Port of Redwood City to consider residential use

But the commission’s answer, should it decide to review approving residential use at a future meeting, could come too late for Docktown residents, who are required to vacate the marina where they live by early 2018 as part of a relocation plan the City Council approved in December.

For Docktown resident James Jonas, who has lived there for more than 14 years, the timing of the various elements of the city’s relocation plan has put pressure on residents, many of whom have appraisals from the company the city hired to assess their vessels in hand and have just weeks to decide whether they will accept the offers the city is making to buy their homes. He said many had held out hope about the possibility of moving just a mile east of their current homes but have not heard much about that option’s feasibility since December.

“Literally people are potentially being forced to give up their homes and walk away before this is resolved,” he said.

Finding space for Docktown residents at the port was one of relocation strategies included in the plan to end residential use at the marina, created in response to a lawsuit settled last year with an attorney and Docktown neighbor that found the floating community to be a violation of the public trust.

Giari said that while the port does not currently allow residential uses, two docks in its recreational marina are near restroom, shower and laundry facilities that could be used by longer term residents. He said allowing vessels which also serve as primary residences, or liveaboards, could increase security at the port as well as the port’s revenue with additional fees should residential use be allowed at the port. Though residential uses had been considered by the commission previously, Giari said the availability of residential use at nearby marinas years ago had made the matter seem less urgent until now, when fewer Bay Area marinas have decided to allow residential use. He said the port would be limited to offering 10 percent of its 190 marina berths as liveaboards for a total of 19.

“We didn’t think there was a need, and we didn’t think the benefits to the port would be significant enough to change the rules [back then], so we’re relooking at that,” he said.

Lee Callister, a Docktown resident and landlord since 2008, has been disappointed with the appraisal process used to evaluate his properties so far, and said he has warned port officials against adopting a narrow definition of a liveaboard vessel that he worries could exclude floating houses.

“I think they need to show some flexibility in terms of what they’re willing to accept over there,” he said.

Callister is also hoping residents will have a good sense of whether the port commission will allow residential uses as soon as possible so they can plan accordingly. He said those who have received appraisals for their property have a limited time to accept them and remain eligible for relocation incentives available to residents who agree to move earlier in the year.

Should the commission, which meets twice a month, decide to move forward with the discussion and adopt the changes, the port would then have to apply for a permit with the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission to allow liveaboard boats there, a process Giari said could take up to 90 days.

For Jonas, the opportunity to relocate their homes much closer to home at a location like the port not only gives Docktown residents a better shot at maintaining the fair value of their homes, it could also save the city from taking on a serious financial liability in purchasing floating homes from Docktown residents. When the city approved the December relocation plan, the estimated cost of acquiring the floating homes and providing relocation assistance was just under $9 million, with at least $1.6 million spent in addition on consultants assisting with the relocation plan, according to a staff report.

“The question is, do we have to go so fast and as a result of this pressure we may have a situation in which people lose their housing? … And at the same time, the city takes on a huge financial liability,” he said. “What you [could] have is people upset on both sides of the equation.”

The commission meets 8 a.m. Wednesday, July 26, at the Port of Redwood City, 675 Seaport Blvd.

anna@smdailyjournal.com

(650) 344-5200 ext. 102