us. we're struggling so much. if i get towed, i just think i'm going to lose my mind. just please help us. thank you so much. >> i'm flo kelly from the coalition on homelessness. i just want to say any fees for towing or citations or anything long those lines that are slapped on very low income and folks who live in their vehicles adds to the instability of of their lives. i support the idea that people who have extreme low income should have all fees erased. i support the point about the cost of administering fare evasion, is it really worth it?

and i don't understand why would m.t.a. take on a new project like fixing up pal street if there's really a question of revenue to support the full m.t.a. programs. that's my points. >> herbert weiner, there's some issues i wish to bring up. our bicycles and scooters on the sidewalk being cited. if so, how much revenue is being collect collected? i haven't heard this statistic and i believe this is very important. also, on towing, every time i see a tow truck, i think of the hangman's noose. thank you.

>> my name is anne stooldryer. i direct the financial district project in the office of the san francisco treasurer. we worked in collaboration with the sfmta and many community groups to create the low income discounts for towing, booting, and payment plans. i really want to thank the m.t.a. staff who are always open to being in dialog with us at the financial justice project and also community groups. i want to speak in support of the reduced towing fee for people struggling with homelessness. i think this is an important step in the right direction and we support it. probably one of the most important starts of my job is listening to people in community groups and residents about how these various penalties are hitting them and i just would like to share some of what i've

heard. going from $236 to $100, having 15 days to put that money together, that will make a difference for folks. they'll have a longer amount of time to come up with a smaller amount of money. and we hear that coming up with $100 might as well be like coming up with a million dollars. we have to realize that people don't have this money. they're going to be scraping it together probably from community groups, their support networks, et cetera. the other things that i want to pass on is people ask, can we please do what we can to get the word out about this. too often we create these things and people don't know how to access them. can we make it as easy as possible for people to access so they don't have to jump through hoops. we helped create this process

with the department of homelessness to certify that people are eligible. and then just lastly, i think there is a lot of -- >> i'm sorry, your time is up. >> i want to thank the staff of m.t.a. for helping think through these processes and i want to comment in support of the plan to come back to this board with a more comprehensive plan around addressing fare evasion. i know that the passes and tickets make up a significant portion of sfmta revenue and you're thinking about how to make sure that muni is available for everyone. but as part of the community listening that anne was describing, we have been increasingly hearing about the impact of fare evasion tickets about people who are living in

deep poverty, people whose income is below $15,000 a year in the city, and the impact these tickets have. the clients either take the bus because they cannot afford it or they ride without paying because they cannot pay the discounted rate of $40. many of the clients survive on monthly benefits stipends of just hundreds of dollars a month. we had done an informal survey of 20 non-profits to understand how their clients were accessing muni or not accessing muni and their payment history. they found that for the people living in deep poverty, less than $15,000 a year, 83% indicated that sometimes their clients rode without paying because they could not afford to. we heard from individuals who

got fare evasion citations on the way to doctor's visits. we want to make sure that in this time of increasing income inhe callity across the city that everyone has access to the transportation that you worked hard to create. we want to ensure that we're not penalizing those who simply cannot afford to pay. thank you. >> my name is kate richardson. i'm an attorney with a non-profit organization called legal link. we work closely with many of the city's frontline providers at social service organizations who are working directly with homeless and low-income families. so i'm here to talk about the tow reduction program, echoing from some of the comments that have been said regarding these poverty tows.

i really want to highlight the problem that is the process here as well. so when we're working with clients, we've trained over 500 providers and done direct consults with over 300 clients. this is a high legal need. what we're finding is reduced fees to $100 is great, it's a step in the right direction, but we want you to consider reduction all together of these poverty tows for many of the reasons you've heard. even the processes that seem straightforward with a few steps, including certification for access to services, it's an additional step and burden on someone who is already in crisis. i think the reality is many people aren't able to access these programs that were designed to benefit them. i would take that into consideration as well and urge you to move in the right direction and consider elimination all together of the

poverty-related tows. thank you. >> hi, i'm chelsea crumpler. i'm glad we're having a discussion about mitigating this process. i 100% disagree that fare evasion citations and tow citations or towing in general are a deterrent because you don't have a choice when you're poor and you have to take your kid to the doctor or you have to go to school, i don't know how many citations i've got that i haven't been able to pay. sometimes through no fault of my

own, because my worker messed up and didn't get my pass in on time, there also seems to be an ongoing problem of sfmta officers saying there's other resources, but not necessarily being able to give you the information on how to access them. so i'd like to see also there to be less red tape and bureaucracy like my son, you know, he gets a free meal at school. it would be really nice if we could think of a way to combine that so i could get a free m.t.a. pass for him. we also don't want people who are living in their vehicles to get rid of the only stability that they have. $100 is a lot, it's a lot to me. sometimes if they can scrounge up $75, they want to use that to

go to hotel. $100 is a lot. we need to rethink how we're doing this. >> next speaker, please. >> i'm kelly cutler from the coalition of homelessness. your tweets crack me up. i've been coming here for years and all of us have been coming here for years when we're looking at new restrictions on street streets. the reason is it leads to towing. towing is a major issue where it's someone's home. it's such a huge hit. we get calls on a weekly basis, then we connect them with the lawyers and having to go through the process, which there isn't a great process now.

it's great that we're going in that direction of alleviating those fees. still, the $100 thing was interesting. i'm on the local coordinating board and they presented about that. that still leaves the $100 where the homeless department is looking for their funding source to figure these things out. it's still a huge obstacle. we still have a thousand people on the shelter wait list. we have the single parking, but it's 26 spots and for the high-needs folks. the city is currently targeting people in vehicles that are living in their vehicles. the 72-hour thing. that's where people are getting citations so often. that leads to someone losing their home and it really is a heavy hit.

>> next speaker, please. >> i'm armando garcia. i work closely with kelly. i'm lucky to work with tory larson and her colleagues. we send people to them all the time. people walk through our doors anecdotally every week. we get people coming in asking what to do about towing issues or fare evasion citations. i'm really glad to hear that there's a deeper effort and there is some interest at sfmta really deeply looking into this to see how we can look at the pressures we're putting on people living in poverty. so i want to share with you a little bit of what i see at my office anecdotally, just so you can understand a little bit of the process someone has to go

through, specifically with the fare evasion program where you get community service instead of paying the fine. so we regularly get people walking in. at best, some of the people that come in are happy they can do community service and get it out of their hair, but most of the people that come in are confused about where they can get the fine waived or is it a matter of dismissing the citation. they come to our office interestingly because sfmta agents tell them that we somehow can get it dismissed for them or something. so they show up to us really confused. what ends up happening is we usually give them some kind of a verification because a lot of the community organizations already do a homeless verification so it doesn't have to be us to do it. we give them a letter. they go back to customer service and they come back with some paperwork on community service to us or some organization.

there's a runaround going back and forth that's a lot of extra burden on that person. it doesn't sound like it's helping sfmta to put people in that position financially or otherwise. >> thank you. any other public speakers? >> him maquisha willis. i wanted to come as a person who has suffered from car loss.

i've lost two cars from towing and one car from booting. and i am of course in low income. at one point i was living in one of those cars. and it's like the tickets i couldn't afford and then i lost my registration. and then i couldn't register my car so i'm getting more tickets. and then i lost my job. it's like a downward spiralling effect. just speaking for a lot of people in the community, it just doesn't help the towing on me. i agree with other speakers that you can collect in tax revenue because if you have to pay it in any way, just let us keep our property. it's a means of communication here. the congestion here is far beyond -- there's no doubt that our city is crowded. we're getting penalized for the fact that there is no parking here. you can't afford the garage.

you might not have to stop that long. i might have to use the bathroom and come out and have a ticket i can't pay. i got a ticket from the m.t.a. while i was sitting in my vehicle. i was literally falling asleep in my vehicle and wanted to get off before the street cleaning comes. there are a lot of people who can't pay the $100. that would have gotten hard. i can't afford the towing here. 30 years in san francisco and i'm still homeless. there are ways you can help people and eliminating towing is one of them. >> hello, my name is paul bryly,

a policy fellow with larson inlynn. a lot of these initiatives are framed as if they would help the communi communities. people in the low-income interest, i find it hard to believe that the communities that i come from would support the expansion of metering and the spikes in the fees and all of that. with regards to the towing, i think there should be a payment plan implemented. a lot of people don't have all of that money all at once. if we're really trying to assist low-income communities. as a result gentrification, people are getting moved into their vehicles. if homeless is the priority, you're only exacerbating the position and you're going to push people to the streets more so if you continue to tow them. we heard from community members, they don't support them.

