins or anywhere in the Bay. Waste specialists
believe, however, that discharges nevertheless regularly occur because water
quality tests show continued pollution, especially in enclosed marina basins
and areas with poor circulation.

Figure 3..charts the major_instances of governmental efforts to
enforce laws violated-by-occupants.of houseboats and live-aboards,
particularly ones moored at unauthorized locations.

E. Forecasts

1. Demand

In the past, demand for houseboats came mostly from people
wishing to enjoy a different lifestyle at a low cost and not requiring large
living spaces or yards. Recently the demand has expanded to include affluent
people desiring to live in Marin County at the water's edge.

People select particular communities for a number of reasons
but waterside location, nearness to San Francisco, and a Marin County address
have, during the last few years, led to particularly strong demand there.
Dramatic increases in Marin housing prices, particularly for homes near the
water have occurred. Between 1978 and 1982, the average price of homes in
Belvedere, which are located for the most part on or near the water, increased
131 percent (from $275,950 to $625,833). In Tiburon where most homes are not
on but are near the water, the price increase was 53 percent (from $199,845 to
$304,9W. The Marin County average increase in price for a home was 68
percent (from $108,730 to $182,553).

_10-

FIGURE 3

CHRONOLOGY OF HOUSEBOAT.ACTIVITIES

1921 The City of Alameda condemned 15 arks moored in the estuary and on
San Leandro Bay.

1923 The federal government evicted several houseboats located on
mudflats between Park Street and Fruitvale Avenue in Oakland.

1925 Fifty houseboat squatters were evicted by the federal government
from property near High Street in Oakland.

1943 The Coast Guard evicted five families from houseboats at the foot
of Kennedy Street in Oakland to allow the Oakland shipyards to
expand.

1948 Marin County authorized'the first of many studies of arks and
houseboats in Richardson Bay.

1952 Sausalito.passed an ordinance requiring houseboats to move off
underwater.streets held in trust by the City and to require
houseboats to- tie into'municipal sewer systems within four months.

1956 San Francisco condemned six of 28 houseboats for dumping raw sewage
into the Bay.

1960 The Corps of Engineers evicted 25 ark dwellers near the Fruitvale
Avenue Bridge in Oakland after the City Council had declared them
to be health, safety and fire hazards.

1960 San Francisco evicted residents of four houseboats on Judson Street
in the Hunters Point area; one resident had lived there for 13
years*

Source: Archives of the San Francisco Chronicle.

While houseboat prices'are high (ranging between $100,000 to
$200,000) and for much of the rest of the Bay Area approach landside housing
costs, they are cheap in comparison with the cost of a house on the shoreline
or near the water in Marin County. The disparity between the cost of a home
by the water and a houseboat is,a major reason why people desire to move into
a houseboat community. This disparity will also result in pressure to add new
houseboats to existing marinas and build new houseboat marinas in Richardson
Bay. It is likely, however, that greatest future demand will be from the
relatively affluent, not from those with modest incomes seeking an alternative
lifestyle.

2. Housing Supply

Houseboats and live-aboards do not constitute an appreciable
amount of the Bay Area's housing stock, housing at most 6,000 to 11,000 people
or about 0.1 to 0.2 percent of the region's 5 million population, nor are they
ever likely to. The Bay Area Council estimated that the 1980 shortage of
housing was 65,000 units and the 1990 shortage may be 350,000 units. Given
these estimates it is apparent that boat dwellings would have to proliferate
to unacceptable levels to be of any real significance in meeting the region's
housing needs.

Moreover, use of the water for housing produces benefits that
are private, while the waters of the Bay provide benefits for the public as a
Whole. For this reason housing should be accommodated on land rather than on
the waters of the Bay.

-12-

CHAPTER III: IMPACTS AND BENEFITS

A. Environmental Impacts

1. Water Pollution

a. Discharges and Impacts

Water pollution is a major adverse impact associated with
both houseboats and live-aboards. Most houseboats and live-aboards are moored
in protected bays such as Richardson Bay or in marinas with enclosed basins.
Both locations are protected from the tidal surge and strong currents that
disperse pollutants and bring in cleaner water. As a result, pollutants build
up, endanger health, and may damage wildlife.

Sewage and graywater discharges from houseboats and
live-aboards, for example,.have.significant impacts on water quality and
public health., Sewage consists-of human body wastes. Graywater consists of
galley, bath, .. and shower,:wastes. Both have similar impacts on water:.,- ..
introduction of.-.,.cojiform.bacteria;..tox.ic soap re,sidues; biochemical oxygen
demanding substa4cos;.*IoUspend.ed'solids,. oil-ahd.grease; and biostimulatory
substance.6 such.as-.nitrogeh-and.@phosphorus... --I---

Two standards are used to determinewhetherwater is
unacceptably polluted by coliform bacteria.-3/ The water-contact recreation
bacteriological standard4/ -- the less stringent standard -- is used to
judge whether people can swim and use the water with little risk to their
health. The shellfish harvesting bacteriological standard5/ -m the more
stringent standard - is used to judge whether people can eat shellfish with
little risk to their health. Because shellfish tend to concentrate
pollutants, water must be cleaner to meet the shellfish harvesting standard.

By either,standard, Richardson.Bay marinas and those
located in the Oakland-Alameda Estuary are badly polluted. In 1981, the
Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) found6/ that water-contact
recreation bacteriological standards were exceeded at several locations in
Richardson Bay including Waldo Point, Yellow Ferry, Kappas Small Boat Marina,
and Napa Street Pier. Other Bay locations exceeding water contact standards
incluce the Alviso Marina, Alviso Slough, and the Alameda Yacht Harbor. The
RWQCB also found that the shellfish harvesting bacteriologial standards were
exceeded at the following marinas: Waldo Point Harbor, Yellow Ferry$
Marinship, Clipper Yacht Basins 2, 3, and 4, Kappas Small Boat Marina, Kappas
East and West Piers, Commodore Marina, Barnhill Marina, Alameda Yacht Harbor,
Port of Oakland-Central Marina, Embarcadero Cove Marina, and Oyster Point
Marina.

-13-

Houseboats and live-aboards are also a source of oily wastes,
bilge mater, and biostimulatory substances all of which degrade water
quality. While the resultant water pollution is not as significant as
coliform bacteria originating from sewage, biostimulants are of concern in
Richardson Bay where algal blooms may occur.

b. Water Pollution Prevention

Pollution due to discharges of untreated sewage and
graywater from boats used as residences can be eliminated if they are
connected to a shoreside sewer system. The RW`QCB * now requires all houseboats,
to be so connected. Direct connectiona@7/ to sewer systems have also been
required in all the houseboat marina permits issued by the Commission. The
RWQCB recommends liveaboards be connected to a shoreside system or contain
holding tanks that can be emptied only by pumping out at an approved facility.

Direct connections for live-aboards are technically
feasible. One such system, at the Peninsula Marina in Redwood City, relies on
flexible hoses joining the bodts to a plastic pipe on the dock which is, in
turn, connected to a shoreside line. The operator of the marina describes the
system as "inexpensive" and the total monthly berthing fees average $375 per
month for a 50-foot boat.

Most live-aboards are also large enough to contain
lid1ding tanks. For these vessels through-hull discharge fittings can be
..i@6@aled so,that pump-ou't facilities:are used to empty the tanks.- There are a
A
iew,live-aboards and houseboats-that--are,,so small that-holding tanks-.are
difficult to install., Also., there are a few boats that do not have toilets or
galleys on board. For the occupants of these vessels convenient on-shore
TAcilities must be provided or discharge into the Bay will be likely..

Pump-out facilities can be used by live-aboards. But Bay
Area marina operators indicate that pump-out station use is fairly low. There-
are probably a variety of reasons: some pump-out facilities are inconvenient
to find and use; some are misused and become inoperative; many boaters prefer
to use onshore restrooms and showers when available; and some marinas charge
high fees to use the stations, For example, there have been reports8/ that
Sausalito Yacht Harbor charges $100 per use. While low pump-out staTion use
may not mean that wastes are deposited in unauthorized locations, the
discrepancy between pump-out station use and the number of boats with holding
tanks suggests that pump-out stations'are not the most secure way to prevent
Bay water pollution.

BCDC experience with preventing water pollution from
live-aboards is limited. Only one BCDC permit deals with the issue. The
permit for the Berkeley Marina requires pump-out facilities, not sewer
connections, for disposal of sewage and graywater from live-aboards. The BCDC
permit requires that each live-aboard vessel with a toilet have a holding tank
which will hold at least three days estimated volume of wastewater.
Additionally all through-hull fittings for sewage and graywater discharge on
the live-aboards must be sealed. The marina basin is regularly monitored and
recent reports state that water quality standards have been met-9/. But the

_14-

marina operator reports low pump-out station use. This anomaly can probably
be explained because there are complete men's and women's restroom facilities
and showers for each dock. Also some boaters prefer portable toilets which
can be emptied at onshore facilities. The permit also contains revocation
rights for live-aboard berthing, requirements to provide free pump-out
services, and the ability to require shoreside sewer connections if water
quality deteriorates. These strong sanctions help assure that wastes are not
deposited in the Bay.

Forbotb recreational boats and live-aboards with holding
tanks that are not connected to a shoreside system, pump-out stations will
continue to be needed. Despite the present low use, pump-out stationst if
properly adminiAered, can help to prevent discharges into the Bay. There are
currently only 31 pumpout stations to serve approximately 3,000 to 4,000 boats
with holding tanks in San Francisco Bay. Figure 4 describes pump-out
facilities in San Francisco Bay Area. For the RWQCB to prohibit discharges it
is necessary to show that there are sufficient pump-out stations to handle
vessel wastes.10/..

2. Sedimentation

a. Impacts

Houseboats, live-aboards, and associated marina
structures.often also.adversely change localized sedimentation-patterns and
rates-Sedimentation is-the".pettl1illig -out of small particles carried in
water. It consists of eroded dirt with other elements and chemicals carried
into the Bay in urban and watershed-run-off. Large amounts of sediment enter
the Bay' system daily, and much is deposited on the bottom. Even after
settling it is often resuspended by currents and wave action. Thus, sediment
is naturally present in the Bay system.

