doing, and i seriously question why this item is being heard here. most political savvy people know that there are at least two other city committees that should be hearing this, rather than this committee. so i would like a discussion in front of everybody, especially on tv, about why it's being heard here, and not in those other two committees. but i have to be grateful that we are having this hearing this afternoon because the old audit and oversight committee kept having postponements so i have to congratulate the new audit and oversight committee for having this hearing. also, i would like a discussion whether food trucks are a alternative to having this restaurant, since other neighborhoods like the west portal oppose food trucks. so i'd like a discussion in front of everybody about the issue of food trucks.

let's put it this way. some of the speakers here wonder why this has become a controversial issue. goes. that's enough said. thank you. >> supervisor farrell: thank you very much. is there anyone else that would like to speak in public comment? all right. seeing none, public comment is closed. president chiu. >> supervisor chiu: thank you, first of all i want to thank the members of the public who have come to express their perspective on this on all sides and from many historical perspectives. typically for a project like this i would tend to defer to the district supervisor, given that our district supervisors nanders the neighborhood issues and tha that is my inlineation today. i have a couple of questions to the department that were raised by public commenters as well as

from the marina community association. many members who have come out today. could you talk about what specific outreach was conducted and what type of notice to. thank you, supervisor. cassandra costello with park and rec department. so we had an exhaustive community outreach process. we outreached every single community group, merchant group, neighboring organizations in the area. we also worked with supervisor ferrell's office on our outreach plan to ensure that we were contacting all of the community groups and all of the merchants groups. we also posted the information on the site for all of the public hearings. there was at least one, oftentimes two postings on site for those that use the area, walk their dogs, walk by on a daily basis. and as earlier noted there were

also numerous articles in the newspaper, such as the marina times, the chronicle, the examiner. there was plenty of opportunity for folks to understand this project was happening. in addition, we have been working, as was noted earlier, with the marina community association, through various meetings with them, for over two years. and every single one of our hearings at the rec and park commission which we had hearings around the release for request for proposals, the selection of woodhouse, and two hearings on the lease negotiation -- pardon me the negotiated lease agreement, all of those were publicly noticed throughout all of the city's mandated public notice requirements on our website. we also, our commission secretary sends out an agenda via e-mail or mail that has requested that agendas be sent to them on a weekly or monthly basis. we've exhaustive outreach. i'm happy to read the

organizations, if that's like me to do as well. >> supervisor chiu: that's part of the record that's appropriate. the second question i had was rementd to an issue that was h#rom the marina community association, and i think addresses some of the concerns that have been raised. one thing that they propose in their letter is that our committee include language in the lease that adopts a trial period, wherex=((bmk specific mechanisms are put in place to make sure that woodhouse is operating as a good neighbor which include addressing noise complaints, hours of operation, and making sure those are followed, impact of restaurant lighting, mitigating that on the surrounding community, dealing with garbage, dealing with abc violations around alcohol pç consumption as well as compliance with city codes on rodents and other pests that surround easting establishments. could you address the specific suggestion that we include these conditions in the lease and what your department plans to do over

the next six to 12 months to make sure that this establishment is a good neighbor. >> nutly. thank you. those -- absolutely. those are incorporated in the leet agreement in your packet. association has required and those were developed along side with the community and with the woodhouse fish company. we have a commitment from both the department, the supervisor's office, woodhouse fish company and the community to make sure that those conditions are adhered to. we've worked closely with the local enforcement agency to understand the complaints coming in and be able to evaluate them throughout that six month period. >> supervisor chiu: so i'm clear it's not in the lease itself. >> it is in the lease itself. let me see if i can... bear with me one moment. i don't remember exactly which page it's on. >> supervisor chiu: i don't think it's in the document that we're being asked to approve today so i want to be sure it's