i heard as a community interest, what community? that's all i have to say. >> good afternoon. my name is ben linshinger. a program manager at the tory foundation. the average client we have makes about $800 a month on some sort of a benefit. even the $100 is extreme. i really appreciate the work that you're all doing to make it that because that's less extreme, but i just want to echo what everybody's saying, which is it's a disaster to have your car towed and an unavoidable disaster if you're being targeted and have to go about the work in your life. the work that everyone does to survive when their homeless or low income is equivalent to a full-time job. that's been studied over and

over again. when you have to go one place after another to make it work and maybe you have kids, you're going to get citations. the poverty line is $12,700. the average person in san francisco if they're individuals is making $85,000. as a deterrent you could lower it to $85 -- $25. making muni free is important to the ecosystem. it increases the sense of self worth people have when they're making tough choices. it's a better society when we don't spend the millions of dollars to try to punish people when we can't make any money off of it, but we're talking about a human rights issue. this one piece of good news, the

way financial justice works is any effort towards financial justice is justice to any other groups. that's the way money works. thank you. >> if you'd like to speak, you're definitely welcome to speak, but come up after the next two speakers. >> i'm june whitehorse, and i'm a staff worker at the research project. i wanted to say $100 is still a lot for people living in their vehicles and still unaffordable. when those fees can double if you're not able to afford it. even if you are able to get that fee, technically there are still barriers to getting that fee. if you have to get a certificate or be able to get those -- get

that certification which seems like a big barrier. these kind of fees impact low-income and homeless people in a case where people make a low income. if people can afford $8 an hour, they can afford $9 an hour for the people who are parking at the meters. there is not enough safe parking spots in the city. you are told there are places for you to go, but there are not. it sounds like your board is thinking about finding more places for people to park. i would encourage you to focus on that rather than raising the fees. i think the fees erased entirely for the people who are low income. lastly, as far as muni goes,

there's a lot of discussion nationally about free transit. i would really encourage you to look into that. there are a few cities who have made public transit free such as kansas city and others that are looking into it. i would encourage you to look into that as far as the fare evasion problem goes. thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> brian edwards, coalition on homelessness. first of all, i just want to echo everyone else's concerns that it really is honorable that the financial justice project is ameliorating some of the financial hardships of the criminalization of poverty and homelessness, but it is ridiculously ineffective and expensive to do things that way and we need to move further upstream. i want to walk you through how the department of homelessness and housing seems to think this is going to work.

a lot of people who live in their vehicles. let's take a guy who lives in his van, he comes home from work at 6:00 and it's not there. that man is never going to think to call the department of homelessness and supportive housing to get help. he's not going to know about a discount. he's going to look at the 311 app maybe, but there's nothing about a tow on there. there should be a button that says, help, you towed my home. but he's not going to go down and get a coordinated entry assessment at 7:00 at night. he has to figure out where he's staying tonight. he can't even go down to auto return to get my stuff out of it because he left his i.d. in the other pair of jeans that morning. there is an organization that does homeless verifications. there are several. the coalition on homelessness. people walk in and we take care of that every day. to force someone to go through an additional service, a

coordinated entry requirement, they don't need to do that to be poor enough to live in their vehicle, they're already poor enough. that's where the city needs to intervene. personally i believe there should be no charge. for h.s.h. to create another level of bureaucracy to lesson the impact of someone living in their vehicle, this is b.s. thanks, guys. >> any additional public comment on this comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. directors. >> i'll start. thank you. first, i just want to thank all of you who turned out to talk about financial justice. that was really, really impactful to hear all that and the fact that you devote your lives to helping people live in this city is appreciated.

we do need to do something. we need to do something so people don't get their homes towed. we've talked a lot about this over the years and this really brings this home. it makes me realize how hard it is for people. there was an article i read that read, are you good enough at paperwork to be poor? most people aren't. that's really, really challenging. i don't know what the answer is here, but we definitely need to look at something to alleviate this situation. as people said, we're forcing people onto sidewalks out of what are their homes. that's really unforgiveable in this city. i don't know how we do it. i don't know how we make sure that the people who can afford to pay their parking tickets pay them and that the people who can't afford to pay them and ultimately will have their homes towed will have their homes towed and become sidewalk homeless. it's a challenge, but it's a

challenge that we need to step up and figure out. we can't keep doing this. so many other comments come to mind, but first i wanted to thank you all. that was really powerful. when we first started to do the low-income tow fees, there was a lot of political pressure to address the tow fees. it makes me think maybe we should stop toeing for unpaid tickets. i don't know if you're going to know this, was it in the presentation what percentage of our tows are for unpaid tickets? i'm just wondering if we just stop doing that what impact it's going to have. i don't know then, what do we do with a car that maybe isn't working that's in the same spot on a block week after week after week. >> sorry, i don't know the answer to that. i can try and come back with

that information. >> yeah, it will be a good one to look at. >> i do know that a lot of calls from neighborhoods are related to cars. >> right. and i know. i see that in my own neighborhood. we have several r.v.s that go because we have r.p.p. in the area. again, it's one of those things that is it -- people call it a quality of life. oh, i feel unfortunately with an r.v. parked on my block. are you unsafe or is something bad going on? we have a few in our neighborhood and you know them by sight and names and you see them move around and you feel so much for them. i was starting to think before we got into the issue of financial justice, i wonder if it's time to look at where we tow. we're losing so much money on the program. the rush-hour lanes on pine and bush, do we really need them?

we're creating more traffic lanes. is it time to take a look at why we tow, when we tow, and which streets we tow. or is that a way to separate out the people who can afford to be towed versus those who can't. are the low-income tows coming from the neighborhoods or the other streets? that's going to be a data dive that maybe we don't have the information, but we definitely need to look into that a lot. i'm going to back up from the towing and talk about the other parts of the presentation. i'm supportive of the changes proposed for parking meters and garages, but again we need to look at it through an equity lens. where is it that it's okay to extend the parking meters and okay to charge more for parking meters and where does it make sense? i assume we can do that because where we would want to extend

the evening metres are commercial corridors where people are driving and going to restaurants and clubs. the parking meter cap my initial note says $9 is enough. you said you could come back and ask that to go up. again, in certain neighborhoods where people are driving into the city are wealthy people who can afford to go out for dinner and to clubs. again, it's that delicate balance, how do we make sure we're charging the people who can afford it and help those who can't. the same thing about 10:00 p.m., is that late enough for evening meters in certain corridors. maybe certain corridors could go later. i'm a little bit worried about the fine for blocking the disabled zone how that's going to look and sound. i would be interested to hear public feedback. that's an exorbitant ticket, but it's also a horrible, horrible violation and really impacts

wheelchair users' lives. i know it's something we're looking at for future use, the curb cut use fee. i want to say, fellow directors, don't let this one fade away. there was a great study done in the mission that basically for every curb cut, there was not a car or two cars in the garage, that curb cut was taking away the living spaces and people were using the garages for extra living spaces. if you're using the curb cut, you will be happy to pay. those are most of my comments. yeah. we still have obviously some work to do to present these all sort of in a side by side and to get the public feedback on this. i'm going to be really

interested to hear the public feedback on towing -- poverty towing and what we can do or continue to do or do further to address that. it is so hard. this city of super haves and have notes, how do we reach that balance to make sure that the super haves are paying their share and the super have notes are getting the attention and the empathy that they deserve. thank you. i know that this is a lot of work and it's not easy to bring that to us, but i think we're narrowing into it. i think the public process and the input will help. and i'm also concerned that we get the input from the board of supervisors because i believe that's where the low income tow fee reduction started from, was a push from certain supervisors on the board and that was more than two years ago i guess.

