to do is understand -- if all the cities in california are asked to implement parking practices in the same way, for example, l.a., san francisco, and oakland have very different issues than vallejo and fresno. the first recommendation is to change the state legislation to allow individual cities and councils to pursue local solutions to the problem. that will be one of the efforts during the legislative session this year. the second thing we want to do -- once we get that in place, we really believe the most effective way to address disabled placard fraud is to eliminate the financial incentive. that's the root of the problem. we found out recently that overall in our city, about 20% to 60% of parking spaces can be

taken up by disabled placards, depending on the area, and there are over 600,000 disabled placards. it's a lot of people coming from outside the city who live, work, play, who are using up our parking spaces with these disabled placards. supervisor campos: quick question for you. are disabled placard -- there's obviously an issue about if they're used appropriately. do they cost money to obtain? do they pay a residential parking price? >> there's no money to get a disabled placard. dmv manages it. you would provide the physician certificate and they're automatically renewed by mail.

there's no local involvement at all in the distribution or management of disabled placard. talking to the other cities -- for example, of philadelphia. right before the financial incentive was implemented, 30% to 40% of the parking spaces were filled with disabled placards. the week after, it dropped to 3%. we believe the most effective way is to eliminate the financial incentive and required disabled drivers to pay for parking. take that money and move it to the transit system. we believe that would be one way to address this. the other thing we recognize,

there are lots of economically disadvantaged disabled drivers. we are currently working on that. our initial thought, they would get a 50% discount. supervisor campos: can i ask you a quick question? if this is governed by state law, how are you going to implement not only parking fees, but then half of fees? >> you are right. the state law has to be changed. we are working on finding responses. if we get that passed, we can have a discussion at the local level as to exactly what we want san francisco to do. l.a., berkeley, oakland, the

major cities in california are willing to partner with us, and various other stakeholders to get the state legislative change. once that done, l.a. can fashion a program the way they want to and we can fashion a program the way that makes sense for us. you are right, supervisor. the first step is to have the change, flexibility of language in the code. hopefully the supervisors will help us get that change into the state code. supervisor campos: ok. just to clarify how you are thinking about this now, are you proposing, if it came to installing parking meters, or you are saying there's a local feed to quali to qualify? >> if this passes, we would

recommend doubling the number of blousoue zones. in those zones, we would put some sort of payment mechanism. you would pull into the spot. you would be required to pay for the spot, like a meter, just like every other driver, but you would have a spot in the front of the building. if you are a low-income person, you can pull up to the same spot and we would give you some parking card or some kind of discount to put into the meter. this is really about accessibility. once you are at the blue zone, you would be asked to paid like every other able bodied person.

>supervisor campos: are they related? >> we believe that if you make people pay for the restores, they will not go and get a false disabled placard. right now, they are getting free parking. there would be no advantage to getting the placard. the other hand, we've heard terrible stories about these real disabled people who cannot get access to the blue zones. by giving more access to the truly disabled, we believe that will help. they will be asked to pay, as well. supervisor campos: i guess this will come at a later date. some real questions.

hearing this for the first time. access is correct. we should be supporting our disabled community in many ways. requiring to pay at point of sale -- has this really been thought through? disability is not only accessing a place nearby a business or residence, but how impractical is it going to be? we cannot make it burn soma burn them to feed a meter. >> that's what we are working on now. we will have a bigger report on how this will be implemented. the first step is the state legislature to change. if we do not get there, we cannot really do anything. we will put a paper together

with the best practices. most states are moving to this. it's so difficult administratively to review every disabled placard and evaluate the disability of that person. they're just saying, they are asking them to pay for the access. that is sort of the underlying model of the implementation. that is the policy premised. supervisor campos: i'm still not clear on the connection of expanding the blue zones in the city. that seems like a completely different conversation than the abuse. this is to come later. president chiu: what is the state of the state legislature. ? >> where we are on that right now, we put this item into the state for legislative program, which should be approved soon.

the mayor's office has also agreed to assist us, in most localities have agreed to assist us. we're taking a leadership position on this. they are waiting for us to get everyone together and move this -- we have had preliminary conversations with state legislatures. no one has said yes, but that will be the next step. then we will be actively involved in finding partners. president chiu: what is your prognosis? take a we have not asked them formally. we have not had the approval from the board to do that, but we believe there is an initial conversation that is very interested in looking at this from l.a., oakland, all of this the rigid state legislatures. this is not just a san francisco issue. a bigger group of people are

