community feedback came, which spoke to the historic fleet that exists. they saidit said please remembe. we have been here a long time, 50 plus years, do not forget about us. it was mentioned about the berthing reassignment policy. voters again specifically said as sign boats to the correct size, instead of being too short or too long. and if they come back and want a larger size, please allow them to do so. it was mentioned that the community was also very clear, and there were a number of comments that came back this at the harbor association did a lot of work together for the proposed rules and regulations. please pay attention to those. the last thing i wanted to mention was come in the beginning of the process, the community was by and large saying much of the same thing

from the beginning about what it is there were looking to have happened. as the time went on, it became clear that as additional meetings have been wood stick other communities following the two community meetings, additional stakeholder meetings took place. it became clear that they're different competing in conflicting interests by different communities. with that, you have a report to read, but that is the feedback that i wanted to share with you. apologies this afternoon. ana? >> thank you, mark. responding to the stakeholders with conflicting interests, it requires a sense of balance with five critical policies which are the intended outcomes as previously discussed. the pair amid charred on the right illustrates once again the

overlapping relationship as part of the public policies formulation process. such a balancing act requires a careful and thoughtful endeavor that we've sighing considerations of fairness, the public trust, and applications for the department as the governmental agency, responsible for the marina is too rigid and management. the department has engaged in a dynamic invalid process that inc. stakeholder's feedback consistently has it occurred in up to the last minute. most important, significant concessions have been incorporated, which we will be reviewing in a minute. both the consultant's report, the ones from transaction alternatives community feedback process, as well as the marine resources assessment report point to three key and substantive issues.

i will say the ability or inability to sublease an asset and collect financial gain with such a transaction. the ability or inability to transfer a public asset for a berth coming gold as an extension of private property or a boat. the relationship that allows the private and exclusive use of the public and scarce asset is referred here as the birthing license. really understand the interrelationships among studies key issues in the corresponding impacts, the prime relied on five key resources as part of the policy formulation process. close examination of the california land commissions legislation on the trust in associated caseload was conducted. guidance to local governments by dpw pertaining to public access to water was was also examined. specifically in 2007, dpw

commission report, and related documentation was reviewed pertaining to transfers and subleasing policies and the impacts of broad public access. recent grain jerry reports from municipally operated marina recent reports from ines liberated marina were issued that restrict public access to public marina amenities. the san francisco controllers audit report finding also identified shares first of leases, which i will review in a minute. in a recent survey conducted in 2012 of the originally public don't marinas and the corresponding policies on these key issues were relied upon. double coldiron -- these were relied upon to the key findings of a to-the san francisco controller's report are, one,

the current rules and regulations are unenforceable. they truly undermine the management of the marina. two, the marina rules and regulations should be changed so the marina handles all sublets. the marina should realize there is no revenue by collecting directly from the subtenants the full grendell amount and from the tenant, some fraction of the full grendell amount. looking at the original survey on the issue of subleasing, as you can see, it included a sample of 15 publicly owned marinas and found that 88% of them do not allow subleasing. specifically, there are two of marinas that allowed subleasing. most recently, one of those marinas will be discontinuing a subleasing in the near future. in san francisco arena where subleasing is currently allowed

and as noted in the audit report, the current rules are not enforceable. these rules result in unauthorized sublets that exceed the maximum allowed at direction of six months, thereby committing boners to birth improperly and indefinitely -- of boulders and -- boaters to berth improperly. this is inappropriate in light of the public trust doctrine. most importantly, they're no controls in place to restrict the subleasing transactions with multiple partings during the same time span which undermines the affected management of the marina. in addition, the unauthorized subletting creeds the opportunity for birth calder's to exact private profit from the subleasing as a public asset. in excess of the fee paid.

this value may be inappropriate in light of california's constitution prohibition for the public funds and assets as set forth an article 16, section 6 of the state's constitution. furthermore, grand juries and the california department of boating and waterways express significant concern about the lack of equity and transparency in such subleasing transactions by private individuals involving public assets. for all these reasons and the current unmanageable stated the marina, the first draft of the policy recommendations that we posted on the website as early as january included a no subleasing policy. the key findings on berth transfers that i would like to highlight include the following. the transfer policy is an issue

and it is an issue of fairness, and must in partly an issue of an adverse impact to the general public waiting to have access to the marina for is. a critical finding was that berth-holders are paying berth fees to store boats that are seldom are never used or neglected and abandoned the this willingness to pay a berth fee for these kinds of boats could be related to the transfer policy which may create an incentive for berth-holders to treat the public berth as a private access they can appreciate. the presence of boats that are seldom or never used, even if they do not appear to be neglected, unfairly prevents active voters on the wait list from being assigned to berth their boats and occupied the berth. looking at the original survey

on the issue of berth transfers. as you can see, it included a sample size of 16 publicly and marinas and found that 88% do not allow transferring of a public berth. there to the municipality- operate marinas that allow the transfer of the public berth. berkeley and santa barbara. however, the city of santa barbara has straight transfer limitations as a disincentive. to better understand, and i will tell you to truly better understand this transfer policy, one has to look a corresponding policies and waitlists as they relate to the demand of the public berths. in the survey that we conducted from 88% of the publicly and marinas are not allowed -- to not allow the transfer berth of the transfer for private vessel. 88% of the publicly owned

marinas have weightless. when there is a greater demand of the public to access a berth and there are not enough available, waiting list policies are put into place to provide a rational and orderly manner for the assignment of the berth. when there are more berths available than there is a demand, as an incentive to keep the vessels in the marina are allowed. in santa barbara, strict transfer limitations were created as a migration or transition to the best management practices of not allowing transfers. most importantly, this city suspended its waiting list. it seized all collections of wait list fees. the majority of the turnover in san francisco's marina's is attributed it to transfer transactions.