i don't know who it was. thank you. >> i agree with most of what was said. i appreciate the public's comments. they were compelling and helpful to this discussion. so i would favor more information, but i would favor discontinuing towing when it's just unpaid tickets. i would want to look at that and see a strong policy justification for continuing that process. one of the speakers mentioned going through the franchise board to collect payment and some other debt collection means. i would be interested in hearing the staff's perspective on those means. i know you're going to do a deeper dive on the whole program, but that's my feedback. and ditto what was said on the

others. thank you. >> i think the first thing i want to say is i really support this comprehensive equity review that you're talking about when it comes to the fare evasion item. i wonder if some of the items that have been raised today regarding the tow can be part of that comprehensive look as to raising revenue when there is an ability to pay. it sounds like we're having two different issues, aligning our fares and fees with our policy goals, which we do have a policy goal. we have goals around equity. it feels like we're talking about two different things and i want to make sure we're not conflating those things. when it comes to the intentions that director tomlin talked about, i feel when we're at an injunction, it's important to

fall back on goals. i don't know that our goals around subsidizing car ownership, i don't think we have any goals around that. part of the challenge, quite honestly, that's getting in our way of achieving that ambitious mode-sharing goal is that we prioritize that not just in san francisco, but all across the country to our policies. i would like to state an intention that sfmta not be subsidizing car ownership because i think it undermines our agreed-upon and velveted goals. when you're talking about subsidizing the tow program, i don't want transit riders to be subsidizing car ownership. to me that's completely backwards and undermines our goals. i heard everything that the speakers said that $100 is overly burdensome for a lot of people. that's a really fair point that needs to be addressed

separately, but i don't think we should be subsidizing car ownership. equity considerations aside, i don't think we should be subsidizing car ownership as an agency. >> you mean homeownership? >> that's a separate conversation. i think that's a really, really good point and that's, i feel like, a separate conversation. but i don't think that transit riders should be cross-subsidizing vehicle ownership for those who are wealthier. >> a question about the first-time tow subsidy which is, in fact, larger than the low income. i want to remind the board that if you want to make comments on that, we love your feedback on the value of that first-time tow. >> if you want to cue up some of

the visuals, that would be great. >> there is a lot to say on this subject. i'm probably going to say something first that sounds like i disagree with the director, but i don't think we do. i think there's a lot of subsidies going back and forth. i have looked at the m.t.a. program as a program that basically uses fees collected from motorists to subsidize muni. i think that's a solid public policy. now, obviously there are other subsidies that come to motorist s. they generally don't come from

muni, but other factors and policies that have been around for a long time. that's the subject of a nice long drink at the bar. the tribunal with relying on fees and fines on motorists to subsidize muni is what happens when those fees and fines get so high that you get calls from people, i think justifiably, that this is too high and too much. especially at an income scale, it's having effects that really aren't justified by the evidence. our former governor famously hated traffic fines. he was constantly vetoing traffic bills to raise the maximums. i'm sympathetic to that point of view. i think some of these fines have become really, really big.

we need to find the money somewhere to run the muni. that's the tension, as our director said a few minutes ago. let me big in on just a few of the two major issues. one of them is the fines. if we're going to entertain the question of should we eliminate towing of non-payment of tickets, i think we need to answer the question with a pretty high level of certainty that that's not going to blow a hole in the muni budget if a lot of people now decide that since your car can't get towed, you don't have to pay your fines. i used to work at m.t.c., as my colleagues know. we collected the tolls on the

bridges. if you don't pay your toll, you get a ticket. if you don't pay your tickets, you can't re-register your vehicle. that's how it's done. i'm not suggesting using that as a model here, but that is one way to deal with that problem of if you for i think a good reason decide you don't want to charge a certain group of motorists for the practice of non-payment of fees, how do you prevent that from spreading and occurring. and, leo, i would be interested in your analysis of that question as well. if that's an option that's on the table, what potential revenue impact could that have. the other thing i looked at in that area, and i think, leo, you were trying to achieve this objective is do the fees and

fines relate to each other in some kind of equitable way? and i think a couple that i saw that you didn't proposal, and i'm running the risk of getting in trouble with the scooter lobby, but to me someone riding a scooter on the sidewalk is sort of committing a comparable safety violation to someone who is parked in a fire lane or parked in a bike lane. that's one, it seems to me, whether you're on a scooter or a bike, you shouldn't be on the sidewalk. you can seriously injure somebody by doing so, including yourself. so i would yourself you to look at that question as well. now, on the garages and the meter rates, my understanding is that we used to have, like we do have today, for muni, an indexes policy that those rates would increase and that i think, and

you can correct me if i'm wrong about this, that that policy sort of went by the wayside when we went to the demand-based pricing. i was surprised to read in the presentation that the demand-based pricing only applies to 2% of the meters in the city, though. that's at least what the slide said. if that's true, there's a whole bunch of meters that are out there whose rates only change when we change them. is that wrong? >> yeah, that's just the number of that cap, that ceiling rate. it applies to 100% of all meters. >> so i guess then my question would be, is there any way to put those two ideas into the same fee structure so that you would have -- you could change the cap, but you would also have an indexing that would occur as the default and it would occur like it does on muni where you

don't impose every nickel or dime. you wait until there is a quarter change or whatever it is. that's the question. >> sure. it's definitely a policy option the board can consider. however, when we took on the s.f. park policy and pilot, we really found that the equity bands -- actually, we started off at $0.25 per hour. we've raised the floor to $0.50 an hour and took the rate-changing policy from really driving revenues, but to get back to some of our goals of reducing circling, creating basically one space per block availability rather than just driving rates up for the point of [ indiscernible ] -- >> if we drive the rates up too high, then availability drops. we end up with [ indiscernible ] -- >> because [ overlapping speakers ] -- i've got a different idea on that one.

that is if the question that director eichen asked, if we're going from $8 to $9 because it's another dollar, why do we have a cap at all? if you're going to have a demand-based system, let demand set the price. i'm reminded of that story in virginia where they implemented one of these express lanes and the algorithm was all screwed up. the first day they charged people $60 to drive into washington on this free-flowing lane and a bunch of people paid it, even though it was a mistake. so i know this question in the environment of the express lanes on the highway has come up quite a bit. and a number of agencies have adopted caps and then they get to the cap in like the second week and then the service degrades and there's nothing they can do about it. my preference, and we get some criticism for it i suspect, if you're going to have a demand-based system, don't have

the cap. and you could have the interfacing underneath it. for me the policy question is is it better to raise money from law-asiding behavior or from people who are breaking the law? in terms of revenue generation, it's not good to count on a certain amount of people breaking the law, they might decide not to or to do it twice as much. i think in terms of this arrangement we have about the subsidy, it's much better for the muni side of the house to be getting reliable revenue from motor vehicles, as opposed to whether it might be a higher number this year or a lower number next year or whether we get complaints from communities who say we're suffering an undue burden here and we react to that and we have to scurry around to find the revenue to make up for that decision. so it seems to me on the garages

and the meter rate side, i would prefer to see a way of raising additional revenue there, as opposed to the fines and penalties, because i do believe that we've reached a place with $400 or $500 fines per infraction that not only are we raising equity questions, but i think we're also venturing into territory where it's going to be really hard for us to estimate how much revenue that's going to raise because the numbers are so high. >> there comes a time in a society when you have to make moral choices. as a member of the senate judiciary committee, we had to confront that with three strikes and you're out. what did it produce? a lot of expense and a lot of people, almost 60% in our prison

population because of drugs. rather than put them into a rehab program, we put them into a prison, which costs more than producing children and student services. we are criminalizing poverty today. it's not only on this issue. it's on issues across the board. you have to come to the conclusion at some point where to stop because it's starting to remind me of medieval england in terms of how we deal with poverty. this is not on your shoulders nor is it on ours, but it is ours collectively. we have to come up with a system whereby these towing issues are relegated to some kind of income test that basically evaporates the need to pay that towing fee because they're never going to come up with it. what are we doing? it's not the usual process like in the 1970s or the 1980s because you have too many tickets or you're parked in the

wrong area, you're being towed because that's where you're lig and that's the only place you can live. that to me is criminalization of a most horrible order.you can l. that to me is criminalization of a most horrible order. we have to come up with a much more thoughtful approach that deals with basic essence of how we address the criminalization of poverty. i know in the conversations i've had with the governor and other leade leaders, it's clear people are at a crossroads of what to do with these issues of homelessness and poverty. especially in this city when many of the directors said what an impasse we are at with the haves and the have notes, it's more clear here in san francisco than it's been in any other city in the country. i think fare evasion doesn't work. new york has had a fare evasion program and that doesn't work, and they have $300 million

they're losing in fares and it's still not working. we need to examine thoughtfully how we move forward and if at any point we get to the point we're dealing with people in the automobiles not being towed if it's their home. >> thank you. so i'm going to be quick and go through all the different things. pretty much everything that's been said up here i agree with. one the parking citation adjustment, i'm fine with those. i understand we want people to pay fares and feel safe on transit. some people feel the fare inspectors provide some degree of safety. i also question the logic of fare evasion because when i see the people that are evading fares, a lot of them are youth who for whatever reason don't have a muni pass and sometimes they appear to be low-income,

homeless individuals. to enforce fare evasion on those folks doesn't make sense. i don't see why this would work. going back to the question that was raised earlier, we are going to be consolidating the application for free muni for youth with the food and getting free lunches which is exciting. i personally stated i would prefer if we got rid of the application and if everyone who went to public schools got a muni card. i believe we wouldn't be hurting if we had more kids riding the system. the thing is we would get it into the hands of the people who need it without filling out forms. i'm all for reducing forms. when it comes to cost recovery fees, just making sure that we are fully capturing that amount

correctly, the increase to 5% indexing is the right index. i looked at the commerce and industry report for 2018 for san francisco, and the shocking thing was the average income in san francisco in 2018 was $128,000 and for a white collar working it was $178,000. i looked at that because i still work with a lot of restaurants and the incomes were not anywhere close to that. it's shocking the differential in the city of those who can afford to pay more advanced fares. i think we should look at getting rid of the caps on the meters. if you look at the lots close to the baseball games, the fares are getting higher.