referenced somewhere. >> sure. i think it's under section 7. okay. so section 7.3(c) of the lease agreement -- >> supervisor chiu: that you approved. >> correct. so you have the resolution and the lease agreement that we're proposingjj::íéñ today. and 7.3(c) is titled monitoring of operations during initial operating period, possible adjustment of permitting hours so that details all of those points that you brought up from the mca letter. >> supervisor chiu: these agreements are in place forever not just six month trial period. >> after six months we will evaluate how the restaurant has been operating and make a determination should it be adjusted but we will follow those mechanisms. >> supervisor chiu: the last question i have, i know if the board of supervisors, ms. fosh, with approves that you're asking for at this time, that this would go in non front of bay

conservation. can you tell me what conversations you've had and where they stand. >> we've worked with them for six months. it was at their urging that we move the building off the bay trail. we've had three or four meetings with their staff and, supervisor, i don't know if this is going to go before the commission. i think the staff is generally excited about this and can do it as staff level and approve the permit. >> supervisor chiu: okay. thank you very much. >> supervisor farrell: thank you, his mr. chairman. i want to thank everyone who came out today, as i think one of the first things you learn as a district supervisor is how passionate everyone is about our parks and about park usage, and particularly when it comes to putting a private concession into a park i findd>( qç there e

people -- it's like ships passing in the night, people think it's the best thing in the world, people who think it's the worst thing in the world. we went through this in dolores park where we put the la casino food truck and there was a lot of controversy. we found that truck is incredibly popular. and the reason is that even if you may have food establishments on the perimeter of the park or a very different experience particularly for people with children than having food available in the park. and so i do think that this strikes a good balance. it takes an already-existing building. it's not like this is some new thing that's being built block views. and i think it is -- i think it will be a good use. and so i agree with my colleagues on this, although i am very sensitive to the concerns raised and clearly rec and park and proprietors will

need to be diligent in making sure those concerns don't come to fruition. i will also say woodhouse has a location at 14th and market in my district. they are a very responsible restaurant and business in the community. i don't think i've ever had a single complaint during my time it in office. and i can't say that about every restaurant in the district. so they not only have a very high quality product but do a good job in terms of being good neighbors so i will be supporting this lease approval today. >> thanks for your questions. for those who came out, especially in the neighborhood i know this is an issue that has gotten people concerned, a number of people support it but i respect everyone's opinion and i think it's great everyone is out here today. from my perspective, this has

been a relatively long process and i do want to thank rec and park for the time they've taken, cad an dra and your team to reach out to not only direct neighbors -- and i get the concerns here and i'll; j3m adds it in a minute but the neighborhood community and the different neighborhood groups that i suggested in terms of representation, bodies in the neighborhood, that i wanted to make sure to get their opinion and sign-off on this arrangement. i want to thank also the woodhouse family, the mcniven family. this isn't about you and how great you are. a number of people came up and spoke about that. to me that's not what it is. what i will say, especially to the marina district that are here, i take stewardship of our open spaces and our neighborhood very seriously. it is the neighborhood i grew up in. i will say that in discussions with the family about the hours of operation, in terms of service and so forth i want to say i really appreciate your

flexibility and your understanding that it is going to be my priority to very rigorously, you know, maintain these standards and make sure that the community is in continued support of your operation going forward. please note that i will hold your feet to the fire as i've mentioned. i want to say i appreciate your flexibility and you?;jpkd willis to engage in dialogue with rec and park and the community association as well, ariel and dawn and a number of people who have been engaged in this. i think it is important and it bodes well for moving forward in the future. in terms of a number of parents came up and spoke about having kids there and some who were in favor and some who were not. i understand, again, differences of opinions. i have children that play soccer there all the time as well. rest assured i've gotten e-mails from a number of people who do not appreciate this and those that do. there is a complete mix of opinion. while i appreciate we have

differences of opinion no one has a monopoly on what they believe is right or wrong. something a speaker or two mentioned, but i think that really bears mentioning, in terms of activating our waterfront, you know, what has been done in chrisy field with the warming hut and is truly amazing and it has activated that part of the waterfront on memorial property, for a ton of people, and those that come to visit. that is important to take note of. what was mentioned earlier and what i don't think should be lost is that the money that's is going directly into the marina harbor fund. harbor getting redone right now, east harbor will come up, those ;jp5dkez be vitally important so we need to take a comprehensive approach to this. again i am generically supportive here. i appreciate the work that's been done -- to this.

