nation. and you are enacting them at a time in what -- most marinas in the united states are at i know you think you have a special situation in san francisco with the america's cup coming and i know park and iraq would like to extract all the moneys they can -- parks and recreation would like to extract all the moneys they cannot of this. but when all is done, you will be left as the city as guarantors if you cannot fill that the marina and these rules are guaranteed to cost you occupancy. i think you need to look long and hard decisions you're making. none of these people on boats. they don't understand the purpose of this harbor other than the general population needs to use it. the general population's are not

allowed on the docks. now or under the new rules. i respectfully ask you to vote against this. thank you. >> good afternoon. i have been in the san francisco arena for 10 years as a boat owner. i am offering one recommendation for your consideration and that is that this date of the new rules take effect after the completion of the harbour improvements, that they would take effective january 2013, and i believe the effective date of january 2013 will be to the advantage of both the city and the community of both donors and that it reflects and will reflect the financial stability

of the san francisco marina harper. that is all i have to say and i believe it reflects what was previously said very well. thank you. >> is there any other public comment on this item? >> the first thing is, i believe we should be have -- people to have friends or family use our boats with permission from the harbour office. this would retain our right to have our property access and use by our friends and family. the next point is regarding the boat transfer. i understand the point on the transfer of the birth. many of the current birth holders, including myself and my husband paid a significant premium for a boat that was

replaced within one month of the harbour office signing off on that. this was done with the knowledge and formal sign off of park and recreation employees. whether this is right or wrong, we need to incorporate a transition from the old rules and actions to the new. to mitigate the loss on behalf of the current boat owners, i believe all owners should have a grandfathered right to sell their boat and transfer their slips. even though it would be a reduction in the former value of our boat, i would support the requirement that the sale of a boat on a slip, the boat would not be able to change out for one year. that would eliminate people selling the location and truly

tight to selling the boat. employers are responsible for the actions of their employees, so i feel you will want to address this. please realize it is rare for san francisco birth holders to sell and so much of the transactions would be small. with the requirement it could not be changed for a year -- thank you for your time and attention. >> is there any other public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioners? >> i have a random assortment of thoughts and ideas here. to the issue raised about delaying and putting this off and why act now, i am personally comfortable with what we have before us that is based on best practices.

that's not what everybody agrees on. they can be brought back to this commission worked on. it is with that idea in mind that i can agree to these rules and move forward. to the people is a transfer fees are exorbitant, this speaks to what the fundamental threshold is and that is whether people believe they are entitled to enjoy the value of the slip along with the value of their boat. the to in my mind are completely separate. you own the boat, you do not on the slip. that is the elephant in the room here. with that in mind, if you feel the transfer fees are

exorbitant, sell your boat elsewhere. the exorbitant fee only applies if you insist on selling your boat with the slip. to the gentleman who said his boat is only worth $4,000 and he would have to pay $5,000 in transfer fees, he would not see sold his boat elsewhere. the to have to be considered separately. you on the boat. you do not own the slip. to your point about insurance -- i work for a company that requires everybody to provide proof of insurance every year. i do not see anything unusual or are shot having to do that here. with that in mind, i think this commission and department has made several concessions. we reduced the extended the crews for temporary suspension from 90 days to 60 days. we reduced the transfer fees down to 200 and $325 and i want

to make sure you are clear because based on all of the letters we received, a lot of people of a misunderstanding about this. there can be three partners on the slip you can transfer the slip to. if you want to do that for your daughter, you can do that. to transfer from you to your daughter is $50, not the transfer fee. that was a formidable concession by this commission. i would say we approve everything as presented. >> we're not motioning yet. i do not see any other commissioners comments, but i want to make a proposed modification, fellow commissioners. this was in response to the linear foot reference and whether it was fair or not. right now, our modification went

to $200 for a slip and 325 for a larger slip. i would like to propose an amendment at 35 ft. or below would be $145. a 50 foot births and above would be $325 a foot. it goes in the direction of trying to make those distinguishing factors. i want to ask the city attorney without yet having a licence policy that this is going to be forthcoming, is there anything that prohibits us from passing these rules today? >> the drafting of the license would follow the adoption of these rules and procedures and that would be an administrative thing for staff to do and to draft it in conjunction with

these rules. >> i have heard the check cashing is used, looking into why 3060, 90 days, people experience their checks not being cashed that i don't expect there is a problem as much as an answer to it and we ought to figure out what it is and why. i agree that any year, with like to bring back these rules after meeting with the harbor association and find out if there is tweaking necessary. i don't think anyone has the intention to make life as impossible as you think we're making it for you. i am curious about how many boat shows we have had and how many people have had to move their boats because of it. it is a moot point. i was curious as to how many boat shows they have. we have solved the issue on the transfer to kids. i would like to read something

from lat 38 from the march 2012 issue. which imparts says -- i do not know the author and it's all long article. but it seems to us there are three negative aspects of the slip goes with the boat policy. first, we sometimes huge fee for just the right to the slip all but prices out even middle- income people from being able to on a boat. it's hard to argue its in the public interest for private individuals to reap financial windfalls based on the increased value of public property. such a policy encourages birth holders to hold on to their birth even if they don't use their boats, particularly in public arenas where rates are below market value. i think that cuts to the heart of the issue that the comptroller and the city audit point out 10 years ago.

they instructed his department to work toward correcting that. this is not a new issue. has been around a long time. we don't look to pick fights with people. this is not an easy thing. it's a tough issue, but it is a public marina and there has to be a public trust we are acting for all the city, not just the birth holders. i recognize the people who bought their boats and have them there now bought with the understanding they do have the right to that person to sell it. we always thought that created a real challenge so we try to mitigate that to the degree possible, but it is not possible to solve the problem completely. i mention that because i don't want people to go away thinking we haven't. i've read every e-mail we receive and i know you generate a lot of them.

i have met with mr. monroe about this at least once and asked the staff to be responsive and asked the staff to be responsive. i do not want to be treated lightly. i think we are headed in the right direction and would like to see if we can improve upon it. we are making an honest effort to follow the public trust. do we have a motion? >> the motion would be with the amended price structure for the price structure. going ask if you agree proposed language on that. >> this would be amending 7h3iig, and that's for the fee of the one time transfer, replacing that and creating a three tier structure so 35 feet and below, $150.