i think for people choosing to dri drive, still parking would be cheaper than taking the alternative. i wish that we could use augmented intelligence to really look at how to better understand the people who aren't paying who can afford to pay and how we get to those people. i think if you register your car and you live in san francisco and you have parking tickets, you can't register your car again unless you pay those tickets.

there are better ways to figure out who can afford to pay. in lots of states there was reciprocity for speeding tickets. i remember i got a speeding ticket in 1996 and someone came after me from a small town and i paid it. the point was that other jurisdictions are figuring out how to capture lost revenue from people who can afford it. i think we should look at doing that. i think if we had some data around the people who were towing and booting, there are data sets and information that we can find to figure that out and target those people who can afford to pay to collect those funds as opposed to focusing on the people who can't pay. when it comes to low income in terms of towing.

in 1999 i moved from the east coast and drove my car across the country. i got parking tickets. i had a friend who let me park at his house, but he got parking tickets and the car was towed. when i got the notice and at the time i was maybe $37,000. i made a choice to leave the car where it was. when i grew up, people who didn't have cars didn't have work. i was lucky that i could have my car towed, but it was expensive and i knew that i couldn't afford it. it would have been better if i could have sold that car and

pocketed that money. it was really disappointing. i can only imagine what it's like to have your home towed. if you're low income, to spend $100,000, that could be meals for a week, a hotel room for a night. there's almost no dollar amount that you could affix that's not a hardship, especially the person living paycheck to paycheck. they don't have to have it be low income to be a hardship. if we have it set up that you can't reregister your car as a consequence of paying tickets, we don't need to tow peoples' cars because they deal with it there. but we have to think about how to troubleshoot and deal with people. maybe this is a.i., if we see someone has repeated tickets and the car is not moving, how do we

help people to get services and whatever they need because continuing to ticket them is silly. at the best case, they don't lose their car and their life, but at the worst case they do. i don't see the benefit in that regard. we have to figure it out specifically. again, i think $100 -- i understood that was a really thoughtful approach, but if people have no money, $100 is a lot of money. i just don't see how $100 -- it's not worth it to us for anything. people couldn't move their cars. maybe they couldn't afford gas to move their car. it's the compounding thing. we've heard this over and over again from people living in their cars. if you're on the edge and you lose your home, that's when alcohol looks more attractive, drugs, all those things. if i were living on the streets,

i would have a hard time coping. i would choose destructive behaviors. it seems to me we have to be better at that. in this budget process what's important is that we prioritize equity, equity to transit and getting around. if you want to talk about places and neighborhoods that we don't tow, i think there's a great idea of looking at neighborhoods we don't tow. if you want to talk about equity, let's talk about the distance to the major job center from your neighborhood, if you're over this time, then absolutely we don't toe you. a lot w a lot of the people whow

a lot of the people who yow a lot of the people ww yow a lot of the people wuw a lot of the people who are working there will have cars. my point is that's how we can look at equity. i think it's hard to look at -- they were saying the problem with trying to do equality is that you don't "for the fact that the circumstances are different among different people. we have to look at doing a better job for that. if we know that certain neighborhoods have poor transit, we shouldn't be surprised that people have cars in those neighborhoods and we shouldn't be surprised that people work hours that it's difficult for them to get to their jobs. how we can better utilize data and information and look at zip

codes in terms of towing or getting rid of towing all together if we can look at the fees and see how we can help peop people. if we can really mean this a meaningful program. i remember one time a long time ago i got a parking ticket and i had paid the meter. i sent the information in to the m.t.a. and it was denied. first i appealed and did another appeal and got a denial. i went in person and it was erased because i was correct. we make it hard because we want people to pay their tickets, but we shouldn't make it hard and onerous for people.

most people would pay more to pay now rather than go through a process. let's figure out how we don't make processes more onerous for people and make it easier for people who want to pay the fines and the fees more quickly by providing an enhancement. i think the final point i was going to make is in regards to the point that maybe we can have a look at a budget that kind of does what we were talking about, the e.i.r. approach, where you have the less-aggressive plan or the equity -- all the equity things we wanted to do, right, what that would look like. another budget is what we are and what we're doing and something that's aggressive that only cares about costs and only cares about maximum nooising value. then we can figure out a little bit more. i think it's hard in the abstract because $2 million

here, $5 million there, it's hard to understand the tradeoffs and what they mean. if you can line it up and show what the tradeoffs mean in that way, it might be more meaningful. because obviously in some areas if you're saying there's less revenue here, that pays for that. does that mean fees have to go up or we have less staff so the fees do go up. also how we can look at technology better to better do more predictive behavioral stuff around reaching out for fees and also understanding who are the people getting towed or booted. >> is there a state law of towing for unpaid tickets? i don't know if anyone knows the answer. >> it's all by jurisdiction. okay. that's good to know.

it sounds like what a lot of us are looking for is a non-regressive way of looking at this. i look at what a non-regressive way of basically charging car owners for their impact on the city, for people who can't afford to drive. and i know we do have legislative approval to do a vehicle license fee and i believe that fee is based on the value of the vehicle so people who own lower-value vehicles aren't going to pay as much. i'm not sure why as a city we talked about it when we were first enabled to do it and it got dropped and never brought up again. to me -- >> it got dropped because arnold schwarzenegger ran on it and it --

>> i remember that. that seems like that's something to start looking at. if people can afford to drive super fancy vehicles, maybe they can give the city back more. maybe that is a pathway to getting to free muni for people and not having to tow people's homes. again, a tall order, leo. thank you. that's all i have. >> anybody else? >> just going back to the point of putting these difficult decisions in the context of our goals, i guess i would just ask, other than incentivizing payments, are there other sfmta goals that we believe the practice of towing advances? >> there are special cases where it is a safety or a congestion

matter, where a car is blocking traffic or blocking a safety access. so that definitely is one. there also is -- people mentioned vehicle registration. if someone has not paid their registration, the only consequence we really have is if ultimately the car can be towed for having an expired registration. it's also incentivizing the expiry of your license and registration. and i'm -- i'm trying to think i'm not aware of other -- well, i think there's -- if you ask people in neighborhoods, it gets back to that question of people's sense of how they want their neighborhood to look. so the issue of a car overstaying its time where there's restrictions on the number of days one can be parked in one place. >> if there is a vehicle blocking the bus lane or

something, i can understand that would be an intervention and that would enable us to do our job, but i am hearing some of the comments that if the primary purpose is paying citations and it's not proving effective in achieving that primary purpose, should we look at are there other methods that could be effective at achieving that purpose. just the only thing i wanted to say is i would love for us to look at solutions that are both innovative and achieve equity. just one example of that in the context of the fare evasion conversation that was advanced earlier, as opposed to you paying us $125 if you don't pay your muni fare, i have heard there are programs that would help somebody who hasn't paid to purchase a monthly pass and maybe we would provide a payment plan for someone if they didn't have the $40 or the $80 or whatever it is. that is a solution that enables

people to have more access to the transit system rather than imposing a penalty. i would love to see other solutions out there to help advance equity. >> when i first moved to san francisco, i lived in my car. living in my car meant i had a place to keep my stuff dry and to sleep safely. and washing up at the gas station, i could make myself presentable, such that it was possible for me to connive a landlord into renting me an apartment even though i was unemployed. that in turn allowed me to have temp work. if my car had been towed during those weeks of living in my car, i probably wouldn't be here today. so i really want to thank the board for your deep discussion on this, staff for your hard staff work, and especially for

the public who have been so direct in your storytelling and simply have shown up to fight for a more just san francisco. the next couple of weeks are going to be really hard. this is only through compassion with the public, and particularly the public who have the hardest choices and clarity around your values that you are going to be able to make the tough calls to deal with the tradeoffs necessary to approve a budget that is balanced, that delivers the service that san francisco needs, and that delivers on our value of equity. so we will continue to support you doing the tough staff work and look forward to additional comments at our public workshop on the 11th and at our next

workshop on the 18th. >> i do have one question, what is a policy around a ticket being written by somebody that's in a car. someone brought up that they were in their car and a ticket was being written even though they were in their car and other people have had that too. i think that is a policy decision that we can make that is not a cost differential to the decision right now, but i would like to understand if there is a policy related to that. >> that's a great question. my ears perked up when i heard that too. i think a good way to have a conversation about this might be for us to bring back to you a couple of the different circumstances under which that happens. some of the variables include is the violation of something for immediate public safety. i would like to bring you back examples of when that might

happen. generally it shouldn't happen, but there are issues of parking enforcement. >> i think that concludes the items on our agenda, so i think we are now adjourned. [♪]