working with us on this. >>president chiu: i certainly understand if you remove the financial incentive, that takes away some of it. if you are doubling the number of disabled parking spots, that makes it easier for someone to have of past to find that spot for anywhere they want to go. >> we would continue to enforce them. we would not do this and stop enforcement. this would be a partner project. enforcement would continue, because we would check to make sure there is a disability, but the incentive for an individual is less. we do not think it will eliminate it completely, but certainly produced a number of fraudulent placard's out there. if philadelphia -- philadelphia saw a huge change overnight, and even if we reduce it by 50

percent signed, that is a huge progress. president chiu: on the other side, as far as what you were doing to crack down on abuse, what head way have you made? to go what is problematic for us is with the constrained a number resources, what they have to do is stand there and wait for the person to come back. they stand there by the car and wait. the person comes back and has to check, and the person will say i am taking my mother to the doctor. it takes like three or four hours just to tick -- check one disability placard because you have to wait for the individual to come back. it is not a very efficient way to do enforcement, because it requires -- the state law requires you to check with the individual. you were basically standing by a car waiting for the individual to return. -- if you are basically standing

by a car waiting for the individual to return. and this process of enforcement is not visual and you check in the database. you actually have to contact the individual, touch the individual, which makes it a very burdensome process for us. that is why it is not as effective as it originally seems. >> i certainly appreciate the challenges of the agencies, and i am intrigued by the direction you are going, i just think it is almost throwing up a white flag that is incredibly difficult. >> we are just during this period and we're way before, many months before implementation or even discussion. >> what opresident chiu: probaba year or two away from anything

happening at the state level, and in the meantime the abuse will continue. i know a lot of smart people have been thinking about this. this is been an ongoing problem, and i know this is why the civil grand jury has been focusing on it, and i am just trying to think about what we can do to a accelerate this. >> we are very eager to do this. the revenue charges are what -- are half of what we're measuring now. the revenue loss is huge for us, so we are eager to move on this as quickly as we can. supervisor campos: if i may make a couple of comments. i appreciate the fact that you are here to present them. the concern that i have with something like this, and i think it is a reoccurring concerned with committee -- many items that involve mta, the fact that has taken a long time for

anything to happen. this report was the 2006-2007 report, and a lot of the things -- a big part of the response is we are looking into it, talking to folks, and this is essentially 58 years later, so it does not leave one with a great deal of confidence. that is the problem i think with this. if we're talking about the millions of dollars that you acknowledge we're talking about, and the mta in the past couple of beers cut service significantly to the point that it would have to come to the county transportation authority to ask for 7 million, if i have that kind of the fiscal challenge that i am dealing

with, and i have millions of dollars that i am potentially losing, i am going to do whatever i can to address that problem. so it is not something directed at you, but it is the agency itself. it is really frustrating, and i do not think it is acceptable five years after it the report comes out to say we are working on it, to the extent that has been a part of this answer. >> i could not agree with you more. i am facing the challenge of fixing the budget, but one thing i can assure you is this program is now going to get work focus. historically it did not have ownership in the agency, so i think that was part of the reason it did not move, but now with it being under sf park, i

am very committed to it. we're very eager to move this because of the revenue impact. you will see aggressive movement on this, i can guarantee it, in the next year or so. presidensupervisor campos: i the need to make sure this happens, and maybe the thing to do is for us to come back and do a follow- up hearing on this to see this. >> we would love that. supervisor campos: it the chair of the committee said $8 million being lost annually, probably even higher. that could pay for youth, increased service to all of our riders -- there are so many things you could do with the revenue. >> i could not agree with you more. we're happy to do you an update

on a regular basis. -- give you an update on a regular basis. >> i think it would be helpful if they could come and talk to us, given the amount of money that is involved. the next time we come before you we can give you more concrete feedback from the groups. supervisor campos: the second point on the issue of what your policy will be around these placards, because i do think, even though there seems to be a connection, that we are talking about separate issues. whether or not we should charge disabled individuals for parking is something that should be looked at it objectively and analyzed separately. i do not know it is good to say we need to do this as an enforcement mechanism, because charging has to be judged on its

own merits, and the fact that we are not able to enforce certain things, does not justify charging it charging on its own is not a good idea, so i look forward to the concept of the plan as you develop it, and i would simply urge you to make sure you engage members of the disabled community so they have their feedback. thank you. is there any other department head that needs to opine on this report? why don't we open it up to public comment? >> good morning, supervisors. my name is douglas yelp. i would like to thank the civil grand jury for their independence and objectivity. in my opinion, they do both,

which may be lacking in many city-run departments. i think these reports need to be taken seriously. i think it is pretty obvious they are not being taken seriously. it is kind of discouraging for city hall observers like myself. all we hear our excuses and promises to do better. i think we should run the city like a private industry. you are given the job and objectives, and if you get the job done, you stay employed. if you do not get the job done, the next person gets a chance. there are plenty of qualified people looking for a job, and i think the city needs to take a new approach and set an example for everyone else. let's put it this way, if the civil grand jury does these reports, everyone has a hearing and make their statement, i think it is pretty important