.Natural sedimentation patterns and rates may be changed
by structures, such as docks and breakwaters, that alterwater currents and
velocities. Houseboats and live-aboards may also change the rate and location
of sediment deposits by "stilling" the water. The effect increases the amount
of sediment deposited at or near the location of the vessels and structures
causing more material to be deposited than would occur naturally.

Excessive sediment harms fish by clogging sensory,
feeding, and breathing organs; it traps small floating organisms; and it
buries and chokes bottom-dwelling organisms. Impacts increase in localized
areas when fill changes current patterns or velocity and when dredging
reintroduces the material into the water. Richardson Bay is particularly
plagued by shallow waters and limited water circulation.

b. Prevention and Reduction

Nothing can prevent general sedimentation, but localized
impacts on sedimentation rates and patterns can be reduced through careful
site selection; by thorough analysis of sedimentation patterns, water
currents, winds, and other natural forces at selected sites; and by designing

V v 19
Z er
IV -9 1. ev IV

pf #9

-4a a CLa C6 co to a wM a'aa0. (a2ca IN CL 'a
21 - - - 31 13
f - - - 9 17=
1 -1 -9
tft 3.-< J%<
14 e.
(A Le

rp
73

rr
"30In 71

V
3 @A

"7 cn
4CJ
;Ir
3 2

rr 31P
a

ty
to (A (A
co

00 be bo to-%
Z. C6 3

-V91

n n

0
0 C6
9

CL co 0.%D Q-%D a a a
a : $- W p- f
o- 4

IV 10
0 c
2
to

-a 0
Is -%

to Lft

So 0
c

-1 rr -ft a

a 0

4040 40 0- hi %Roo
Lft @A
* 3 Ob
Z. Z.

LA P. ps

breakwaters, docks, and mooring locations to improve water circulation and
minimize undesirable changes in sedimentation. Considerable experience and
knowledge is needed to conduct such analysis and design. The Commission
should therefore assure that knowledgeable-professionals are involved in
projects for new and remodelled marinas.

3. Dredging

a. Impacts

Sediment can, of course, be removed by dredging. But
dredging destroys bottom life, reintroduces pollutants into the water column,
and can be expensive. Dredging and the disposal of dredge spoils can also
harm fish and wildlife. For example, pressure to find nearby and convenient
locations for the disposal of spoil often jeopardizes diked baylands, marshes,
and shallow waters that may be selected as "cost effective" dumps for dredged
spoils. Polluted sediments that are dredged cause additional adverse impacts
on aquatic wildlife by releasing the pollutants into the Bay waters.

Dredging to remove sediment in existing houseboat areas
is complicated because it is difficult to move houseboats. They are
ordinarily not self-powered and may be connected to dockside utilities and
services. Moreover,@since mobility is not.of interest to.houseboaters, they.
h4ve.little incentive to:pay for dredging costs.- As a r'esult, in the last 18
yqars, only..one houseboat marina,- the Barnhill. Marina ln.Alameda- has applied
for dredging permits..',_ Two,minor'-permits weregranted, one in 19@1 one, in
1973, each.to dredge only.500 cubic yards.

..No permitS,@have.ever been granted for dredging houseboat
marinas in Richardson Bay, though it is plagued by shallow waters and limited
water circulation, suffers large amounts of sediment deposits annually, and
the underlying muds are badly polluted. In 1971, when the early BCDC permits
were issued for houseboat marinas, the Department of-Fish and Game (DFG)
requested that-material under the existing houseboats not be dredged. The DFG
stated that dredging would be harmful becau 'se: ..(1) the initial and
maintenance dredging would reduce the benthic animal population; (2) the
dredging would have direct detrimental effects on fish and.wildlife; and (3)
the sediments might be polluted by oxygen-demanding materials from
inadequately treated sewage and might also contain other toxic materials
including.heavy metals and pesticidesll/. Also in 1971,.the RWQCB stated
that there was no reason from a water quality standpoint to require
dredging.L2/. Thus, the Commission allowed houseboats that existed at that
time to rest on the Bay bottom for some periods of the tidal cycle to avoid
the adverse impacts of dredging identified by the DFG and the RWQrB.
Similarly,. it will be difficult, if not impossible, to build new or expanded
houseboat marinas in much of Richardson Bay unless some or all of the added
houseboats sit on the mudflats during some tidal stag es or.dredging is allowed.

-17-

b. ..Reduction and Prevention of Impacts

Only by selecting sites with sufficiently deep water that
are naturally scoured by currents and by designing new marina structures to
reduce the amount of "stilling" of waters can dredging be minimized. But deep
water sites that have strong currents are usually not desirable to
houseboaters who prefer quiet sites where boats are protected from open waters
and strong currents. Contents of muds below proposed sites should therefore
be thoroughly tested, and sites with polluted muds avoided. In addition
projects proposing new or expanded marina berths should clearly indicate the
amount of-dredging-that will-be needed to assure that boats float at all
stages of the tide'. The amount should be forecasted over the life of the
marina project and the disposal site should be identified. Disposal of spoils
at one of the Corps' authorized sitesjJ/ has the least impact on the Bay but
these sites may be some distance from the dredging location.

.4. Fill
I

a. Amount and Impacts

While the amount of fill associated with houseboats and
live-aboardshas been small historically, the localized impacts of even small
fills can be detrimental..-Houseboats and live-aboards moored for an extended
period are a form'of'*"fill".under the BCDC law,as are marina docks, walkways,
breakwaters*7 -Assuming that'dach*houseboat is 15 feet.by 45. feet, or 675
square feet,- [email protected] 6-1/2 acres----of. authorized houseboat "fill" now
exists. This is a mere fraction--of the estimated 45,000 acres of'-mudflats in
San Francisco Bay. However,-when that fill is located in a restricted area,
especially one with.sedimentation problems and limited tidal,flushing, like
R!Cchardson B4y,--the local 'impacts can be considerable.

The effect of the floating fill on mudflats is similar to
that of solid fill in several respects. When houseboats or live-aboards are
moored over the mudflats, the boats not only prevent shorebirds from feeding,
they block light, interfering with photosynthesis of tiny algae. When the
houseboats rest on the bottom during periods of low tide, they crush the
microorganisms living in the mudflats. The 'result for the period the boat is
on the bottom is little life, photosynthesis, or oxvgen production. While the
amount of oxygen produced by algae at any particular location is small, the
cumulative impact of the loss or degradation of Bay mudflats is a major
concern, particularly since so many mudflats have been lost in the past.

b'. Reducing Fill Impacts

Shading impacts due to boats and docks can be reduced by
proper design. In marina design one method to reduce shading is to minimize
the area of boat bulls and walkways, and to increase spacing between boats so
that substantial open water exists to allow light penetration to the Bay
bottom. Obviously two-story or taller houseboats would require even greater
spacing. But spacing is costly in materials and land. Another alternative

-18-

would be to orient, houseboats and their docks favorably to the sun to allow
maximum light penetration. This approach may conflict with maximizing views
and providing the maximum protection in foul weather.

Dredging will also allow boats to float at all tidal
stages and prevent the adverse impacts of boats resting on the bottom.
However, determining the balance between the impacts of dredging and the.
impacts of shading and resting on the Bay bottom is difficult and'must be
evaluated on a.case-by-c *ase basis. For areas where houseboats and
live-aboards do not now existi siting requirements that assure they are not
located.in areas,where-they,would cause significant sedimentation or in areas
of shallow water would reduce future adverse impacts on fish and wildlife and
oxygenation.

B. Social Impacts

The social impacts of houseboats and live-aboards include the
use of water and shoreline areas needed now or in the future for recreation,
wildlife habitat, and public access, and demands on-services in excess of what
housing on land requires.

Conflicts with Other Uses

Houseboats and live-aboards are a form of housing
r ",uiring fill:. in: the.. Bay., .. kloui5ing is not 4 necessary use . of the Bay because
there , is - su f ficiefit.,- upland. -to.. provide -for, p resent a:predicted housing needs
nd,
foe the, Bay Area. 14/@ Ploreover-a@ t
wa dr.. locat ion - is' not t required -for housing
to,function. Uses that do need to be in or.:adjacent-to the'.Bay include ports,
water-related,industry., -water-related recreation, public access, bridges,
airports,;and wildlife refuges. Many of these -latter uses,.hav.e also required'
large amounts of fill in the past. Therefore sufficient shorelineand water
areas should be reserved for present and.future needs for these
"water-oriented" uses before any-Area is allowed to be used for housing, a
non-water-oriented use. Conflicts between housing and water-oriented uses are
most acute in areas like Richardson Bay where accessibility and physical
attractiveness make the area highly desirable for housing.'

Houseboats,and live-aboards can conflict with any
water-oriented use but then conflict mostly with (1) public recreation,
@including boating and fishing, (2) fish and wildlife habitat, and (3) public
access, including views and open space.

a. Recreation

As discussed in the "Staff Report on Recreational Boating
Facilities,1@15/ there is a continuing demand for recreational boat berths in
the Bay. But suitable marina sites are limited because they must have
sufficient onshore space for parking and access, a water basin with an
orientation to currents and tides that Provides protection during stormy

_19-

conditions, and be a reasonable distance from urban centers. Moreover, the
Commission recently decided that large fills for recreational marinas were not
in the public interest,1_6/ thereby further reducing the number of potential
sites.

Houseboats and live-aboards compete with recreational
vessels for nearshore water areas because they require marina facilities with
similar site characteristics. To the extent they preempt areas otherwise
suitable for recreational marinas, it will be more diffficult to meet the
demand for recreational berths. Houseboats and live-aboard marinas also make
shoreline space because the parking requirements
-for such-marinas are more extensive than for recreational marinas.

Fishing, another recreational use that takes place in the
nearshore waters of the Bay, is generally done from the shore, piers, or small
boats. It requires little equipment other than a rod, line, and bait and is
an activity available to and popular with all Bay Area income and age groups,
both for sport and for food. To the extent that houseboat marinas.occupy
desirable fishing sites, preclude access to good sites, or eliminate fishing
habitat, recreational fishing will be reduced.