>> chairwoman: good morning, everyone, the meeting will come to order. welcome to the march 2, 2020, meeting of the rules committee. i'm supervisor hillary ronen, chair of the committee. seated to my right is captain stefanie, and we'll soon be joined by supervisor gordon marr. mar. mr. clerk, do you have any announcements? >> yes. please silence your cell phones and all electronic equipment. completed speaker cards and copies of any documents should be submitted to the clerk. items acted upon today will appear on the march 10 board of supervisors

agenda unless otherwise stated. >> chairwoman: can you read item number one. >> item one is appointing two members to the commission on aging and advisory council. >> chairwoman: than thank you so much. i believe we're joined by juliette rothman. if juliette would like to come up and address the committee, thank you so much. if you just want to share with us your interest in the appointment. how are you? >> good. i'm here to seek reappointment to the advisory council, and just to tell you a little bit about myself. i worked in the direct practice of aging and disability for 25 years and have chaired ethics committees and hospice committees and all that kind of stuff. i got really concerned about some of the ethical

issues in health care, and went back and got a ph.d. in health care ethics. and taught at catholic move to franchise, taught at cal for 15 years in special welfare and public health, and in the si six-year joint medical program. and now i'm retired, and i'm really enjoying the shift from micro-practice, direct practice, to looking at things on a more macro level, after i taught macro, and now i'm getting to experience it. i'm serving on the aquatic park senior center's team lead, the neighborhood circle, and etc., etc. i really have been enjoying what i'm doing with the council. and i would like to

continue. >> chairwoman: thank you so much for your service. do you have any questions? >> no. i just want to thank you for your service, especially with regard to aquatic park senior center since that is in district 2. thank you so much. >> chairwoman: if we could hear from ms. graff. is that all we need from you? >> that's all. >> chairwoman: you're so impressive, we need no more information. >> good morning. thank you for listening to my petition here. i'm margaret graff and i'm a senior. this is specifically for reappointment to the advisory council to the commission for das. i am nominated by supervisor gordon mar. and i have the honor to be

nominated by two different supervisors since i was originally, first time around, a nominee of katie king. i've been -- my term expires on march 31. and i am seeking renomination because i think my work isn't done, or what i can contribute to the advisory council. presently on the advisory council, i serve on the executive committee because i am also the elected second vice president. i also serve on the legislative committee. what that specifically does is we review pending bills that are in the state legislature and follow them as they work their way through, or not, as the case may be. and as they work their way through, if we feel a

response is a good idea, we bring to the advisory council a suggestion of writing a letter of support. as far as my background is concerned, i'm a retired registered nurse, and i'm a retired attorney. so i have a medical and a legal background. >> chairwoman: can came first? >> the registered nurse. i was a registered nurse, and then i was a stay-at-home mom for 13 years, raising my three children. i've been a 56-year resident of district 4, so basically i was born in the midwest, and midwesterners tend to put down roots deep, so i did. >> chairwoman: can i ask you what inspired you to go to law school and get a law degree? i'm just curious. >> well, you're talking to an older woman here. i always wanted to be a lawyer. but i grew up in a very small town in the midwest,

and at that particular time, women didn't go off to become attorneys. we, at best, got to be teachers or nurses. and so that had to be put aside, which i did. and empty nest syndrome, where the children are beginning to get their wings a little and spread them, i thought, now or never. so i went to law school. >> chairwoman: well, speaking to two women attorneys, thank you for forging the bath for us. >> in my case, what glass ceiling? one of the things that inspired me to get so involved in the community, approximately seven years ago, my husband started to develop the symptoms of dementia and alzheimer's disease. and i was scared to death.

and i didn't know where to go or what to look for or where to get help. and in the process of finding my way through that maze, and finding that i didn't feel that -- there were so many agencies in san francisco, and it is so hard to evaluate what will help, but i felt i needed something locally, in my so about a year and a half ago, i went to katie king, and i said, i have an idea. i can't find what i want to meet the needs of a care-giver for a dementia patient, so i want to start something. and i started a group called "senior power." and if supervisor mar were here, he would readily tell you that i talk about it all of the time. no one is safe from my talking about senior power. but basically it is a non-profit organization. it is community-driven,

and the focus is on seniors, their families, and the care-givers. because of the nature of the district i come from, which is predominantly asian and pacific islander, i'm very proud to say that within this past year we now have offer translation services at our meetings. we meet monthly. we have guest speakers. we practice chi gong, and we have raffle prizes and light refreshments. it is a socialization, getting them out of the household. and that has led me to serve presently on three committees for supervisor mar. one for the elders. one for the safety -- street safety. and the other one for the city college satellite

that we were able to bring to district 4. and within that city college satellite program, what we now have is a class for older adults, which basically is t tai-chi. so round-about circle, one of the things we tried to do -- i'm probably going way over my minutes. one of the things that we need to do is all of these good services, to bring them to the outer districts, the to community, and serving on the advisory council, i have a firsthand seat at learning these. and i take it back. that's the whole point, frankly. >> chairwoman: thank you so much. >> thank you very much for listening. >> chairwoman: thank you. i will now open this item up for public comment. if any member of the

public wishes to speak of these two appointments, seeing none, public comment is closed. i just wanted to thank supervisors peskin and mar for appointing these extraordinary candidates for this advisory board. thank you so much for your willingness to do this work. it is crucially important. and captain stefanie has a few words. >> i want to echo your thanks to both supervisors for coming forth, both of you. i think this is such an important topic. i talk about seniors all of the time. i just actually returned home from mersed, where my dad was diagnosed with lewy body dementia two years ago, and he is declining rapidly. this weekend was the first weekend where he didn't recognize me. and it is very difficult

for care-givers, and watching a man who his library is full of the most difficult books one could ever wrapped their minds around, and now he is holding children's books, and watching this, someone just disappear, is extremely difficult. i want so badly to be able to figure out how we can help those suffering from dementia, and also how we can help the care-givers. so i really want to follow up with both of you, and to see if we can bring any of the programs you talked about to district 2, and how we can just support those that are care-giving, and those that are suffering. and if there is anything that we can do, i can't even begin to tell you what my family has been through with this diagnosis and just watching my dad disappear. thank you again for this extremely important work. i'm thrilled to be able to support both nominations today.

so with that, i need to put my glasses on. i would like to move forward with positive recommendation. the appointment of juliette rothman to seat 4 on the aging council, and margaret graff, to the full board without objection. >> chairwoman: without objection, that motion passes unanimously. thank you so much. [applause] >> chairwoman: mr. clerk, can you please read item number two. >> a hearing to consider appointing one member to the parks and recreation open space advisory commissioners. >> chairwoman: good morning. >> thank you for the opportunity to come in and speak about this.

my candidacy for the prozac committee. i have been a district 4 resident since 1986, so that is 34 years, and i married a district 4 native, with hi our two sons in district 4, who have now grown. and we have really relied on the open space and parks we have out there and throughout the city. the recreation centers, the west sunset, south sunset, we're very lucky to have these resources in our community, as well as the summer lakes, the kisar sports camp. that is to say i realize how important it is to have access to open space and parks for everybody, all ages and especially kids growing up in an urban environment. since 2016, i've been managing playland at 43rd avenue. it is a community resource

that turned a vacant lot around the old francis scott key school into a community recreation area, that has skateboarding, gardens, art programs, yoga for all ages -- which i want to tell margaret about later. so that has been a really rewarding opportunity to see all of the different people in our neighborhood coming together in different ways and using this really active space that houses all these different things. however, playland will be closing at the end of this year because of the teacher housing that is coming in, which is a great thing. and we knew that from the start of playland, even as the community was building and managing the space. supportive of the teacher housing, it is something we really need in san francisco. but it points to the other need of recreation and open space that we will now be losing. what is going to happen to those activities and where

will the people go? i know i've been talking with supervisor mar, and i know he is looking at alternatives and what can we do? where can we find other spaces, other types of spots for these kinds of activities? and that's something i'm really looking forward to having the opportunity to support him on, as a member of this committee. there are other things going on in district 4, like the sunset boulevard master plan where we might be able to combine some play or some gardening or maybe a little skate park. there is possibly vacant storefronts, church properties that gordon has been working on transitioning. i think it is opportunities and being creative and thinking of recreation and open spaces and environment in maybe different ways, and maybe alternative types of

spaces than we're used to seeing in terms of rec and park. so if i have the opportunity to serve on this committee, i hope to make sure there are these kinds of spaces for our district 4 residents, but also throughout all of the districts. districts in san francisco. and at the same time, supporting our city's sustainable green infrastructure. thank you. >> chairwoman: thank you for all of your service. i appreciate it. >> no questions for me? [laughter] >> chairwoman: i'm opening this item up for public comment. is there any member of the public comment that wishes to speak. seeing none, public comment is closed. again, supervisor mar made an excellent appointment. thank you so much fo for your extraordinary work. thank goodness we have such amazing people in san francisco willing to invest in their community. and all women.