what i am

analyst and the department's concurrence. >> that change has been made and is reflected in your document today. thanks. >> supervisor elsbernd: seeing no other comment, we will take supervisor ferrell's item forward with recommendation. that will be the order. madam clerk, please read item 4. >> if i may, i need to go to a land use committee now. so i want to thank everyone for their time today. >> alisa miller: item 4, hearing on city department's progress on implementation of audit recommendation by the

controller city services audit auditor. >> supervisor elsbernd: this is not the grand jury item. that's item 5 and 6. we're on item 4. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is tanya -- and i'm the director of audits for the controller's office. and we're here today to present our audit on the report titled san francisco public utilities commission, the community assistance program, significant operational weaknesses, make it accessible to consumer abuse was

issued on september 4, 2012. and the puc in fact actually asked us to come in and look at that program. >> supervisor elsbernd: john, can you shut that door for us. >> the community assistance program provides discounts of up to 15% on water charges, and 35% on sewer charges for qualifying residential single family customers and to quaw qualify fe program applicants must meet a9 number of crateia noted on the -- criteria noted on the slide and applicants must certify they meet these criteria and understand puc reserves the right to verify their household income. as noted on the slide, the sf puc has adopted the same other california low assistance programs and the adjusted gross annual income criteria for the program is based on 200% of the

federal poverty level, the number of persons in the household dictates allowable income for qualifying. participants in the cap program has increased more than 700% since its inception from 879 participants in 2004 to 7,437 participants in march 2012. as of march 2012, 7% of sf puc's residential single family service accounts were enrolled in theú÷'.nék program. in fiscal year 2010-11, puc provided approximately more than 2 million in cap discounts or an average monthly discount of 25 per household. the primary objectives were to evaluate the program's eligibility criteria, its application and renewal process, verify accuracy of information provided, analyze the demographics and characteristics of cap and compare it to similar

programs. in addition we also cfa looked at -- the demographics and usage characteristics of the 7,000 plus cap accounts. we selected a sample of 90 cap accounts to verify household income and size, including 60 random accounts and 30 accounts with unusual characteristics such as irregular usage pattern and selected a sample7[i,v of 40 accounts such as for application and renewal process and also looked at service addresses and home addresses of active city employees. our report contained 14 findings and 28 recommendations and we are going to look at the most significant findings. and the complete report is available on the controller's website. for finding 1.1, 46% or 41 of the 90 participants tested for

income verification were eligible for the program. these 41 ineligible -- >> ineligible. >> yes. these 41 ineligible households received 17,000 in cap discounts in just 2000 alone. finding 1.2, customer information self-reported and is not verified by sf puc. because puc does not verify reported information both applicants and renewing participants can easily falsify total household income or the number of household members to meet the income guidelines and qualify for the cap discount. although the puc confirms that the reported income does not exceed limits for the reported number of household members but again don't require customers to provide evidence of their income. the san francisco puc

recommended that they should remove from cap any accounts tested by this assessment that were found not to be eligible for the program in recovered 2011 discounts. verification process requiring new applicants and renewing cap participants to verify income and household size, this process should require applicants and renewing participants to provide the names of all household members, most recent federal tax return, proof of residence, lack of income for members having no income but not listed as dependent on a household member's federal tax return. until we measured or came up with this criteria was that we identified four cities with similar low income discount programs that require customers to provide proof of income to receive the discount and this was los angeles, california,

atlinto, california, columbus, ohio and eugene oregon for their utilities program. finding 2.2 is 3% of program accounts report 10 or more household members resulting in a high allowable household income. and what we found is of the cap accounts with data for household size 3% reported over 11 household members, which is almost three times the average household size for programs, which is 3.8 persons. while putting in an excessive number of household members is typical the reporting system does not prevent households from doing so to qualify for the program. finding 2.3, 16% of program accounts had a bill that is an unrealistically high proportion of reported income. what we found is of the 64 households that reported household income on their income verification response letter,