Marinas containing houseboats and live-aboards also
commonly conflict with.the human use of shellfish beds. Numerous Bay marinas
Are within.one-@-half mile-of shellfish beds17/. Waste discharges from
houseboats- and -liv-paboards contribute bacterial.contaminants that make@Bay.
Pellfish. unsafw to: eat:. .' Because of contaminants in shellfish, the. Department
-df -Health Services -rewmm6nids - agaInst, -the "@rec reational@ harvesting* @ of. shellfish-
in the Bay at this.time.-,-'hbw'ever-,-har@vesting is not banned., Consequently,---
many people. currently harvest shellfish despite the health-risks.- Shellfish
fl!ay be safely,available fromthe Bay again in the future, both for
recreational and commercial harvesting, but only if the beds are protected
from conflicting uses and pollution sources, including boats used as
residences that release wastewater.

In addition to-space for recreational marinas, nearshore
areas are desirable for boating itself in canoes, kayaks, and dinghies. They
are also desirable for wind surfing and swimming. These activities are often
easiest and most fun in the shallow waters close to shore where waves are
small and waters are sheltered from strong winds. Boating is also available
and accessible to a broad range of age and income groups in the Bay Area.
There are few shallow water areas convenient to urban centers where small
boating can safely occur in the Bay. Richardson Bay is a particularly good
location for this activity. To the extent houseboats and live-aboards preempt
nearshore areas and "anchor-outs" occupy offshore areas in Richardson Bay,
small boating opportunities are reduced. Also to the extent that bacterial
contamination continues or increases, these activities are threatened because
water areas that are badly polluted will not be safely available to swimmers,
wind surfers, and other water sport enthusiasts.

_20-

b. Habitat

Houseboats, live-aboards, and anchor-outs also diminish
the wildlife value of quiet bays and inlets. People and wildlife in close
proximity are usually not compatible; the wildlife often leaves. Areas
preferred by houseboaters and recreational marinas are often the same areas
needed by wildlife, particularly as feeding grounds for birds and small fish.

Some shoreline areas also serve as haul-outs for the
harbor seals, shy inhabitants of the Bay, now threatened as their habitat
diminishes., The.development of one of those open or wildlife areas even for a
short time@-leads to permanent loss of habitat.

0. Public Access

(1) Housing Impacts on Public Access

Housing conflicts most sharply with public access
because housing is the most private of the uses that occur adjacent to the
Bay. It pits the homeowner's desire for control over his property against the
Public's constitutional right to reach and use the Bay. As a result, public
access along the Bay.shoreline is often adversely impacted by proximity to
residential uses. Paths close to residences are not widely used because the
dwellings,intimidate-Ithe-publie.who feel like intruders in a private
C(@Mmunity. The [email protected] feel uncomfortable and-may react strongly
if.strang6rs are too,,.a.lose!@to,the.ir.hom,es.,- Tall,.;arge-structures near public
access-paths and areas.,.-qan..,,also ..block views- and:. -give --an enclosed, restricted.
feeling to,@ the user -who- th
pm. tends to avoid @such.-area-s. 'Houseboats moored
near..the.shoreline*.can,'Present both,problems, partictrlarly-houseboats of
occupants who.-have a strong community feeling and believe that t.he,public are
outsiders.

(2) Reducing Housing Impacts on Access

When housing conflicts with other recreational needs
for the same area or with wildlife habitat, there is little that can be done
to reduce the impacts; a choice must be made between the competing useso
Adverse impacts of houseboats on public access, however, can be reduced
through proper design and siting. Sufficient setbacks between the structures
and the public access areas can also be provided. In some land projects,
design professionals recommend a setback equal to the height of the
structure. Setbacks can also be used to provide usable public access next to
residences... In some cases landscaping is also valuable to screen the
@residential uses while framing and emphasizing public areas and views. These
design concepts should be reviewed and, where appropriate, incorporated into
designs for new and remodelled marina projects,

No matter how well designed, however, houseboat
marinas will in most cases also have adverse impacts on views. The most
obvious impacts are on views of the Bay from the shore]-ineo Mooring layouts
are often designed to maximize use of the site, with little regard for

-21-

.preserving public views. Tall, bulky houseboats, moored close to the
shoreline in separate marinas can result in a virtual wall along the shoreline
Iprecluding views of the open water.

Mooring arrangements can be planned to maximize view
corridors through marinas. Design professionals can delineate view corridors
and create elevation differences between public access areas and the berths.
View corridors can be provided between docks set perpendicular to the shore
and/or along the property lines. Houseboats clustered in "pods" will also
allow views between the clusters. Public access paths provided at higher
.elevations than the-water surface allow pedestrians to see over and around the
.large houseboat structures. For example, at the Berkeley Marina near the
houseboat berths, the pedestrian path is approximately 8 to 10 feet above the
water surface at the medium tide. In recognition of the adverse view impacts,
Marin County limits the height of new houseboats to 16 feet, with variance
provisions to 20 feet. Nevertheless, new houseboat marinas will intrude in
the open vistas of the waters of the Bay.

2. Demands for Services

Houseboat and live-aboard communities make additional demands
on urban services, particularly police and fire protection, and code
c_.@mpliance monitoring, over those made by landbousing. For example, in
t*'usalito burglary and larceny rates are higher in the,waterfront communities
la
Ithan elsewhere. While the.Sausalito Police Department.*has.attempted to
"'ganize boat owners-into'self-protecting units, it has had little
looperation.,,'Addit-iohal policeiresources- must be devoted to investigate
@&terfront theft reports and-to patrol an area that is difficult"to monitor..
7
Providing adequate fire protection for waterborne communities
is also more difficult than for land homes. The docks restrict the size of
equipment that can pass, and getting equipment to boats near the ends of docks
takes considerable time and effort. Many of the boats are moored close
together and not built with fire retardant materials. Neither Marin County
nor the City of Sausalito has a fire boat and there are no funds to purchase
one. Fortunately, to date the fire rate within waterborne communities has not
exceeded that experienced on land but fire fighting professionals believe that
the potential for large and devastating fires is significant.

In the past, houseboaters have not complied readily with
building codes. For this reason Marin County has assigned one of its five
building inspectors to the houseboat area. The County staff believes that
this concentration of effort has increased the rate of compliance. However,
it also means that those building on land in Marin County must share the other
four building inspectors.

Like all communities, houseboaters pay taxes to support public
services. In Marin County houseboats are taxed the same as houses: one
percent of the fair market value of the houseboat. In addition owners of
houseboat marinas are taxed on the fair market value of the underwater land
rented for berthing.

-22-

C.. Benefits

Houseboats and live-aboards provide two main benefits: housing and
security. The housing benefit.is primarily private, restricted to the
houseboat or live-aboard occupant. Live-aboards also provide security for
some recreational boaters because the presence of people in some recreational
marinas appears to deter criminal acts.

1. Housing Benefits and Life Style

The b
enefits of houseboats and live-aboards are primarily
.private., They offer a private life style enjoyed by the people who choose to
live on a houseboat or live-aboard. While this is not a public benefit, it is
an aspect of houseboating that is particularly important to houseboat.and
live-aboard residents.

What attracts people to life on the water? For some it is the
culmination of a lifelong dream. Some are only there for a short time,
waiting for the time when they can satisfy other plans. Some like the cheaper
housing. Some like the freedom no lawn to mow and the ability to sail: at
the drop of a tie line.

Perhaps the best way to form an understanding of the boat
residents and values is through biographical sketches. Military service first
brought Richard,:to.*CalifQrnia.:-.A-.water.sports enthusiast, he vowed to return
ta-Sausalito-to live on-the' w'ateir; owns a-houseboat and also maintains
a-motorboat for waterskiihg in the- Delta,.: @.Bill,, a -sailor, - has used his, spare
time.for.thelast-ten.y@ears to'build-a boat. For the past two years he has
lived on.t@e boat in the South Bay'while completing the final touches. When
done, he-.expects to.sail to the South Seas. Sue com-utes,to work from a
37-foot-sloop moored in the Oakland Estuary. She bought the boat and then
lost her land housing. After two years of boat living, she is still uncertain
how long the boat will be her primary residence. Pauline and Toby needed a
new place to live, saw an ad for a houseboat and bought a houseboat at Waldo
Point Harbor. They now live in the tallest houseboat in the Bay Area--four
stories--with 2,600 square feet of living space. It is moored at B dock where
Pauline and Toby particularly enjoy the friendly and helpful neighbors. They
consider the houseboat a great bargain; a house having similar views in
Tiburon and Sausalito would cost twice the price. There is little maintenance
on the boat as it is built on a concrete hull and moored at a recently
constructed dock.

Others who live in houseboats and live-aboards on the Bay also
stress the strength of communi.ty where they live. They share skills,
information, and work. Families care for one another's children and boats.
They pool money and labor to repair docks, houseboats, or build a comminity
center. Whether the sense of community will continue in the more modern,
expensive houseboat marinas is difficult to determine.

-23-

2. I!Rroved Security at Recreational Marinas

Although operators and boat owners have claimed that
houseboats and live-aboards deter crime in marinas by the presence of
occupants who can report suspicious activities to the police, the first
evidence supporting these claims has come from Berkeley..L8/ The 40
live-aboards scattered through the Berkeley Marina are required by the City to
keep an eye out for suspicious or illegal activities in the Marina basin. The
City's April, 1982 report@19/ on live-aboards showed a decrease in total
incidences of criminal activity in the Marina by nearly 75 percent over three
.-years; in 1979 there-were.131, in 1980 there were 53, and 1981 there were 44.
There was a remarkable reduction in ten categories particularly relevant to
security and surveillance including grand theft, petty theft, vandalism,
robbery, felony assault, auto theft, murder, burglary, trespassing, and
suspicious fire. The number of these ten crimes decreased from 97 in 1979, to
37 in 1980, and to 26 in 1981. While there have been no other figures
submitted to BCDC to support claims of increased security, these figures from
Berkeley certainly support the contention that live-aboards in recreational
marinas reduce crime. However, as mentioned earlier, reduction in crime has
not accompanied the live-aboards moored in recreational marinas in Sausalito.

_24-

CHAPTER IV: LIMITS AND RULES

A. Public Trust

The major restraint on the approvability of houseboats and
live-aboards@ is the.public;trust.20/ The trust is a property interest held
by the government on behalf of all present and future generations. It applies
primarily to unfilled tidelands and submerged lands whether they are held in
public ownership or-by private persons.