they should be carried out. what is the purpose of continuity reports it five years later it is still not being carried out? i think we need to set an example and tell people that this city is not a life-long job, and that we need performance and accountability, and if you do not get the job done, there is plenty of qualified people out there that are willing to give it a try, and i think these continuity reports need to be emphasized, so this way people can understand it -- understand this is something that needs to be taken seriously. i think you need more people to help on these continuity projects. maybe we should take and volunteers from the general public. i am sure when you bring in volunteers from the general public there will be different ideas on how to do things, and maybe increase the performance of our city departments. it is nothing like thinking

outside the box. i think that is what we need in san francisco. we need people thinking outside the box. we do not need career employees who want to run it like it has been run for the last 30 years. it is pretty obvious the city is not benefiting from that philosophy, and in my opinion, since i have been living in san francisco for 59 years, the last 20 years have been a definite decrease in the quality of life of san francisco. if i were a firefighter or policemen, i would definitely have second thoughts about living here, especially if i have kids. thank you. supervisor campos: thank you very much. next speaker. >> good afternoon. andthankthanks, i got it at thea

market. there is a parking disabled place for us. a disabled place for us, a place to park and for free. and then the pilot past, i hope you continue it, but please somewhere, somehow, civil grand jury right now,. unfortunately that musical ended in a tragedy. supervisor campos: any other member of the public that would like to comment or sing on this item? supervisor farrell. supervisor farrell: thank you.

let me take time to think this of a grand jury for your time and effort in putting these reports together and following up. much appreciated as always. i know the full board approaches all of your efforts, so thank you for that and the staff in response to these issues. i will lay out my thoughts and a few recommendations, because i know we are asked to respond, but a number of items that were not necessarily laid out in the resolution, but are before you. in terms of pensions, on the findings, thank you to mr. callahan for coming forward and are comptroller. i will suggest we vote both knono. i think pensions biking is not something we do intentionally, but it has gone a long way to curbing that.

also, in terms of changes of help service board and other health-care changes, i do believe that will have a monumental impact going forward. then to the recommendations as well, i think prop c will have a lot of recommendations. i do not think it is warranted and quite possible to implicate in many regards. i will suggest we vote no on both of those findings and recommendations. i would suggest we vote no on those, as well as to the sole recommendation. i would hope everyone completely

agrees on this, and will be frustrated when they hear the appeal is that couples -- happens. and i think for me in response to the specific evidence, it is a bit of a waste. number four, and the recommendation is impractical. i think we need the flexibility to move forward on many different policies while this is being debated as well. and unless you have comments, i can certainly make a motion before you make a comment. president chiu: the only thing i would suggest is i do not think

that we need an independent review panel, but i would like some sort of report to us within some time, because this was pointed out it has been years. it strikes me that would take several years before we get any positive feedback. >>supervisor farrell: i will co- sponsor to follow up. i do not think there is a place for it in any grand jury response right now. i completely agree. president chiu: did she leave already? supervisor campos: i would ask the mta tuesday to the end of

the hearing. president chiu: perhaps it is adequate for them to provide feedback within an adequate time as for what the program is going forward. supervisor campos: i think a hearing request makes sense, and maybe the three of us can do that. one thing we can do, and i would ask the clerk of committee, is i will send a letter to the mta asking for a report on that specific item. supervisor farrell: let me make a motion for the findings and recommendations. there is no changes, so it should be simple. for the pensions, i would disagree with finding one and two. recommendations one and two. on the go box report, agree with finding one and two, and the sole recommendation. on the parking for the disabled

report, agree with both findings, finding one and seven, and disagree with both recommendations, one and a recommendation four. so we have a motion. can we take that without objection? motion passes. thank you very much to all of the members of the civil grand jury, to the department heads, staff who were here, as well as to the budget and legislative analyst on the work up of this. >> item #5, hearing on the update from the public utilities commission regarding community choice aggregation. supervisor campos: colleagues, this is an item i introduced, a hearing on something that has been going on for quite some time here in the counties of san

francisco. with us to present this item is the general manager of the san francisco public utilities commission, mr. harrington. i want to thank him for being here. let me preface this hearing by saying from my perspective this is the beginning of a discussion about where we are with community choice aggregation. it is a very important for gramprogram, pursuant to a progm in 2007. puc has been moving forward in implementing committee choice aggregation. a lot of work has gone into this, and we have before us a proposed term sheet that outlines the scope of the initial phase of the program. it is a program that would be implemented in phases, and at s the program moves forward, there is a parallel