in the last five years, 90% of the transfers are from the sales of private vessels between affiliated parties. often the purchasing party replaces the need -- a newly purchased vessel and record at the marina with a new vessel shortly after executing the transfer of the berth agreement. in fact, less than 30 days. it should be noted that, clearly, the current berth transfer policy benefits unaffiliated parties. in fact, after careful review the record, in the entire 2011 calendar year, there was a one transfer made between immediate family members. it was from a parent to offspring. as noted in the 2010 trollers audit report, the existing berth transfer policy contributes to significant, long waits by the general public, which undermines the broad public assets -- access.

the wait list constitutes -- continues to grow with 223 people waiting in line to have access to a public recreational amenities. the average most senior applicant weights 24 years. this way is inappropriate in light of the public trust doctored as set force in the trust legislation. because there is great demand for berth, the value is associated with the transfer of the birthing agreement. the transfer includes the use of electrical, water, and other city services. as such, this mlb may also be inappropriate in light of the california's constitution prohibition. as set forth in article 16, section 6. even more so than subleasing, we

have found that grand juries and the california department of waterways have expressed outrage about the undermining of public access, the lack of liquidity and transparency in such transactions by private individuals involving public assets. as such, the first draft of the proposed rules and regulations from the department back in january included a new trends for policy. moving on to the berthing license. some berth holders claim the current agreement with rules and regulations, plus the payment of and interest tax, creates an assured rights to a public asset, which they do not. this is a misconception. marina berths are public assets and considered a public amenities, such as public parks, playgrounds, and other assets

found in our parks. the assessment of a professor sorry interest tax on the use or occupancy of a berth on public property does not infer property rights. berth holders of property rights, absolutely. in the property rights to the boats, which can be sold, least, subleased, and the title of such may be transferred to a party of their own choosing. the marina berths are not private property. berths are public property and will continue to be public property. the proposed marina release includes a section of berthing assignments that calls for a license. it is according to the california tidelands just association. it addresses issues that divide in the various grand jury reports and follows

recommendations set forth by the two thousand controllers audit report. at this time, i would like to refer you to your commission binder in your agenda packet, which includes a user-friendly guide. a user-friendly guide to ever proposed rule on the chart form. it is referenced in the attachment c. and has intended outcomes. it has revised rules would stakeholder feedback and other objectives such as protecting the risk exposure. it extends an additional information in considerations taken into account for the proposed revisions, such as increasing brought public access. i would like to walk you through

the matrix. on the left-hand side, the proposed rules and regulations. across the page you will find the intended outcomes. first and foremost, protecting the city's risk of exposure and liability. improving public access. stakeholder feedback, which is u+w:ç]çhf. and industry standards as well as alignment with best management practices of public marinas. on the far right column under notes, you'll find that, first and foremost, i have added at the beginning the stakeholder feedback. it tells exactly what the stakeholders were asking for and how we accommodated that request. you also find references to the former rules and were the changes are primarily done. at this time, i would like to

ask you to pay close attention to section number 7, which is the berthing assignment. i would like to point out that we have incorporated, at the request of the stakeholders request, specific language that addresses partnerships and corporations. we have also added specific language pertaining to license renewals and cancellations. most importantly, we have made specific transfer limitations that speak to spouses and domestic partners. in the question that arises constantly is, why not my grandchild and why not mind if you? the reason why we're doing spouses and domestic partners is we're responding to california's property law. where we share the personal liabilities. throughout the chart, you'll find the x or the marks that

course on where we met the intended outcomes. for the most part, you'll find were the great majority of the stakeholder input was incorporated and how we were able to meet the other critically as a important factors. i would also like to point out that in the berthing policy we made concessions, particularly with allowing transfers between spouses and domestic partners with the $50 administrative fee. so that is a good concession we were able to accommodate. on page number two of the matrix, i would like you to pay close attention to item number 3i, which is -- threeii a very specific one-time transition from the 1991 rules.

again, a very significant concession to the stakeholders at this stakeholders request. we have created a transfer fee that changed the last operations committee meeting from $365 to $200 for the smaller berths. and then reduced to $325. this particular one-time opportunity also recuperates or is intended to read "-- recovery the perceived loss of value of the private vessel. most importantly, the intent for this specific fee is to create an economic disincentive in order to be able to allow and enhance brought public access. next i would like you to look at page number 3.