Trustees of the public trust in San Francisco Bay are BCDC; the
State Lands Commission; the Department of Fish and Game2l/; the State Water
Resources Control Board, including the San Francisco Bay Regional Water
Quality Control Board22/; and local governments holding legislative grants
of tidelands.?3/ For7-the Bay, those local governments are: the Cities of
Alameda, Albany, Benicia, Berkeley, Emeryville, Martinez, Mill Valley,
Oakland, Redwood City, Richmond, Sausalito, San Leandro, San Mateo, South San
Francisco, and.Vallejo;-the City and County of San Francisco; Marin County;
San'Mateo County; Per Ialta Junior College District; and the California Maritime
Academy.-

All trustees have a- constitutibnal-duty to protect the-public
interest in tidelands and submerged-lands, particulafily@for traditional public
trust, uses''such as fishing bo atifig, commerce- wildlife, and o en -space.24/
p
.Generally, private residenti al uses of trust lands, including the mooring of
houseboats and live-aboards, are not permissible. This purely private use is
unrelated to, not dependent upon, and does notfurther the public purposes for
which tidelands are uniquely suited.25/ Moreover houseboats and
live-aboards do little to stimulate or foster navigation, commerce, or fishing
and, in many cases, actually diminish those activities.

Both private and public tidelands and submerged lands in the Bay
are subject to the trust. But the trust affects private lands differently
than public lands. On private lands, nontrust uses may occur if (a) the lands
are not needed for-trust purposes; and (b) the nontrust.uses are limited so
that the lands can be made available for trust purposes when that need does
arise. On public lands, nontrust uses are usually not allowable. Onlv where
the nontrust use is a very small part of a larger project otherwise consisting
Of trust uses, and where the nontrust use is "necessarily incidental" to a
trust use, may it be allowed. "Necessarily incidental" means inextricably
bound up with the accomplishment of a trust purpose.26/ Moreover, all uses
on public lands subject to the trust must also serve a "statewide purpose."

-25-

This restriction means that the use must benefit all the people in the state.
Most typical trust uses, such as ports, wildlife habi*tat, and open space, can
easily be shown to benefit all of the people. But private uses, such as
residential houseboats and live-aboards, usually only benefit the small number
of people who live on the boats. The rest of the people in the state enjoy no
benefits from that use of trust lands. Moreover, because the public owns
these lands, the lands may not be devoted to private uses. Allowing such a
private use would amount to a gift of public property in violation of the Gift
Clause of the California Constitution.27/

The few live-aboards at the Berkeley Marina (located on granted
lands subject to the trust).serve as an example. Here four percent of the
berths were'allowed to be occupied by live-aboards because the presence of a
few residents at the primarily recreational marina, a trust use serving a
statewide purpose, provide added security particularly during the week and at
night when most of the recreational boaters are not present. Moreover, the
area occupied by the live-aboards is a very small part of the Berkeley granted
lands and all of the rest of the lands are devoted to recreational boating,
open space, and habitat-trust purposes.

To aid trustee agencies when they evaluate projects on private
lands subject to trust, particularly houseboat and live-aboard projects, the
Attorney General recommended28/ evaluating the proposed project according to
the following briteria:.,

AlYwhether the use will interfere with
existing public trust uses, such as public
,access-;.to-.t'he Bay,,navigation, commerce@
fishing', scienic view corridors, -and -wildlife
mhabitat; (2).whether the lands are currently-
.needed for trust uses; (3) whether the use will
interfere with future public trust uses in the
area; (4) whether the subject area is
relatively small in relation to the lands
available for trust needs in the vicinity; (5)
the period of time for which the lands will be
devoted to nontrust uses;.and (6) whether, by
their cost and permanence, the improvements
associated with the houseboats are such as to
render difficult or impossible future devotion
of the lands to trust purposes, as a practical
matter.

Criteria 5 and 6 require that nontrust uses, such as houseboats and
live-aboards, be limited to a relatively short time period within which
forecasts of future trust needs are accurate and reliable. Otherwise a trust
need for a particular site temporarily devoted to a nontrust purpose cannot be

-26-

accommodated when the trust heed arises. Some definite time period should be
established so that developers, landowners, local governments, and trustee
agencies will have a.clear limitation.'

In a dynamic society reliable forecasts of futu 're needs are
difficult to predict over long periods. Forecasts of future.recreational
needs, the activities for which trust lands are most likely to be.needed,,.are
particularly unreliable over long periods because public demand.for
recreational facilities changes rapidly. In areas like Richardson.Bay where
recreational boating has steadily increased and other water-oriented
recreational activities, such as wind surfing, have become quite popular
recently,-it is even1nore difficult to forecast future trust needs far into
.the future. Because of these difficulties, the time period allowed for
nontrust uses should be fairly short, perhaps in.the range of 5 to 10 years.
Forecasts of need for such periods are reasonably reliable.

A fairly short authorization period for houseboat'and live-aboard
use will also help assure that the associated docks, walkwaysi and similar
marina structures are not too costly because the period to amortize' their
capital costs will usually be based on the allowable period of.use. Of course
any authorization for a residential use is difficult to terminate even though
th'e,period is clearly stated and relatively short. Once.established, it is
difficult for agencies to-terminate any use but particularly in those cases
where residents are detrimentally affected.

B. Regulatory Authority--and Policies

In additio osed on houseboats and
n' to@'the -restrictions imp
live-abloards in tbe-Bay by. the publia. trust,-: existing land Use regulations
also greatly'. limit:the-ir appi7-o-Vabil:ity'

1. BCDC Rules and Policies for Houseboats and Live-aboards

a. Termits Needed

The Commission has sufficient legal authority to regulate
houseboats and live-aboards. BCDC permits are required for mooring
houseboats, a form of fill; for the placement of pile-supported or floating
piers, walkways, pilings, breakwaters, and other structures to create a marina.
for either houseboats or live-aboards; for changing the use of a recreational
boat to a live-aboard;.,and for any dredging and the disposal of dredged
spoils.29/

b. Houseboats and Live-aboards are.Generally Impermissible

In addition to the restrictions imposed by the public
.trust, the McAteer-Petris Act also severely limits the approvability of
houseboats. Houseboats are not a "water-oriented" use for which fill is

-27-

allowable because they are a residential use that does not need to be over or
in the water. Moreover, houseboats usually do not confer a public benefit
that justifies the detriment to the Bay from the fill involved. Live-aboards
are not considered fill if they are not moored for extended periods of time.
But structures, such as marina docks and walkways, used to support
live-aboards are fill to which the same restrictions apply that apply to
houseboats.. Since'live-aboards as residential uses differ little, if at all,
from houseboats, the Commission should treat the two types of residential
vessels similarly when the vessels themselves require permits.

as Exception to Unapprovability

There isone exception to the general prohibition of
houseboats and live-aboards under the MeAteer-Petris Act. Small numbers of
houseboats and-live-aboards and associated structures, e.g. docks, walkways,
and breakwaters, may be allowed if they are part of a,project that is to
improve shoreline appearance or to provide new public access to the Bay.

To approve minor fill for the improvement of shoreline
appearance, the Commission must be able to find that the fill is necessary
because the present appearance of the Bay and shoreline in the area adversely
affects enjoyment of the Bay and its shoreline within the site area itself or
within adjacent areas of the Bay shoreline. Further, it must'be either
physically impossible or.economically infeasible to improve the appearance
Vithout filling3O/.. 'To appro*ve.minor' fill for public access, the Commission
must be able-to find-that the fill is necessary because there is at present
*..nadequate publib,,Access to:the'-Bay shoreline in the-arek. Further, it must
b,e. either physically impossible-or economically-infeasible'to-improve the
public access@without--ftllin&Ll/. In'both cases the amount.of fill approved
must be the,minimum'necesiary-to improve the shorellne appearance'or provide
the new access.

d. Current Bay Plan Policies for Houseboats

When minor fill for houseboats, live-aboards, and
associated facilities is appropriate under BCDC's enabling legislation, the
applicable houseboat policy in the Bay Plan now requires that houseboats: (a)
not adversely affect the ecology of the Bay; (b) not cause a harmful amount of
sedimentation; (a) be connected to a shoreline sewage treatment system or have
onboard treatment facilities acceptable to public health and water quality
control agencies;-(d),-require no fill except for a pedestrian walk on pilings;
and (e) be acceptable to local governments having jurisdictionJ32/.

-28-

2. -Local Rules and Policies for Houseboats and Live-aboards

a. Authority

Local governments have authority to regulate such matters
as type and intensity of uses, parking requirements, open space needsi and
height and size of structures. State law also reserves regulation of certain
aspects of boats and'boating to the local governments. For example, under the,
-Health and Safety Code.U/ and the Harbors and Navigation Code3_4/, local
governments have the authority to control sanitation and pollution from
vessels. Local governments may also set time of day restrictions and speed
'tones,,and.,designate special-use areas, all to control the use.of vessels.

Local-governments may also establish harbor districts
which may regulate and control'the anchoring, mooring,.towing, and docking of
vessels and enact other ordinances to protect persons and property within the
waters subject to the harbor district. San Mateo County has established the
San Mateo County Harbor District with jurisdiction over Oyster Point Harbor.
While harbor district requirements.must be consistent with federal and state
laws and constitutional provisions protecting.the free and open navigation of
waters, the districts can establish rules that control harbor operations,
define- channels,.-and.regulate [email protected]/.

b. -*Local-Plans.and Zoning

-_'Generally local.governmelhts have severely limited
approvals of.,new hodseboat'marinasahd'the--expansi6n of@existing'marinas to,
accommodate houseboatsi, 1-To-date anchor-iioutg have-not'beeneffectively
controlled. While-.Marin@;-County..has adopted.an.ordinance for .anchor-outs, the
County 'has' not -yet pbt the-.:ordiniince into effe6t.L,6/... - Live:;-Aboar,@d@ -6re not
generally addressed in local plans or codes, but several local'governments
have in their general plans and zoning 'ordinances provisions for locating
houseboats or live-aboards within new marinas. Issues raised by houseboats
have been addressed mostly by the cities in Marin County. Strong city
controls may have indirectly contributed to the proliferation of unauthorized
houseboats and live-aboards in Marin County.

Other cities, such as Oakland and Berkeley, have also
exercised various controls over marinas, including the mooring of by
houseboats and live-aboards. Richmond and-Vallejo support houseboat and
live-aboard use within their jurisdictions. Elsewhere there are few local
land use controls probably because of the lack of any perceived problem. A
more specific description of the local policies follows.