>> women's history month. >> chairwoman: do you want to do the honors again? >> i would like to move forward the appointment of susan ryan to seat 3 on the park and recreations open spaces. >> chairwoman: that without objection, that passes. >> i would like to note that supervisor mar was absent for that vote. >> chairwoman: can you please read item number three. >> item number three is a hearing to appointing one member, ending march 31, 2022, to the pedestrian safety advisory committee. >> chairwoman: thank you so much. is ms. marta here? thank you so much. good morning. >> my name is marta lyndsay, and an education instructor at walk san francisco, and i've been there about two years. and i have enthusiastic support from the organization to be the

person to represent the pedestrian safety advisory committee. and i am a long-time san francisco resident. i have two young children. and i walk for almost all of my trips everywhere, and i feel these issues very personally, and i'm extremely committed and excited to get on the committee at this time. i've attended several meetings. we need to kind of get the committee sorted out on some fronts. and really harness the energy of the group for being another voice for pedestrians. so i think that's all i have to say. >> chairwoman: i'm just wondering, given what a horrible start to the year we've had with pedestrian fatalities and injuries, just your thoughts on how the group is doing and what additional resources,

if any, you need. >> yeah. thank you. i would like to report back on that after getting to participate in the meetings actively. but i think there is one thing,, onthing -- one thing wed is more members. there are several vacancies, and it is making it hard to have a quorum for voting. we're reaching out to senior and disability groups to fill the two empty seats right now that need to have folks representing senior disability groups. and there are a couple of other districts, i think, that i can't name right now. so that's going to be important. i think we have some great folks on there that are ready to get organized as a group and be a stronger voice, which we need right now. we need every voice possible. so, yeah. thanks. >> chairwoman: opening up this item for public comment. any member of the public wish to speak, or from

city departments? >> good morning, madam chair. elo ramos speaking on my own personal time. i want to take the opportunity this morning to support ms. lindsey's appointment. i've had the privilege of knowing marta forgoing on 14 years now. i've had the privilege of working with her in the past, when she was an advocate with myself, working for a safer, more inclusive and more functional, sustainable streets. she is a fierce advocate. she will hold us accountable. i knew her the whole time i was on the board of directors for the m.t.a., and just being her co-worker did not mean anything to her when it came to pulling me into conversations around doing better to get to our vision zero target more quickly. she has an extraordinary love for this city. she is deeply committed to the safety, and not just for her children, but for everyone. and she brings this

incredible, talented lens that speaks to communications and inclusiveness, and just a wonderful vision for vision zero. so i'm confident knowing the two of you, and your values, from a safety and security perspective, you'll very proud to make her appointment. >> chairwoman: any other public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. [gavel] >> chairwoman: go ahead. >> okay. great. well, i'm thrilled to be able to put forward with positive recommendation to the full board marta lindsey for seat 1 on the pedestrian safety advisory committee. >> chairwoman: without objection, that motion passes unanimously. >> and i would like to note that supervisor mar was ab sen absent for the vote. >> chairwoman: can you please read item number four. >> item four is a motion for the board of

supervisors' rules of order to set the process for the administration of oath for individuals testifying before the board, and to authorize the government audit and oversight committee to issue orders and issue subpoenas. >> chairwoman: thank you. and we're joined by supervisor peskin. do you have any remarks, supervisor peskin? >> thank you, chair ronen, supervisor stefanie. before you are the amendments that were proposed in committee last week, that you verbally suggested the city attorney, in consultation with the clerk of the board, insert into the language that is before you today. i know that the clerk of the board, ms. calvio, is here if you have any questions for her. i'd like to thank her and

deputy city attorney pearson for their work on this. i would like to, subject to public comment, duplicate the file and remove, in section 6.7.1, in a file to be forwarded to the full board, the language with regard to the administration of oath to a department head, and leave that in committee so that if there is any desire by the m.e.a. to meet and confer on that, we can do so. and send this item, with the amendment removing that, to the full board with recommendation, if this committee sees fit. >> chairwoman: and to the city attorney, have we reached out to the m.e.a.?

>> yes. this draft has been sent to the m.e.a. >> chairwoman: and when was that done? >> that was done at the end of last week. i believe it was on thursday. >> chairwoman: and have we heard back? >> i have not. >> chairwoman: and have we been in touch with d.h. r.? >> it was sent to d.h. r-- to m.e e.a.through d.h.r.. i don't know if they've determined there is a need for it, so we sent it to them. and it is up to them to decide if there is a need for meet and confer. >> chairwoman: why hasn't that happened before today? >> i don't know. it is a decision to be made by d.h.r. i don't know. >> so the legislation, without that language, was introduced and approved, and d.h.r. had

no comment two years ago. so the only thing that changed is this language, which i think spurred the city attorney to send it to d.h.r. i think we have some options, one is we can send it to the full board with this language, and if there is a desire for meet and confer, we could remove that language at the full board. that would be another option. >> chairwoman: yeah. i mean, this other language is important to me, given what we're facing. and it doesn't seem like there was the urgency to reach out to d.h.r., to ex them for their conclusion. it doesn't take two weeks to determine if the legislation is subject to meet and confer. >> i think a week has gone by. i like the language. i would like to keep the language. but i think perhaps, rather than duplicating file -- or we could

duplicate the file, and keep one here, and send the exact same file to the full board. and if the full board needs to remove that clause in section 6.7.1, we could to so next week. >> chairwoman: okay. i'm just expressing my disappointment to d.h.r., i don't know why it would take an entire week to decide if this is subject to meet and confer. it is a simple analysis and decision. so i don't know why that didn't happen, and i'm frustrated, so i just want to communicate that. having said that, are there any other questions or comments before opening this item up to public comment? no? >> i do want to thank you for approving item number one. >> chairwoman: yes. what an excellent candidate. is there any member of the public who wishes to speak. seeing none, public comment is closed. so i will make the

motion -- i guess any supervisor -- it doesn't have to be a committee member -- can duplicate the file? or does it have to be a committee member that duplicates the file? >> i believe a member of the committee to request a duplicate. >> chairwoman: motion to duplicate the file and to send -- and we already accepted the amendments last week, so we don't need to do that again -- to send the item as amended with recommendation. >> yes. just to clarify, you have duplicated the file. the version of the file that will be referred to the board of supervisor with recommendation will not have the information regarding -- >> chairwoman: no. no. no. we're duplicating the file so that they're identical. >> yes. >> chairwoman: we're sending one version to the board of supervisors, and we're keeping one version in committee, but they're identical. >> oh, yes. just to note that if they are identical, one

of them -- there are some rules regarding identical files. but we can discuss that at a later time. >> chairwoman: okay. we have both the clerk of the board and the city attorney here, so i'm wondering if we want to talk about those rules? no? >> if they -- >> chairwoman: okay. great. one more time, i'll just repeat: we're going to duplicate the files so we have two identical versions. one is going to stay in committee, and one is moving to a full board. my motion is to send the duplicated file to the full board with positive recommendation. >> yes. >> chairwoman: can we take that without objection? without objection, that motion passes unanimously. payers than >> thank you, madam chair and colleagues. >> chairwoman: mr. clerk, can you please read item number five. > [item five read]

