please consider the feedback and make that change. thank you. commissioner buell: thank you. >> hello. i want to address a few issues. the paper work issue is very significant. not only should the license rollover automatically without the person proactive with having to come into your office three days before, your insurance should roll over automatically. your car insurance rolls over. nothing changes from year to year. neither does my boat insurance. do i have to go into the office and present an insurance policy every single year 30 days in advance? 671 insurance policies every year on which he has to opine whether there significant or appropriate? he should get them once. say, ok, your policy is appropriate, and that is it. until you change recover and

spirit the same with the license. you get it once and it rolls over. 1000 -- 1342 documents that that little of this with two or three people has to figure out and prices every year, which they clearly cannot do. that was my earlier presentation on myhr side. i handed out to you to be a suggestion on changing the slip fees. nothing will work the way rec and park is proposing. if you have a $200 transfer fee for a 30-foot boat and $25 for everybody else, nobody will transfer it onto the box. every buddy with everything in the back room the way they're doing it now. you do not think they can? they can. let's go with a fair policy on the graduated structure i handed out. then people will say this is fair. i will go in and will sell my boat to somebody. we will write a check to rec

and park based on something that makes sense for the size of the slip. the harbor trust its revenue. harbor master its proper documentation of the transfer. and everybody thinks we're working together. i recommend you switch this. thank you. >> next. >> good afternoon. my name is dean. i just retired from the fire department in san francisco. i love the marina. you probably see me come in sideways around there. i have had three different berths at the san francisco marina. it has been anything but a world-class marina. it has just been, you know, really something to put up with. we put up with really port facilities forever. we have had to use public bathrooms, non secure parking. we have waited all these years

for this final phase lived that we're getting now, and we have paid increased rents all these years. at a $5,000 a year keep my boat there. the simple form, and i bought a different boat that i sailed for a while. we transferred my slip. it was to the harbor master, i am writing this letter to inform you that i sold my interest in my boat and wish to transfer berth 315 to him right now. he agrees to accept responsibility for fees and requirements from now on. please address the new rent bills to dean. i am grateful for all that you and your staff have done for me over the years in helping fellow firefighter dean in this matter is truly appreciated. [bell rings] this is a simple bill.

we have done that. it is a vested interest. when you buy a a boat -- sure, you buy a boat. i have a 40-foot berth and it it is very valuable to the then you give that to be sea scouts. everybody wins. the city does. the sea scouts win. the new harbor master said we even let firefighters in here. [bell rings] there are a lot of us in here. we love it. commissioner buell: thank you. >> these are good city people. >> betty. >> get afternoon, commissioners. i am basically part advocate because normally park support traditional family values, seniors and the disabled, and all walks of life. the diversity which is san francisco. i think this should exist in the

small craft harbour. but now i find myself about to lose my slip and berth because i fall into a tiny percentage, a minority of being a senior and also not the married. i do not have a spouse to transfer anything to. i am older and i want to share a title with my daughter, who is better able to maintain our boat at this point. i simply ask that you consider a one-time transfer of the title allowed to a biological child. commissioner buell: i think it is in the rules. you can have up to three partners. >> i do not think so. it is not my understanding that is possible. if it is, wonderful. i kind of feel like i am being discriminated or punished against not having a spouse and being older. i do not want to sell my boat and slip that profit.

i see it as a privilege having a berth, not an investment. i do not mind paying two taxes. i do not even mind the berth fee. i appreciate the sense of space. i do not want to lose the legacy i fought so hard for for my family and 11 respect and half for the bay. please allow this one-time transfer, $50, to allow us to have supported you to have you support us. this is inclusive rather than exclusive. please consider this. i very much appreciate your time and the professionalism exhibited. thank you. commissioner buell: thank you. >> next. neweton here -- newton here? >> finally.

good afternoon, commissioners. you know, you are in a unique position, not just as commissioners for park and recreation but trustees. trustees that have a fiduciary responsibility towards primary beneficiaries of this harbor. although mr. ginsberg and staff would lead you to believe this is totally public access to property, it is totally paid for by the tenants associations. what troubles me the most is these new landmark rules are probably the toughest of any rules of any marina in the 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.