The City of Alameda has one houseboat marina that existed
before BCDC. However, the City Planning Department states that new houseboat
marinas would not be consistent with the City's General Plan, largely because
Of the noise levels from the Oakland Airport. The levels are so Ihigh they
preclude residential facilities along-much of the City's shoreline. The
City's code does not address live-aboards.

_29-

The City of Richmond's plan allows houseboats or
live-aboards in "coastline-commercial zones." These zones are-located at
Point San Pablo Yacht Harbor, Red Rock Marina, and the south shoreline of the
Richmond Inner Harbor. All houseboats would require a conditional use permit
from the City Planning Commission.

I The Port of Oakland leases the land for about 95 percent
of the marinas in the City of Oakland. None of the Port's leases allows
live-aboards. If a lease that allowed live-aboards were to be approved, the
Port would enforce the City's health code requiring sewers for residential
dwellings.

The City of*Berkeley, with both houseboats and
live-aboards in the City Marina, has incorporated rules and regulations over
these vessels into the City code. The controls set out the.specific
requirements for sewage and graywater disposal for both the houseboats and
live-aboards, as well as most other aspects of residential use of vessels.

In Marin County, the cities have taken the lead in
regulating houseboats, live-aboards, and anchor-outs. Efforts to control and
regulate the location, number, and construction of houseboats and live-aboards
began in 1963 and continue to the present. Difficulties in enforcing City and
*nty ordinances have prevented full application, but the City of Sausalito
apd the County are proceeding with enforcement of many elements of their
aDdes, particularly regarding sewage connections for,houseboats. The
Richardson Bay.Special Area..Plan,,.currently being prepared@by local
gbvernments-and,BCDC,-, wiliattempt to resolve enforcement issues.

Marin County has not authorized any houseboat marinas
'4.-nee 1970. 'Howe@er,,.the...County.is now considering authorizing a houseboat
cbmmunity at Waldo' Point where.houseboats and live-aboards 'are now moored
without authorization. Other than this action, the County has not expressed
any interest or need to authorize construction of additional houseboat
marinas. The most important County requirement for new marina construction is
for each houseboat to be connected to an on-land sewage system. The Public
Works Department is inspecting houseboat marinas regularly to bring all units
into compliance.

The most recent County activity was passage of an
ordinance prohibiting anchor-outs in Richardson Bay without a County permit.
The new ordinancej passed in August 1982,@has not yet gone into effect. The
County must first develop standards for reviewing applications for the County
permits. The critical issues include disposal of sewage and graywater, and
the enforcement of the ordinance.

In Sausalito, new marinas are currently limited to a
small zone in one area of the shoreline. However, the City may study (1) new
houseboat marinas north of Mono Street; and (2) converting ten percent of

-30-

berths-in all existing marinas to houseboat berths. Although there are now no
City funds for the study, the Art Zone hopes to fund one in the near future.
Live-aboards are not allowed under the City's existing codes.

Sausalito recently passed an ordinance prohibiting
mooring any*boat in waters owned by the City for more than 48 hours without
written consent of the City. Violation can result in a fine of up to $100.
To date, this ordinance has not been enforced.

Mill Valley addresses houseboats and-anchor-outs in its
municipal code. The code prohibits the construction of houseboats or mooring
...of..b.oats:in thewater areas in the city limits of Mill Valley for more than 24
hours without written permission of the City Council. To date, this law has
not been enforced.

The City-of Tiburon allows temporary mooring of
houseboats and yachts for up to ten days. There are no provisions for large
houseboat marinas since the maximum number of docks allowed at one site is
six. The ordinance does not preclude small, six houseboat marinas.

The City of Belvedere has set out mandatory requirements
forany houseboats located in the City. These include: each.houseboat must
be moored to a slip, wharf, or pier having right of access to a public road;
the.owner must-.own two off-street:park.ing places near the slip; each houseboat
must be connected to the city sewage system; and the location of houseboats is
limited by.,the zoning,.ordinance-of the City.

C. State Lands Commission

I. Holds Ungranted Bay Lands

The State Lands Commission (Lands.Commission) holds all state
retained tide and submerged lands and may lease and license uses on those
lands. Any authorized uses and work must be consistent with the
McAteer-Petris Act and the Bay Plan.37/ The Lands Commission may fix and
collect reasonable charges or rentals for the use of such lands. Knowing and
willful filling, dredging, or reclamation *of state-owned lands underlying any
navigable waters, or erecting, maintaining, removing, or altering any
structure on such land without written authorization from the Lands Commission
is a violation which the Lands Commission may correct.

2. Reviews Local Management of Granted Lands

The Lands Commission is also charged pursuant to various laws
with reviewing local governmental management of granted tide and submerged
lands.38/ Such lands nn@st be used for public purposes and substantial
improvements as described in the grant language must take place. The Lands
Commission can make findings that substantial improvements have not taken
place which can effect a transfer of the lands back to the state.

-31-

In reviewing leases for marinas on granted lands that propose
to include live-aboards, the Lands Commission applies the following
criteriaM/:

a. The leased area must be a relatively small portion of the
total water area in the harbor, bay, or marina that is
otherwise available for public trust purposes.

b. The lease may not constitute an interference with or
inconvenience to commerce, navigation, fisheries, or
related public trust purposes such as recreation.

0. The term of the lease must be no longer than that period
of time during which the leased area will not be needed
for trust purposes, and the lease would be terminable
under provisions which are reasonably exercisable by the
Lands Commission to the local grantee.

d. The location of the leased area must be compatible with
existing and contemplated harbor facilities.

e. Any improvements to be erected in the leased area must
not be so permanent or expensive as to create
-irreversible changes in the area, and could be easily
'removed.

..--,No, significant detrimental environmental impact would
result.-

3. Co-Tru'stee' of Public Trust "for the Bay

The Lands Commission also acts as a co-trustee of the public
trust lands in the Bay. While both BCDC and the Lands Commission have the
power to limit public and private uses of trust lands, only the Lands
Commission,has the power to exercise the public trust affirmatively for the
implementation of public projects on trust lands. Recently, for example, the
Lands Commission declared that Albany Bay (claimed to be privately owned) was
needed for trust purposes for wildlife habitat, public recreation, and open
space.40/

D. State Water Resources-Control Board and Regional Water
Quality Control Board

Regulates Waste Discharges

As pointed out earlier, the most signif!cant and long-standing
impact associated with existing houseboats and live-aboards is the discharge
of pollutants, primarily sewage and graywater, into the Bay. While many boat
owners believe that only a small degradation results from small boat

_32-
I-

discharges in comparison to discharges from outfall pipes, large vessels,
naval vessels, and other sources of sewage and pollution, impacts can
nonetheless be significant in enclosed basins, shallow bays and inlets with
poor circulation such as Richardson Bay. It is estimated that approximately
365 million gallons of untreated wastewater enter the San Francisco Bay
yearly, most of which comes primarily from wet weather overflows, but
approximately four percent (14.6 million gallons) comes from houseboats and
live-aboards4l/. While the volume appears sma .11 in comparison with the
overflows, i7t-is the second largest single source of water pollution in the
Bay, it occurs year-around, including the summer when dilution is poor, and it
usually occurs in enclosed basins and bays that receive poor flushing action.

The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and Regional
Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) generally have authority to control
discharges into San Francisco Bay. In San Francisco Bay, the Legislature has
prohibited discharges in all marina basins 42/ and the RWQCB has prohibited
municipal waste discharges in Richardson Bayj!j/. Although the discharge of
untreated sewage from any source, including anchor-outs, is prohibited in
marina basins and Richardson Bay, there is limited funding and staff for
enforcement. The SWRCB and RWQCB do not have authority to regulate directly
liquid galley, shower, or bath waste (graywater). These wastes can only be
controlled byacities and counties.

..Discharges,are controlled through requirements set by RWQCB
under Section,.40.2-of,the Clec;in@Water Act, a federal law,-and under state law,
the Porter.-Cologhe 'Act6;,-NPDES permits (called "waste-discharge requirements"'
in California) are-'required.for to-lid-waste-;'sewage.; munitions;*chemicall
waste; biological materialt; radioactive materials@,*--.hea-t;'And-industrial,*'
municipal, and agiicultiirAl,*waste:-discharge@d -into':nAvigable Uaters-,-- and*'into
"waters @of @the-,Unit6d.rStates".within''-the stat6st Jurisdiction. 'The RWQCB
issues,permits, or waste discharge requirements, using effluent-limits and
water quality plans established pursuant to the Clean Water Act 'and the
Porter-Cologne Act.

Permits issued by RWQCB cannot require specific water quality
control measures be implemented by the discharger, only that the discharged
effluent meet-6ertain water quality standards. Due to this limitation local
goverr ents and BCDC might be better able to control waste discharges and to
require mitigation for unavoidable impacts than the Board. For instance, the
Board has no authority to control how marina basins are designed and therefore
cannot assure that breakwaters will allow adequate water circulation. BCDC
can address these issues when applications are submitted. Similarly the Board
cannot require specific types of facilities on houseboats and live-ab6ards for
the collection and transportation of sewage and graywater. Local governments
have authority to adopt ordinances to require graywater collection nnd
specific sewage facilities.

-33-

In cases where discharges are particularly harmful, federal
law also allows water quality agencies of the states such as the RWQCB to
prohibit the discharge of both treated and untreated sewage. To do this,
however, the Secretary for Transportation must first be able to determine that
"adequate facilities for the safe and sanitary removal and treatment of sewage
from all vessels are reasonably available for such water to which prohibition
would apply.1@44/ After a positive determination, a regulation completely
prohibiting discharge of treated and untreated sewage could be added to
Department regulations. The prohibition does not apply to graywater.

2. Discharges from Houseboats

In 1970 when houseboat discharges were found to be a detriment
to the health, safety, and welfare of the people of the state, the RWQCB was
charged with insuring proper regulation of discharges from houseboats.45/
In its 1981 report of Survey of Vessel Waste Discharges, the RWQCB stI7111 found
several areas of the Bay with high levels of pollution caused by houseboat and
live-aboard discharge wastes. These areas include Marin County (Waldo Point,
Yellow Ferry, and Kappas Small Boat Marina), Sausalito (Napa Street Pier), San
Jose (Alviso Marina and Slough), and Redwood City (Redwood Creek).