16% had a bill that was 10% or more of reported income with one household at 73% of reported income. the u.s. bureau of labor statisticses data indicates that san franciscans spend approximately 5% of household income on all household utilities, fuels, and public services combined. so this suggests that in some cases all household income may not have been self-reported. for finding 2.4, 4% of program accounts have different service and mailing addresses, indicating that some account holders may not pay their own bills. program rules require customers to reside full time at the address where the discounts are received. we anted cap data and foipped that as of march 2012 showed a different mailing address, they received 11,900 in cap discounts

during february-march 2012 billing period which is approximately 71,000 annually. different service and mailing address could indicate abuse of the cap program. finding 2.6, of the 7,437 cap accounts, 3% had a bill of 450 or more with the highest bill being 1,115. these -- for february-march 2012 billing period. >> these are residential customers with bills of this size? >> yes, sir. >> supervisor elsbernd: are these multi-unit buildings? >> single. single, low income, on our cap program. so compared to the average discount of 48 for all cap accounts for the same period, their discount was 125 to 300.

allowing cap customers to receive an unlimited amount of discount does not promote water efficiency or support puc's other water conservation effort. for recommendations 5, 8, and 9 we ask puc to analyze cap data each billing period requiring further vehicles. these investigations address unusually high household sizes, bills that are an unusual high percentage of reported income and accounts with differs billing and mailing addresses. limit the maximum household income cap eliminate jint by restricting the number of household members that count toward allowable income. record income reported in the cap for billing system and limit the total number a cap account can receive each billing period or annually but provide for exemptions if needed.

and the reason we state provide for exemptions if needed is because in some cases you have homes that are for foster care and different things such as that. in addition to identifying the weaknesses and potential for abuse i've already mentioned we were able to do some further analysis based on a population where we could easily verify income and that is city employees. 6% of program accounts have a service address matching the listed home address of at least one city employee, and these households may not be self-reporting all income. of the 7,437 cap participants, 473 or 6% of the cap service addresses matched the listed home address of at least one city employee and in some cases 53 accounts listed two or more city employees.

total discounts provided to these cap accounts during the february-march 2012 billing period was 27,168 which annualizes to -- 193 of these city employees, 36% are in job classifications which average annual salaries greater than 52,800 k annually. an income level that would make a household of five persons, with no other income source ineligible for the program. if you remember the prior slides that showed the howsmed -- number of household members compared to what their salary to be. >> supervisor elsbernd: just curious, the city employee breakdown was there any disproportionate amount that worked for the puc or were they spread ought over the city. >> it was all over the city. the average cap household size is 3.8%.

five of the 90 accounts we selected for income verification match the home address of one or more city employees, 45% were found to be ineligible for cap and those selected for the review matched the address of one or more city employees and all three reported income lower than the amount of corresponding official salary for the city employees. for recommendations 10, 11, 12, and 13 related to addressing the 473 accounts matching the listed home address of at least one city employee by verifying household income and size to demonstrate that their household qualifies forever cap removing accounts found ineligible and recovering to ineligible accounts and we asked puc would also work with department of human resources to pursue any disciplinary action found to

have associated with providing fraudulent information for the cap discount. finding 4.1, sf puc's current outreach methods over low income areas in the program's jurisdiction and puc does conduct various cap outreach efforts but the department could do more to targetià outreach predominantly low income areas of san francisco. so recommendation 28 says that puc should explore cost effective outreach methods for cap tailored to reach customers residing in low income neighborhoods, including coordinating outreach efforts with local community based organizations. and what we did, we examined the percentage of people living at or below 100% gç=t>iç the federl property level by san francisco zip code area. so as of march 2012, 54.2% of cap accounts resided in only

three of sf zip codes. that was ingleside, excelsior, 54.2%, visitacion valley, sunnydale 15.7% of that 54.2% and sunset is 12.2%. what we found was there were neighborhoods with high levels of poverty that had relatively low cap enrollment. for instance bayview and hunter's point had similar levels of property as ingleside but only one-third as many cap participants inspect inner mission and bernal heights has the second rate of poverty but only 2.4% of the cap account. and outer richmond and haight ashberry house, a combined total of 12.4% of