>> chairwoman: good morning, mr. agustine, how are you? >> david augustin augustine her. we're here to talk about the exciting world of unsecured personal property taxes. things like business fixtures and things of that note, and equipment. we have an ordinance for the first time that we're approaching the board to consider. i would like to spend a couple of minutes to talk about why we're coming to the board because this is something we have not done, at least in my 15year years in office. it will allow the patroller to collect personal property debt on an ongoing basis. i want to make sure this legislation does not

allow for cancellation of any secured security taxes, i.e., secured by land or ones difficult to collect. this ordinance would allow only for cancellation of unsecured personal property debt. all bills that could be canceled, we would only cancel them if they're literally uncolleccollectible. there are three categories only. first, any amounts over 30 years old. second, any amounts that have been discharged after bankruptcy, again, we would be legally barred from collecting these accounts. and, third, any lean that has failed to have been filed or renewed. as a side note, before 2015, we had a manual lien removal process, essentially within three years of the debt being valid, to go and record with the recorder's

office, and we could renew it up to two different times. we now have an automated process where liens are automatically renewed, and we don't have to have people walking across city hall to record a document. so that would be the third category. it is a relatively small category. so why now? why are we asking now for this power? the office of the treasurer and controller are migrating to a new tax operation. and wcancellation of these accounts will allow us to transport tens of thousands of accounts. again, some of these obligations go back 50 years. we're proud, we have a high collection rate for

unsecured personal property tax collection, about 95%. every year we collect about $170 million annually in unsecured personal property taxes from about 80,000 different taxpayers. our systems have all been overhauled and allowed for automated contact and imposition of liens. canceling uncollectible debt is a practice other counties engage in. in addition, i did a quick survey of our colleagues in our california tax collector group and found out that hum belt, spanish law, and del nor have all canceled debt recently. what we're talking about is the accounts that have about $20 million, and with interest, it is about $100 million. and the reason the interest is so high because sometimes the accounts go back to about 50 years, and numbers about 35,000 accounts. by far, the greatest challenge to those

accounts represent bills that are over 30 years old, and the other challenge is bankruptcy or failure to renew a lien. with that, i would be happy to take any questions or discuss this in more detail. >> chairwoman: sure, does this authority currently rest with the board of supervisors? >> that's right, it does. >> chairwoman: out of curiosity, what ask to delegate this authority? >> great question. we proposed taking it out of the board's hands because we wouldn't be exercising, en m, in my view, any judgment. if we were choosing judgments that were difficult to collect, maybe there was a debtor that moved out of the country, i feel like that is of province of the board to cancel. these accounts we are legally unable to collect, so i thought we would take time off if

we took ought off the board. we could come back to the board if it was not falling into any of the three buckets i articulated earlier. we want to make sure we use the power judicially and appropriately. it is not our business to cancel accounts to begin with. it is my job to collect these taxes, and so that's certainly what we look forward to doing. >> chairwoman: why the controller and not the treasurer directly? is that because you want an outside party making the judgment call -- >> that is the state revenue and taxation code requirement that allows this to happen upon the state controller, usually the responsible power. it is a separation of powers issue, which we think is extremely appropriate. we would make a recommendation, and the controller would accept it or not accept it and

we would go forward from there. >> chairwoman: thank you. is there any public comment on this item? see none, public comment is closed. it makes a whole lot of sense to me. it looks like my colleagues agree. so we would like to move this forward with a positive recommendation, and without objection that motion passes unanimously. mr. clerk, is there any other items? >> that completes the agenda for today. >> chairwoman: and the meeting is adjourned thank you.

san francisco, 911, what's the emergency? >> san francisco 911, police, fire and medical. >> the tenderloin. suspect with a six inch knife. >> he was trying to get into his car and was hit by a car. >> san francisco 911 what's the exact location of your emergency? >> welcome to the san francisco

department of emergency management. my name is shannon bond and i'm the lead instructor for our dispatch add -- academy. i want to tell you about what we do here. >> this is san francisco 911. do you need police, fire or medical? >> san francisco police, dispatcher 82, how can i help you? >> you're helping people in their -- what may be their most vulnerable moment ever in life. so be able to provide them immediate help right then and there, it's really rewarding. >> our agency is a very combined agency. we answer emergency and non-emergency calls and we also do dispatching for fire, for medical and we also do dispatching for police. >> we staff multiple call taking positions. as well as positions for police and fire dispatch. >> we have a priority 221. >> i wanted to become a dispatcher so i could help

people. i really like people. i enjoy talking to people. this is a way that i thought that i could be involved with people every day. >> as a 911 dispatcher i am the first first responder. even though i never go on seen -- scene i'm the first one answering the phone call to calm the victim down and give them instruction. the information allows us to coordinate a response. police officers, firefighters, ambulances or any other agency. it is a great feeling when everyone gets to go home safely at the end of the day knowing that you've also saved a citizen's life. >> our department operates 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year. >> this is shift work. that means we work nights, weekends and holidays and can involve over time and sometimes that's mandatory. >> this is a high stress career so it's important to have a good balance between work and life. >> we have resources available

like wellness and peer support groups. our dispatchers of the month are recognized for their outstanding performance and unique and ever changing circumstances. >> i received an accommodation and then i received dispatcher of the month, which was really nice because i was just released from the phones. so for them to, you know, recognize me for that i appreciated it. i was surprised to even get it. at the end of the day i was just doing my job. >> a typical dispatch shift includes call taking and dispatching. it takes a large dedicated group of fifrst responders to make ths department run and in turn keep the city safe. >> when you work here you don't work alone, you work as part of a team. you may start off as initial phone call or contact but everyone around you participating in the whole process. >> i was born and raised in san francisco so it's really rewarding to me to be able to help the community and know that

i have a part in -- you know, even if it's behind the scenes kind of helping the city flow and helping people out that live here. >> the training program begins with our seven-week academy followed by on the job training. this means you're actually taking calls or dispatching responders. >> you can walk in with a high school diploma, you don't need to have a college degree. we will train you and we will teach you how to do this job. >> we just need you to come with an open mind that we can train you and make you a good dispatcher. >> if it's too dangerous to see and you think that you can get away and call us from somewhere safe. >> good. that's right. >> from the start of the academy to being released as a solo dispatcher can take nine months to a year. >> training is a little over a year and may change in time. the training is intense. very intense. >> what's the number one thing that kills people in this country? so we're going to assume that it's a heart attack, right?

don't forget that. >> as a new hire we require you to be flexible. you will be required to work all shifts that include midnights, some call graveyard, days and swings. >> you have to be willing to work at different times, work during the holidays, you have to work during the weekends, midnight, 6:00 in the morning, 3:00 in the afternoon. that's like the toughest part of this job. >> we need every person that's in here and when it comes down to it, we can come together and we make a really great team and do our best to keep the city flowing and safe. >> this is a big job and an honorable career. we appreciate your interest in joining our team. >> we hope you decide to join us here as the first first responders to the city and county of san francisco.

for more information on the job and how to apply follow the links below.

>> the hon. london breed: how's everybody doing today? first of all, i'm london breed, mayor of san francisco, and i want to thank all of the people who are here today to talk about safe consumption services in san francisco. let me start by thanking glide. just last year in this same space that we are here, glide hosted a mock, mockup of what a safe consumption space could look like in san francisco and how it could potentially be an incredible service where it could save lives. and the fact is, i think the challenge that we face in this city and actually throughout

this country is not having an honest conversation about people who struggle with substance use disorder. we know that it's happening and playing itself out on our streets and people are complaining about it. but the fact is complaining about it and moving people from space to space to space does not solve the problem. if anybody has had a family member or their own personal experience with substance use disorder, you know it's just not that simple to say here, here's help, or here's support or here are services you have to get better. people who suffer with substance use disorder have real challenges, and i think we have to change the kind of services that we provide to help people who deal with those challenges. we've been lucky in san francisco that we have incredible people and organizations that have led the way, including the aids

foundation and the delancey foundation, haight-ashbury foundation, who have put themselves on the line for people that are struggling. and what's so amazing about the work that they have done, they help people beat the addiction that they have and get them back into full, productive lives. that's all we want in programs like this, so today, we are here to announce what we are going to be providing in legislation. myself, along with supervisor m matt haney, will be providing permits to organizations to allow them to operate safe consumption sites in san francisco. [applause] >> the hon. london breed: you know that i've been working on

this for years, even when i was on the board of supervisors, and trying to inform people about what this actually means, what this could mean. and let me just talk a little bit about what it could mean, and i'll introduce supervisor haney in just a moment. but the fact is, think about it. you see people who are basically out on the streets, injecting publicly. you see people using the foil and fentanyl and other things that are out there. just think about them. just imagining walking through this door and getting a space where they're doing it inside, where they're contained with people who are basically treating them with respect and making it clear to them that as soon as they are ready, we are there to help them. that's what this is about. when they are ready, when they say the word, they're getting the counseling and the services

and they are immediately provided the treatment that they need to get healthy. they're not just going to do it because we say to do it. they're going to do it when provided an opportunity that they feel safe, that they feel comfortable, that they feel welcome, that they can trust the environment and the people that we're working with. this is about not just the conditions that we are tired of seeing out on our streets, this is about saving people's lives. the people out there are someone's mother, somebody's father, somebody's cousin, somebody's uncle. they have family members, but they are struggling, and this is just a way that i think we need -- this is a direction we need to move in. things are changing. what people are using is changing. we know the history, the crack epidemic in the 80s, the heroin