Due to these findings, the RWQCB staff has great concerns
regarding houseboat and live-aboard sewage and graywater discharges into the
Bav. The RWQCB..staff believes approximately 70 percent of total waste from
,noncommercial vessels.in@,the-region_comes from unsewered live-aboards and
qOuseboats*...-..Because;of the.:'problems-associated with the use of pump-out
tAcilities, -.RWQCB sta-ff believes the RWQCB should seek the connection of
houseboats to,shorel.@nd'sewer@,-@fadilities with almost no exceptions.-The RWQCB
staff believes -provisions 'of sewer service to houseboats and jive-aboards is
ioth technically'arid- economically feasible, especially given that-most marinas
;jre already providing water and electrical service to berths. To date, the
Regional Board has not established a policy based on these RWQCB staff
concerns.

The RWQCB can indirectly control graywater and other
discharges by requiring local governments to adopt ordinances when graywater
discharges are harmful to water quality. Each regional board must investigate
its region to determine areas where houseboat discharges are inadequately
regulated by local ordinance. In problem areas, the RWQCB notifies affected
cities and counties and recommends provisions to control houseboat
discharges. The local governments have 120 days to adopt an ordinance for
control of discharges of waste. If no ordinance is adopted or if the adopted
ordinance is insufficient, the RWQCB may adopt regulations to be enforced by
t@he local government.:To date the RWQCB has not notifed any local-governments
in the Bay Area that ordinances are required.

-34-

3. Pump-out Facilities

Under the Harbors and Navigation Code46/, the SWRCB can
require any private or public marina to provide convenient and accessible
sewage retention device pump-out capability. Each RWQCB is to determine need
for pump-out facilities in its region based on the number of vessels with
sewage retention devices requiring pump-out facilites and the location of
marinas in the area.

Guidelines47/ for selection of pump-out sites state that
public marinas should be considered first. If there are no public marinas in
the area, the RWQCB considers the following factors regarding private
marinas: (1) availability of private marinas with pump-out facilities not
available to the general public; (2) priority to marinas with fuel docks; (3)
the number of vessels with sewage retention devices berthed at each marina in
the area; (4) the depth of water required for the vessels that will be using
the pump-out facilities; and (5) the expense of installing a pump-out facility
and access to a means,of disposing of or treating the sewage.

In the San Francisco Bay Area, the Regional Board'has not had
to use these guidelines to require installation of pump-out facilities as part
-of-new or expanded marina projects.

E.- Federal Agencies

Vnited --S,tates.,Armv Corps of Engineers

a.- Section 110 Permits -f dr-:Houseb, oats.

The Corps'regulaites. Activities in waterways under two
laws48/
and implementing.regulations but only the Rivers and Harbors Act
applies to structures in or on waterways within the Corps' jurisdiction.
Section 10 of the Rivers.and Harbors Act prohibits construction of certain
structures in or affecting navigable waters of the United States unless a
Corps permit is obtained. The regulation definining structure49/ includes
any "... permanently moored floating vessel ... other permanent or
semi-permanent obstacle or obstruction...." The courts have interpreted this
to mean that a houseboat only becomes a structure requiring a Section 10
permit if it is permanently moored5O/.

By internal memo5l/, the San Francisco Corps office has
set up criteria to determine when a vessel is permanently moored and thus
needs a Corps permit. The criteria include: (1) the length of time the
.vessel has been moored and how long it will likely be moored in the future;
(2) how the vessel is attached to the mooring, e.g. typical, easily detachable
chains and anchors or larger and more solidly connected chains, etc; (3) the
types of electrical, water, or sewage hook-ups -- temporary or heavy duty of
permanent or semi-permanent nature; (4) whether the vessel is grounded in mud

-35-

or sand; (5) whether the use of the vessel is for functions normally
.characteristic of structures built on shore, such as full-time residence; and
(6) whether the vessel lacks self -propulsion, evidence of an intent to leave
it in place. Typical houseboats in the Bay would generally be considered
structures, but live-aboards, including anchor-outs, would not.

To date the Corps has permitted some houseboat marinas
but has issued no permits for houseboats in the Bay, and it appears that a
substantial number are permanently moored without a Corps permit. Of these
some were moored prior to December 18, 1968, and to not require Corps permits
because a nationwide permit authorized moorings up to that date. Few
enforcement actions have-been brought probably because of the cost of such
actions and administrative difficulties. However, abatement procedures and.
fines are available to the Corps for violations.

In deciding whether to issue a permit, the Corps
determines whether the project is in the public interest. For large or
controversial projects, the Corps holds a public hearing and solicits comments
from state and local agencies with jurisdiction and other agencies with
expertise, as well as from the public. Under the Corps' general policy an
approved project should: (1) provide public benefits that outweigh forseeable
detriments; (2) not unnecessarily alter or destroy wetlands; (3) conserve
wildlife; (4) be consistent with water quality standards; (5) protect
historic, scenic, and recreational values; (6) not interfere with adjacent
p,roperties or water resource projects; (7) comply with approved coastal zone
Panagement programs such.asrthe-Commission's law and policies; and (8) be
.2
cp nsistent with other state and local plans and policies-,52/

b. Section 404-Permits for Disposal of Dredged Materials

The Corps also administers a permit program pursuant to
the Clean Water ActU/ which requires permits for the deposition of dredged
material. A "Section 40411 permit is required for spoils disposal.

a. Removal of Navigation Hazards

Generally the Corps enforces the federal law that
prohibits obstructions in navigable channels.54/ Before this authority may
be exercised, the channel must be officially established by Congress.55/
Thereafter, vessels, including liveaboards and houseboats, that are Tiaced in
such channels.may be removed if, in fact, they prevent or obstruct the passage
of other vessels. This presents a factual determination that can be resolved
only on a case-by-case basis. If a vessel is an obstruction to navigation,
t)ie owner is responsibile for removing the vessel. Failing such removal, the
United States may do so.

-36-

In Richardson Bay, the only congressionally established
channelextends from Raccoon Straits up Richardson Bay to the Corps, Bay model
just north of the Sausalito city limits. The channel is 300 feet wide and
marked by buoys.56/ As Richardson Bay is quite shallow and much frequented
.by commercial ar@d recreational craft, keeping the marked channel free of
moored vessels is probably necessary to assure safe navigation for all
mariners. Most anchor-outs now in Richardson Bay are not in the
congressionally authorized channel; they are located north of it. If
navigational needs were established, the channel could be extended northerly
but this would require congressional actiona/ and also involves budgeting
-federal funds for channel maintenance and marking.

2. United States Coast Guard

-a., Establishing Anchorages

The Coast Guard establishes anchorages58/ where boats
may be safely moored. The purpose of the anchorage is to protect navigation,
however, so it, for the most part, cannot be used to preclude houseboats or
live-aboards except in those locations where harm to navigation can be shown.
The Coast Guard will, however,. annotate the anchorage regulations to indicate
any- local restrictions on mooring that may apply. Except for fair-ways used by
all vesselsin the Bay, boats may moor within general and special anchorages
without limitation-onspecIfic location or length.of stay. _General anchorages
cover most-.of the.iBay,.including the South Bay, East Bay, Honker Bay, and
Grizzly-,Bay.- ..-Richardson@Bay-,is'@:desighat@d a,special anchorage particularly
suitable-for .moorirjg@ vessIels because it is .well removed from fairways and is
located,where general navigation-will.not---ehdanger.@or-beF endangered by..-
vessels. Houseboats andili4e-aboards may moor anywhere-in a-general or
-special anchorage.

The Coast Guard may also include notes about local or
state rules affecting mooring of vessels. For Richardson Bay, the Coast Guard
'has placed a note about the City of Sausalito's mooring ordinance which
forbids mooring at Dunphy Park without written consent from the City!L8. But.
the note is only informative; the City is responsible for enforcement.

b. Certification of Boat Toilets

The Coast Guard is also responsible for certifying
acceptable marine sanitation devices.(MSDs) and for assuring that vessels with
heads (toilets) have approved devices59. The regulations do not apply to
graywater, bilge water or other wastes, only sewage., In the Bay most
live-aboards have heads60. 'The Coast Guard approves three types of MSDs:

Type I MSDs macerate and disinfect the sewage with either
chlorine or formaldehyde. The cycle usually lasts two to
three minutes. Some systems treat and discharge each
flush individually, while others treat A batch of flushes
before discharging.

-37-

Type II devices are biological-chemical systems; bacteria
aerobically digest the sewage and then the sewage passes
over chlorine tablets to disinfect it.

Type II MSDs transport the sewage to a holding tank where
it is held until it can be pumped out. Usually some sort
of biocide-deodorant is added to the holding tank to
reduce gas and odor production.

The typical cost for purchase and installation of either
Type I or II devices.is between $1,000 and $1,200. Annual operating costs
average about $40,- mostly for the chemical disinfectant. Costs for purchase
and installation of a Type II system are $250 to $400. Operating costs are
between $10 and $50 a year for pump-out fees and odor controlling chemicals.

Federal law specifically prohibits any state or local
government from adopting or enforcing their own laws regarding the design,
manufacture, or installation of MSDs. While the state and local governments
may not provide for different types of MSDs, they can prohibit discharges that
harm the Bay.
To assure compliance, the Coast Guard can board and
inspect boats and fine owners if boats do not comply. Unfortunately, the
Coast Guard budget has been diminished greatly in the last few years and the
Coast Guard has been;unable to conduct inspections except as part of other
boarding operations. No fines have ever been issued for violations of waste
-d*scharge requirements. 'Although violators-are-liable for a civil-penalty of
U an
p to $5,000 for each sale'-of. '.unapproved MSDs br.for removing or rendering
tnoperative-an MSD, nd-cases have been brought and no fines levied.- Fines of
i1p7to $2,000 per vi6lation can be levied for operating-a boat -not properly
equipped. It is unlikely that'an inspection program will be funded;
installation of MSDs is left to the goodwill and judgment of.individual boat
owners.

-38-

CHAPTERV: CONCLUSIONS AND PROPOSED FINDINGS AND POLICIES

A. Conclusions

Exceptunder-very:limited circumstances, vessels used for residential
purposes are not permittable in San Francisco Bay; they-are generally not
consistent with public trust needs for the.Bay nor are they a water-oriented
use for which fill may be allowed pursuant to the BCDC law. However, a few
additional houseboats and live-ahoards may be allowed if they are part of a
project involving a small amount of fill for improving shoreline appearance or
for providing public access; if the residential use is short-term; and if they
are located on private tidelands and submerged lands or, if on public lands,
are part of a larger trust project-to which they are incidental.