specifically, i would like to draw your attention on item number 13, which is a brand new section of the rules and regulations. overall, there were five new rules and regulations in the entire document, and only one rule was eliminated. section number 13 is a new rule. it calls for general rules and obligations for the honor. most specifically in critical importance is the provision that insurance they -- ensures a clean and green marina, which corresponds with san francisco environmental ethics and the department's commitment to keep grain operations for our land and assets. page number four.

you will find that there is not a lot of opportunity for stakeholder feedback incorporation, because this as primarily rules needed for the regular operation of the marina and they were already in place. basically looking at the language. in doing so, we were able to meet the intended targets. specifically, there is a lot of language that was plain to allow us to properly enforce the seaworthiness of vessels, which is critical to maintain an active and thriving marina. finally, the last provision is section number 30, which is a violation of the rules and regulations. this is a very critical piece to the rules and regulations. we've met all of the intendant of comes, all of the intended targets. it included stakeholder feedback, because this is where

we made specific reference and inc. language to an appeal process. it also makes for a specific reference that allows for the enforcement of the rules and regulations to create thriving marina, which was critical. it was asked for by the voting -- boating community. the proposed provisions include a significant number of stakeholder interests. if you wanted to count them, there are 20 concessions that were made overall from when we first started in january. that includes, as i mentioned, a fee reduction of 75% for the temporary suspension of the berthing license. 60 days or longer, which is a concession from their original position of the department of no

subleasing. also provides for several transfer limitations, which i quickly referenced, which is a concession from the department's s original decision of say no transfer policy. the proposed rules and regulations also provide for a one-time transition period for current berth holders with the new rules. lastly, the proposed rules before provisions for additional revenue generation to support operations, maintenance, dredging, and amenities which is critical to the marina. i am still amazed at how little resources we have to operate such a critical operation. with the proposed operational policies, i am is certain that the commission will truly create a new marina operation that correctly reflects the marina as a premier destination in today's

world stage and that currently repositions the marina to correspondenc with current dema. the most coveted area in the region with the highest demand in the san francisco bay area. to conclude the department respectfully requests that you approve the proposed renovation berthing assignment policy for the west basin. if -- and approved the rules and regulations of the small craft harbour as amended by the operations committee at the april 5 meeting public hearing. to replace all existing marina rules, regulations, and policies. and i will be happy to answer any questions you may have. we also have a director of operations and the general manager. our chief financial officer and our director of policy and public affairs. they have been part of this

critical team to be able to meet this amazing project. thank you. commissioner fong: thank you very much -- commissioner buell: thank you very much. let's entertain public comment before we go any further. >> ok. >> hello. i was not expecting to come here this morning, but i was at the south harbor talking about something else. then i had a question. then everyone started to jump in trying to answer the question. but they cannot. the master got involved. then i decided to come here. i had to cancel a job this morning. i cannot even believe i was going to waste my time to come to a meeting. to give my opinion. but here i am. so there is a lot of problems out there. when i hear what happened today, this talk, i wonder what world we live in. the harbor association -- i quit

in 2000, quit. because they were such strong proponents of working with the city to get this marina rebuilds. in fact, in 2003 or 2004, there were talking about the management and changing the charter to the government because of the poor management of the marina. the harbor association, which cares so much about it, was going to get involved potentially to be an overseer of some sort. so these are the strongest people who are supporting the rebuild of the marina. they care the most about it. they're the stakeholders. they care more than anyone about everything that goes on in that marina. now they're at a point that they're going to hire a lawyer and sued the city over what is going on here. it is embarrassing. it really is embarrassing that an organization that is so committed to helping the marina

is now fighting the people that they work very supporting. i think the commission needs to put a stop to this, to tell the parks department to work with the association and to get a resolution. these numbers they throw out -- i do not even know they mean anything to you. unless you are a boater that is so intent. [bell rings] i would love to know why the communist government of berkeley allows such capitalist behavior over there -- commissioner buell: thank you. >> i mean, there must be a reason. >> next. >> good afternoon. i am a boat owner in the marina. i have had it there for 20 years. it is classic. it was not counted in one of the nar boats, but it has been racing in the city for approximately five years. i am more of a curator than an

owner. i am concerned about the considerations. i ask you to consider further work be done on these and not approve them as currently proposed. in my view, it is bold attempt of the park in rec staff to revoke the existing rental agreements with the berth holders. i think the representative from the city attorney's office could help figure of the difference between the two. it is a lease a right to enter facility or is it having a set of property rights with it? under the statute referred to in the presentation, there is language in there that does appoint the city as a custodian or the trustee and allows leases to be put in place, and names the been the fisheries -- the beneficiaries of that. one of the concerns i have with records of how these have been rushed through and put into process, i would like to highlight a section of the

proposed regulations on page 8 under the section that allows a transition. there is language that refers to qualified transferees. [bell rings] it defines qualified people as those for holding a berth license. we do not even have a draft of that licence. we have asked for that. we have requested it be part of that package. under this, if you adopt these, you will inadvertently engaged in the body's ability to have any transfer under that, because the like -- to -- inadvertently negate any visibility to have a transfer under that. [bell rings] >> allen, john, then grace perio. >> i have been