40 and 45 ft births, $200.50 feet and above, $325. >> with that amendment, i have a motion. >> moved and seconded. all those in favor of? it is unanimous. thank you very much. we are going to take a two minute recess.

>> we are now on item 13, an appeal to allow nor callisthenics to receive allocations during weeknights. i want to explain to you the process today.

then we will move forward. nor cal athletics will be a 12 minute presentation. we ask you don't ask any questions until the end of the presentation, but if you have questions, please ask after that. staff will make a 12 minute presentation. we ask you don't ask questions during the presentation. they will come back and then have three minutes to rebut and you may ask questions and staff will have another three minutes and you may ask questions. once that is done, we will open it to public comment. once public comment is closed, the commission will start deliberations and you can ask further questions at that time. with that, we are going to move

forward. if you are ready to make the presentation. >> power point please. >> good afternoon. i represent the north cal athletics. nor kalikow sonics was founded in late 2004 and it is our mission to offer competitive sports programs to people of all walks of life in san francisco in the bay area regardless of their race, gender and skill. we support charities and nonprofit entities like street soccer and america scores. the buddhist church of san

francisco, just to name a few. a little bit about the history -- we started offering sports programs by using facilities in 2004. i went to school there and had a close relationship to the athletics department and we expanded the program to the general public over the years. over the past 12 years, we have had a good relationship with recreation and park and generated fees without incident. i was involved in another nonprofit organization and they are still in business as well. last year alone, we reserved field slots at $68 a slot.

we are here today because we are not able to mediate a solution with staff outside of this forum. we are here to admit our mistakes and wrongdoing that some of our players, coaches, referees, we asked them to get permits at a lower rate at $36 which we are required to do as a leak. we experience a greater demand because and other entity when data business because of the america's cup. these permits we have to serve three or four months out. we asked for more field space and that was granted to us. it was granted to us in march and we had to bridge the month of february and we needed to

give more field space. i am sorry to say we used walked up permits because they are easy to get and you can buy them from one day to another. we are currently being accused of violations during the month of february. i wanted to touch on another issue in the staff memo and that is the issue to squeeze more games into the timeslot allowed it to us. what happened there is we listed the game starting time 15 minutes earlier before the actual permit time. the reason why we did this is it was the start of a new season and players have to fill out liability waivers and do a bunch of paper work.

we wanted there to get 15 minutes early so we could start the game some time. we had a three hour time slot and scheduled for games. we did that because it was better than having to get too many buys every week. everybody got a shorter game. our games are 40 minutes and 440 minute games fit comfortably into a three hour time slot. our turn punishment bars us from obtaining permits for one year. it also requires us to transfer a 90% cut our clients. we agree it is it necessary to

send a strong message for our violations and there are severe violations. we admit to that. but we feel there should be another way without putting nor cal athletics out of business and jeopardize our years of work with the city and charitable organizations. i have spent the last 12 years of my life building this organization and i will do everything i can to make sure these mistakes don't happen again in the future. we feel singled out by this decision and feel the punishment is an unusually harsh. we could not find a precedent for this type of punishment. 2000 athletes will use their -- will lose their ability to play on feels starting june 15.

contractors will lose their jobs and livelihood. recreation and park will lose up to $12,000 of revenue each month which we are currently generating in permit fees. additionally, we will be able to support our nonprofit partners any more. our goal here today is to find a punishment for our mistakes that allows us to stay in business and keep serving the community and the nonprofit entities we support. that does not affect our players to play soccer in public parks. we want to put some solutions ford -- typically in probation for a year. we will pay a fine for the violations.

we will also develop a procurement process that complies with all rules and regulations. at the start of every season, we want to make sure our games cattle we shared it apart from a staff and make sure all games are covered by permits. we also want to revise our record retention practices so all relevant records are kept in an -- kept and easily accessible to park department staffs. we also want to change our board of directors. we want to set up a soccer program for underprivileged children and use it free of charge. how to hand over the presentation. >> thank you.

i've played soccer in nor colleagues for years and i think they provide good service. mayor to support the one that perspective. i'm also an attorney representing north tel throughout this process. when i first got involved, i hope we could sit down with department staff and find a fair solution that would make amends for past mistakes and set in place new safeguards to make sure mistakes would not happen in the future. the staff declined our offer to meet with them and their subsequent exchanges, nor cal offered to take numerous steps like paying a fine, revamping the permit process, replacing the board of directors and other things. but no agreement could be reached, which is why we're here today appealing to the commission. i would like to make a few comments that will highlight instances in the staff memo

directed to the commission and dated april 10 that make statements that i think are misleading. i have known paul for four years and i think he is a decent guy. he treats all the teams fairly and all the individuals that play on the teams with respect. he has made mistakes and has owned up to them. the first place i would like to direct your attention is to the staff memo at the bottom of page 3 and adding subsequent development. is the last full paragraph. it reads it nor cow has not taken the action we requested in our letters including reimbursing permit fees and notifying the teams we're fully committed to insuring they would continue to have access. the first point is that paul has always acknowledge the need to pay a difference in permit price and a penalty for each violation. he has simply been waiting for the end of this process as it