Houseboat and live-aboards and marinas associated with them have
substantial adverse.impacts.on the Bay. One of the greatest impacts is the
release of sewage and:'graywater into the Bay. This impact can be avoided
throdgh"assu'ring''that all vessels used residentially are continuously
c-onnected to,.a,@shoreline.-sewer.system-when the vesselis moored at a marina.
The res onsible' use of-la--holding,tank.-'And-pump-out'facility can also prevent
p
water pollution.;. -,however,,- -holding'- tanks- 'are .,,a, .1elss -,secure' method,-.,than direct',
connections,_to sewer .Aines,@biacause-.the occupant may empty--the.tank into the
Bay'rathpr.than use an approved:pump-out-facility.% Other adverse impacts
associated with-:houseboat and live-aboard marina construction and maintenance
ar e undesirable changes in sedimentation locations and rates,'adverse,impacts
on fish and wildlife and water quality due to dredging, and fill. -Many of
these impacts can be reduced by avoiding unsuitable sites, thorough analysis
of all relevant physical conditions, and well engineered designs for new
marina structures. Impacts on.public access, including views, are often
detrimental but design professionals can develop plans that alleviate adverse,
impacts and at some locations shoreline appearance can be improved and new or
better public access added. The most serious conflict posed by houseboats and
live-aboards is the use of tidelands and submerged lands that are needed for
other trust purposes. Little can be done to reduce this impact.

Local government and state agencies have sufficient authority to assure
that houseboats and live-aboards are located in suitable Areas, do not
significantly impact the Bay, meet current waste disposal requirements, and
meet safety and health standards., But enforcement is difficult, costly and
time-consuming..

_39-

The Commission has primary responsibility to assure that houseboats and
live-aboards and associated marina facilities meet the requirements of the
BCDC law and the public trust. Existing BCDC permit authority and enforcement
responsibility is sufficient to assure that unauthorized vessels and
structures meet state standards. The Commission can also support the Regional
Water Quality Control Board waste discharge requirements and water quality
objectives for the Bay through permit conditions recommended by the Board that
assure that waste is not deposited in the Bay.

Local governments, particularly Sausalito and Marin County which have
Jyrisdiction over the-'area where most housebosts and many live-aboards are
located, also have sufficient authority to assure that houseboats and
live-aboards are not moored inconsistently with the public trust and that
those few that are permissible meet health and safety standards. To assure
that restrictions-on residential uses in'the Bay imposed by the trust, the
BCDC law, and the requirements of the RWQCB are widely known, local
governments should enact and enforce specific houseboat and live-aboard
ordinances. Such ordinances should establish standards for appropriate
mooring locations, collection of sewage and graywater, parking, and similar
matters. The ordinances should also assure that anchor-outs, which cannot be
feasibly connected to sewer systems and which often occupy areas most needed
for public trust purposes, will be relocated to existing marinas or otherwise
removed from offshore locations.

ii Tentative- Findings

1. Houseboats and-live-aboards, -including anchor-outs,-are vessels
%sed by people for typical residential purposes, such as-cooking,* sleeping,
and washing. They include v.essels used infrequently for residential purposes.

2. Houseboats and live-aboards have been part of the Bay environment
since the 1880's., Only a few Bay Area residents occupy houseboats and
live-aboards; the vessels constitute and extremely small part of the Bay Area
housing stock. While modern houseboats and live-aboards that meet current
safety codes are fairly expensive to build and moor, there will likely be a
continuing demand particularly as housing costs on land rise.

3. Houseboats and live-aboards adversely impact the Bay, particularly
when pollutants are discharged, sedimentation patterns and rates are altered
in a manner that harms fish and wildife or water quality, dredging is frequent
or involves polluted muds, or fill is added. Houseboat marinas also compete
for sites needed for future recreational boat berths, other recreational
activities, open space,..and wildlife habitat.

4. Houseboats and live-aboards have conflited with local, state, and
federal laws due to unauthorized mooring and violations of health, water
quality, and safety standards. Tall, bulky houseboats may also adversely
impact public access, particularly views of the Bay. Impacts can be reduced
by careful siting, design, and reconstruction of marinas and by requiring
connection to utilities at existing marinas.

-4o-

5, The public.trust places severe legal restrictions on residential
*us,5 of tidelands and submerged lands subject to the trust. Residential use of
privately owned tidelands and submerged lands subject to the trust can only
take place if the residential use is not inconsistent with other trust needs,
such as wildlife habitat or recreation, and if the area can readily be made
available for recognized trust purposes should the need arise in the future.
Additional restrictions apply to state-owned lands or lands granted to local
governments by the state. In those situations, the residential use must also
be consistent with any restrictions in the state grant and be in furtherance
of a statewide public purpose.

6. Although responsibility for the,regulation of houseboats and
live-aboards is vested in different governmental agencies, thereby making
coordination difficult, sufficient regulatory authority exists to control
adequately houseboats and live-aboards moored at marinas. There is greater
uncertainty concerning the degree of control federal, state and local agencies
can exercise over anchor-outs. The.most difficult aspect of all houseboat and
live-aboard regulation, however, is the time consuming and expensive nature of
enforcement.

C. Proposed Policy

Vessels-used for residential purposes,-such as.houseboats and
live@aboards,,should not 6e.permitted,. except that a 'limited number of
additional houseb6ats_Qr,.li.ve-a.b.oards,may--be-:moored and minor additions of
berths at exis ing,.ouseboat-or-recreational boat marinas.may be permitted
oply-if the proJect:.1

Would 66 on not currently needed for-'trust
.privately held lands
.purposes, such as for.boating,.fishing, recreational marinas, wildlife
habitat, and o .pen space, or would be a.small part of a large,project on public
lands, predominately devoted to trust purposes to which the vessels would be
.incidental, and both the vessels and the larger project would serve a
statewide purpose;

2. Would not have a significant adverse affect on the Bay, such as by
interfering with valuable fish and wildlife habitat, causing a harmful amount
of, or change in, the rate or pattern of sedimentation, or degrading water
quality;

3. Would meet all waste discharge requirements established by the
Regional Water Quality Control Board and provide recommended sanitation and
wastewater facilities;

4. Would require no fill except for the vessels, a pedestrian dock on
pilings, shoreline improvement or public access, and such fill would meet the
requirements for minor fill for improving shoreline appearance or for
providing new public access;

_41-

5. Would be sited to float at all stages of the tide, to allow light
penetration to the Bay bottom, to enhance views from the shoreline, and to
provide substantial area and improvements for public access to the Bay and
shoreline;

6. Would comply with local plans, zoning, and a specific ordinance
that establishes enforceable standards for suitable mooring locations9
graywater collection, necessary utilities, building standards, periodic
monitoring and inspection, and termination of the residential use when the
lands are needed for trust purposes; and

7. Would be limited in cost and duration so that the tidelands and
submerged lands used would be released for water-oriented uses and trust needs
at such time as the Commission determined and, in no case, would the initial
or any subsequent period of authorization exceed five years.

D. Impact of the Proposed Policy

This section discusses matters required by Commission Regulations
(Section 10811) to ensure that the Bay Plan amendment process is the
"functional equivalent" of an environmental impact report. The Commission
Regulations require'that the Executive Director's report to the Commission
review and discuss: M.the effects of the proposed change; (2) the
abnsistency.of the@change with the McAteer-Petris'Act; (3)- the environmental
JApacts1of the.chEinge;-(4).alternatives:to-the proposed change; and (5) the
*nefits.and mitigation-for which the,change provides.-@

1. Effects of the Proposed Change to the Bay Plan

The major effect of the Bay Plan change would be to reduce the
potential for fill in the Bay for residential purposes-bouseboats and
iive-aboards-by limiting the locations and conditions whereupon such vessels
could be moored. While some small numbers of additional vessels could be
allowed, they could not interfere with other public trust uses including
boating, fishing, recreational marinas, wildlife habitat, open space, etc.
Environmental impacts associated with these uses, including water pollution,
increased sedimentation, and shading, would be minimized by limiting the
mooring of vessels for residences and by requiring stringent regulations at
the local government level.

The proposed change could have important short-term and long-term
effects on the small number of Bay Area residents who currently live on
boats. The short-term impacts might include increased enforcement of existing
local codes, competition for authorized berths for vessels used as residences,
increased number of boats anchored-out in the Bay, minor increased competition
for land based housing, higher costs for mooring spaces, and lessening the
value of boats that do not have an authorized mooring location. Long-term

-42-

impacts may include enhanced water quality in areas of the Bay currently
'identified as.polluted.,,decreased competition between recreational and ,
residential vessels for berthing, and decreased impacts of shading. The
limited duration authorization (e.g. five year permits) would, in the
long-term,.discourage construction of marinas for residential uses unless they
could also serve recreational boating. However, construction of sewage and
graywater facilities for houseboats would tend to encourage long-term
continuation of the houseboat and live-aboard use.

2. Consistency of the Proposed Change with the McAteer-Petris Act

The proposed change must be consistent with the McAteer-Petris Act
which allows fill for nonwater-oriented uses such as houseboats and
live-aboards only if the fill is minor and the project is for improving
shoreline appearance or adding new public access to the Bay. Fill for
water-oriented uses, such as recreational boating, may be allowed and a few
houseboats or live-aboards needed for security could be approved as a small
part of a recreational marina. In addition, any fill for residential uses
would be on privately-owned lands not-currently needed for trust purposes or
on publicly-owned lands which are predominantly used for trust purposes; would
have no upland alternative, would be the minimum necessary; would minimize
impacts on volume, surface area or circulation of water, water quality,
fertility of-marshes, 'or -fish or wildlife resources; would protect public
health,,.,sa,fety, and-welfare;. and,where feasible, establish a permanent
shoreline,.-.

3. Environmental.I@pacts

a.. Summary.,of.Possible Advers'e-ErivironmL*ntal'Impacts.,

The proposed change to the Bay Plan, limiting and restricting
houseb*oats and live-aboards, although intend ed to decrease water pollution and
avoid other.environmental effects, could, nevertheless, result in some adverse
environmental impacts. Possible adverse impacts would include those
associated with any marina-type projects: placement of.floating,
pile-supported, and solid fill in the Bay; dredging; reduction of water
quality and water circulation; conflicts with other shoreline uses; and
possible impacts on existing housing.

Placement of all types of fill can have serious adverse
impacts on the Bay system including habitat destruction, water pollution, and
air pollution.. Fill for docks, and the resulting boating activity, can
adversely affect.sensitive wildlife, such as the harbor seal. Floating and
pile-supported fill may cause enough shading to affect water temperatures and
may also increase localized sedimentation. The proposed changes would
minimize the amount.of fill allowable for facilities*

-43-

Dredging, part of every marina project, would occur because
the policies encourage marina development and maintenance. At the time of
dredging, short-term adverse effects may include release of pollutants,
creation of localized turbidity, and destruction of bottom habitat. The
revised policies would lessen these impacts by discouraging construction at
sites with high sedimentation rates and by encouraging marinas to locate at
sites requiring maintenance dredging only at long-term intervals.

Water quality at marinas can be reduced through placement of
fill, interruption of natural water movement, and increased surface runoff
entering the Bay4 Pollutants, including gas,'oil, heavy metals, sewage, and
9:reywater, can enter the Bay as a result of facility operation or accidents.

Some slight impact on the Bay Area housing market may result
as boat dwellers become land dwellers. Competition for vacant units may
increase, thus contributing to a possible increase in price. The affected
group, however, is very small and would not significantly affect the existing
situation of competition for housing, particularly rental units.

b. Alternatives to the Proposed Change

There are several alternatives to the proposed houseboat and
live-aboard policy changes: (1) continue existing policy (see page.29 of this
-moport); (2) indicate by site where future houseboats and live-aboards may be
doored; (3) limit the,size and shape of.vessels used for residential purposes;
P) allow more than-five ye ar periods of authorization; or (5) Prohibit future
houseboats and live-aboards and phase-out existing ones over time.

Continuation of the existing policy could result-in requests
tbr significant future fill in the form of marina facilities and permanently
.Aoored vessels. Large scale use of the Bay for residential purposes is
inconsistent-with public trust needs for the Bay, such as for recreational
boating, open space, wildlife habitat and water-oriented recreation.
Additional adverse environmental impacts would also result (shading, resting
on the bottom, dredging etc). Existing policy would also lead to conflicts
between the various agencies that administer the trust. Lastly the existing
policy does not clearly reflect the limitation of fill in the McAteer-Petris
Act to water-oriented uses. Thus, existing policy is to some extent
misleading to applicants and the public.

Adding map notes indicating where and how many houseboats and.
live-aboards may be moored would require a analysis of all possible Bay
#tes. Site identification did not prove helpful in indicating where
recreational marina facilities were actually built. The analysis also
requires large resources that may not be warranted. Developers usually prefer
criteria for work and uses rather than a restricted listing of suitable
sites. Listings often cause land price increases unrelated to actual market
conditions.

-44-

Size.and height standards for.houseboats and live-aboards
..could be.adopted to limit adverse impacts on public access and views.
However, the Commission has been reluctant to adopt fixed standards because
local government often has standards or preferences and broader authority.
The Design Review Board has advised the Commission that it is difficult, if
not impossible, to adopt guidelines that will assure sound design. The
shoreline around the Bay varies widely and there are a large number of
possible designs. The Board has felt that designers should be given freedom
to address particular sites and projects and that design excellence can-be
better achieved through design review.

Rather than the proposed five year limit for new houseboat and
live-aboard moorings, a longer term could be allowed. However, whatever term
is,selected must assure that the area.can be released within a reasonable time
when public trust needs for the area are identified. The five-year period
will reduce substantially the interest of marina developers unless the marina
can be designed to be easily converted to recreational boat berths.
Developers would -likely prefer periods of 20 or more years but such a long
term may not be consistent with the public trust.

-Prohibition.of houseboats and live-aboards--fill for
residential purposes-is consistent with both the McAteer-Petris Act and the
public trust but may'not'be reasonable under the existing conditions. Some
recreational marinas that.m.ay need the security that can result from
live-aboards:or.houseboats moored among recreational boats would not be able
to use live-aboards and houseboats. In some areas of the shoreline, the only
.likely way to improve'shoreline appearance and provide new or better public
access may bIe to allow houseboats and live-aboards as an enticement.
[email protected] live-aboards would,dislocate existing
residents and place minor'additional burdens on land housing however, removal
of existing houseboats and live-aboards would also increase recreational
boating opportunities and make tidelands available for other trust purposes..

0. Public Benefits and Mitigation

Under the provisions of the proposed change, the public would
benefit from increased protection of public trust uses and enhanced water
quality. More attractive public access, improvement of shoreline appearance,
and better quality recreational marinas would also likely result. Offsetting
mitigation may be required for any fill although BCDC generally does not.
require mitigation for floating fill such as piers, docks, gangways, etc.

-45-

NOTES

California -Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay
Region, Vessel Waste Discharge Survey, 1981.

21 Art Zone, Residential Survey of the Sausalito Waterfront, 1981.

California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay
Region. Vessel Waste Discharge Survey, 1981, P. 31.

4/ California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay
Region, Vessel Waste Discharge Survey, 1981, P. 31.

5/ California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Pay
Region, Vessel Waste Discharge Survey, 1981, P. 31.
6/ California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay
Region, Vessel Waste Discharge Survey, 1981, PP 3-4.
7/ BCDC Permit Nos..4-71, 5-71, 6-71, 14-73, 7-76, and 26-76.

California Rekional'Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay
Region, Vessel Wastie'Discharge Survey, 1981, Appendix A.

9/ City'of Berkeley, Status Report on Live-aboards, April, 1982.

10/ Harbors and Navigation Code, Section 775, et seq.
11/ Department of Fish and Game, Letter to BCDC dated July .14, 1983.
121 , Regional-Water Quality Co ntrol Board, Letter to BCDC dated July 14, 1983.

13/ Final Composite Environmental Statement: Maintenance Dredging, 1975,
Table 1-2, Plate 1-2.
14/ San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, Waterfront
.Housing, 1967, p. 8.

15/ San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, Staff Report
on Recreational Boating Facilities, 1982, P. 3.
16/ San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, Staff Report
on Recreational Boating Facilities, 1982, p. A-2.

1-7/ California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay
Region, Vessel Waste Discharge Survey, 1981, p. 4.
_18/ City of Berkeley, Status Report on.Live-aboards, April, 1982.

-46-

-19/ City of Berkeley, Status Report on Live-aboards, April, 1982.

20/ Letter from George Deukmejian, N. Gregory Taylor, Dennis Egan, and
Kathleen Mikkelsen to Michael B. Wilmar, dated April 28, 1982, p 56.

211 Letter from George Deukmejian, N. GregorywTaylor, Dennis Egan, and
Kathleen Mikkelsen to Michael B. Wilmar, dated April 28, 1982, p 2-3.

22/ Letter from George Deukmejian, N. Gregory Taylor, Dennis Egan, and
Kathleen Mikkelsen to Michael B. Wilmar, dated April 28, 1982, p 3.

23/ Letter from George Deukmejian, N. Gregory Taylor, Dennis Egan, and
Kathleen Mikkelsen to Michael B. Wilmar, dated April 28, 1982, p 22.

24/ Letter from George Deukmejian, N. Gregory Taylor, Dennis Egan and
Kathleen Mikkelsen to.Michael B. Wilmar, dated April 28., 1982: p 13-14

25/ Letter from George Deukmejian, N. Gregory Taylor, Dennis Egan, and
Kathleen Mikkelsen'to Michael B. Wilmar, dated April 28, 1982, p 7.
26/ Letter from George Deukmejian, N. Gregory Taylor I Dennis Egan and
Kathleen Mikkelsen to Michael B. Wilmar, dated April 28, 1982: p 61-62.

27/ California Constitution, Article XVI, Section 6.
28/ Letter from George Deukmejian, N. Gregory Taylor, Dennis Egan, and
Kathleen Mikkelsen to Michael B. Wilmar, dated April 28, 1982, p 59.

29/ Government Code, Section 66632.
-30/ California Administrative Code, Ch. 14, Section 10443.

31/ California Administrative Code, Ch. 14, Section 104h4.

3-21 San Francisco Bay Plan, pagb 31.
33/ Health and Safety Code, Section 4432.
34/ Harbors and Navigation Code, Section 660.

@L5/ Harbors and Navigation Code, Section 7152.
36/ Marin County Code, Chapter 11.22.

37/ Letter from George Deukmejian, N. Gregory Taylor, Dennis Egan, and
Kathleen Mikkelsen to Michael B. Wilmar, dated April 28, 1982, p 3.

X8 Public Resources Code, Section 6374.
.E/ William F.-Northrop, State Lands Commission, Letter to Senator Dennis E.
Carpenter, dated January 10, 1983.
40/ State Lands Commission, Meeting of October 28, 1982.

-47-

41/ Stafff Regional Water Quality Control Board.
42/ Healtb and Safety Code, Section 4431.
43/ Regional.Water Quality Control Board, Water Quality Control Plan, San
Francisco Bay Basin Abstract, 1974, page 55.

44/ 33 USC, Section 1322.
45/ Water Code, Section 13900, et seq.*
46/ Harbors and Navigation' Code, Section 2831.
47/ California Administrative Code, Title 23, Section 2834.1
48/ 33 USC, Section 403 (referred to also as Section 10 of the Rivers and
Harbors Appropriation Act of 1899).

49 33 CFR, Section 322m 2(b)@
-50/ U. S. v Boyden', Docket No. 81-4553 U. S. Court of Appeals,'Ninth
Circuit, Decided January 10, 1983.

51/ Procedure Memo No. 12, April 14, 1977.
92/ 33 CFR, Section 320.4.
53/ 33 USC,-Section 1344.
54/ 33 USC, Section 409.

-55/ 33 CFE, Section 209.190.

-56/ CN 7-80.

57/ 33 CFR,'8ection 209.190.
58/ 33 USC, Section 471.
59/ 33 CFR, Section 110.126(a).
60/ 33 USC, Section 1322.
61/ California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay
Basin, Vessel Waste Disebarge Survey, 1981, p. 20.

48-

i
.P

. t

@ -:@
3 666814108,7926 1 1