epidemic, and now back to opioids in general and the trends around certain drugs and what happens, so we need to make some adjustments to deal with those challenges so that we can get people the help and the support that they need, and that's what this is about. and so as we know with all the challenges that exist with the federal government and the concerns, we know that those concerns are real. we want to make sure we protect the workers who are going to be on the front lines, doing the work, who are putting themselves on the line to help other people get the help and the support that they need. we want to make sure that the city is being responsible how they set up the permitting process for the agencies that are preparing to do this work, so this is just one step to get prepared for what we're hoping could be an opportunity to open a safe consumption space in san

francisco soon. so thank you all so much for being here, and at this time, i want to introduce supervisor matt haney. [applause] >> supervisor haney: thank you, mayor breed. i just first want to recognize and acknowledge your leadership, your steadfast leadership for overdose prevention sites and same consumption sites. mayor breed -- safe consumption sites. mayor breed, when she was a supervisor, she started the task force that looked into this issue and analyzed the sites in other parts of the country and other parts of the world, really, and came forward with a set of recommendations that this was something we had to do in san francisco. so it was because of her leadership both as a supervisor and as mayor that we're standing here today introducing this legislation. it's also because of the leadership of folks who do

heroic work every single day to save lives on our streets, to provide care and outreach to folks who are experiencing substance use disorders, and those folks, i think, also deserve a great debt of gratitudetor what they do every day and for what they did to get us to this point. i want to acknowledge glide, the san francisco aids foundation, the dope project, h.r. 360, r.t.i., everyone who has been a part of this movement to deal with this crisis, this epidemic in a way that is evidence-based, that is compassionate, that is effective, and that will save lives in our city. we are facing the most deadly epidemic that this city has seen in a long time, and that is drug overdoses. this past year, in 2019, there were over 330 deaths as a result of drug overdoses in san francisco.

that's a massive increase over 2018, and actually, the number's expected to go up even higher than that. you can walk around this neighborhood and the neighborhoods that i represent and see people who are struggling, see people who are suffering, who are in need of support and need outreach and treatment, and above all, need to be in a place where they are inside and live and survive and have people that are there for them. we know that overdose prevention sites are not a radical idea. there are over 100 that operate in 65 cities around the world. and in those overdose prevention sites, not a single person has died from an overdose. thousands of people have been able to enter treatment and care, and we know we need that in san francisco. this will actually be able to save money.

the task force came out that mayor breed was so effective in championing show that each overdose prevention site will actually save the city about $3.5 million in health care costs. so this is the right thing to do, it's the smart thing to do, it's the compassionate, effective thing to do, and it could not be more urgent for us as we face this most deadly epidemic. this legislation will provide a permitting process so that health care professionals can prepare to open one of these sites as soon as possible. we don't know what the federal government is going to do, but we know that they don't know, especially this federal government, doesn't know what's right for san francisco. we in this room, the professionals who are doing this work, the mayor, the board of supervisors, the community, know what's right for san francisco, and what's right is for us to move forward with these sites now. we were able to, just this past

week, get positive news in philadelphia, where they have been in federal court and have won again and again, and they're going to be moving forward. it's time that san francisco move forward, as well. so we are going to be introducing this legislation together next tuesday. we are going to continue to push for the state and federal authority to do this, but what we need to do is move forward and prepare and be ready at that moment as soon as possible to open one of these sites because it's urgent, it's devastating our community, it's deadly, and we know that this is a huge part of the solution. it's not the only solution. we also need to do a lot more than this, but it is a part, and it's a proven tool that works. i want to thank andre and abbie from my office. they've been working on this

for months, and this is a collaborative action, and we know that it works. thank you all for being here. [applause] >> the hon. london breed: thank you. when this idea of doing a safe injection site now, safe consumption services -- did i get it right? all right. when it first was brought to my attention, it was brought to my attention by laura thomas of the drug policy alliance. she had spent so much time advocating and talking to elected officials, working with the community. she provided opportunities for people like me and others to visit vancouver to get a firsthand experience to understand what this could actually mean and how this could actually work, and there's nothing like seeing it directly to get an understanding and seeing it in use as to how it could potentially help people.

i think i was on board before that trip, but i was more determined to get this done here in san francisco after that trip, and it's because of laura thomas and leadership. she's now with the san francisco aids foundation, and so let's welcome laura thomas. [applause] >> yeah. so i'm laura thomas, director of harm reduction policy at the san francisco aids foundation, and as the mayor said, i've been talking to people about this for a very long time. but i'm really grateful for the leadership of the mayor in particular both when she was on the board of supervisors, as you've heard, and now as mayor for her willingness to stap up and say this is the right thing thing -- to step up and say this is the right thing to do. [applause] >> and i'm also grateful for the leadership of matt haney who stepped up and said what can we do about this?

let's bring this up now, and who has brought a sense of urgency to the overdose crisis and this issue, as well, so i'm ra really grateful for their leadership on this issue. i'm also grateful to glide and this safe injection mockup that they put on. for people who weren't able to travel to vancouver as the mayor did, but were able to come here and see what the concrete reality was, and i think that was a transformational public education effort, and i'm grateful to glide for that. i also want to thank the leadership we had for people who use drugs throughout this entire process. people who use drugs, they've continued to be involved,

showing up at the health commission and the board of supervisors to testify in support of this. and what we've heard over and over and over from people who use drugs is we do not want to be injecting on the streets in public view. we want a place where we can be safe, where we can be welcomed, treated with compassion, and where we can be indoors and be able to be out of view. we think that's important for us to remember as we think about this. you know, these are programs that can provide a bit of respite and dignity and compassion for people who often don't experience that in their day-to-day lives. you know, i think it's very clear that san francisco meets these programs. when you see the amount of public drug use that's happening, we need these programs. as you've heard, these would save money, save taxpayer dollars. they've been shown over and

over again to get people into treatment or correct them with sf with services, to reduce drug use. they don't increase drug use in the area, don't increase drug sales in approximathe area. that's been shown in research in different countries, and i think it's been clear from the scope of the overdose deaths that we need this. the san francisco chamber of commerce, dignity, citybeat poll, has shown that well over 40% of people support these here. other groups see just how useful these sites could be for us here in san francisco. and finally, i think san francisco deserves these sites.

we've long been on the front, on the cutting edge of, you know, following where the science leads, following where compassion leads us in order to do the right thing, even in the face of federal opposition. we know how to do these things in san francisco, we know how to do them well, and i'm excited to be doing these things in the city, excited to have this legislation. we still need to get our state bill passed, and, you know, we certainly face challenges with this federal administration, but i'm confident that we have the leadership and the will and the -- the moral wherewithal to make this happen here in san francisco. thank you. [applause] >> the hon. london breed: thank you. so i also want to take this

acknowledge to thank the director of the department of public health, dr. grant colfax, and the other folks who are helping spear head this particular process and are very supportive of this next step. they have just been invaluable throughout this process, and i want to thank the department of public health and its staff for their work and their willingness to do whatever it takes to help us get to this place. so as i said, we plan to introduce this legislation next week with the goal to prepare so that when we have the opportunity to open one of these sites, we want to be ready on day one. and so again, i'd like to thank supervisor haney for his leadership in helping to move this through the process as well as so many of the folks who are here, standing behind me, who have been doing this work for many, many years.

they are the people on the front line, working with folks who are struggling with substance use disorder every single day. and their passion and their love for the clients that they serve is extraordinary and has led to so many incredible break throughs in people's lives, and that's what this is all about, having a breakthrough so we can save people who are struggling. i want to thank all of you for being here today. looking forward to the day that we can really get this program going once and for all, so thank you so much. [applause]

we spoke with people regardless of what they are. that is when you see change. that is a lead vannin advantage. so law enforcement assistance diversion to work with individuals with nonviolent related of offenses to offer an alternative to an arrest and the county jail. >> we are seeing reduction in drug-related crimes in the pilot area. >> they have done the program for quite a while. they are successful in reducing the going to the county jail. >> this was a state grant that

we applied for. the department is the main administrator. it requires we work with multiple agencies. we have a community that includes the da, rapid transit police and san francisco sheriff's department and law enforcement agencies, public defender's office and adult probation to work together to look at the population that ends up in criminal justice and how they will not end up in jail. >> having partners in the nonprofit world and the public defender are critical to the success. we are beginning to succeed because we have that cooperation. >> agencies with very little connection are brought together at the same table.

>> collaboration is good for the department. it gets us all working in the same direction. these are complex issues we are dealing with. >> when you have systems as complicated as police and health and proation and jails and nonprofits it requires people to come to work together so everybody has to put their egos at the door. we have done it very, very well. >> the model of care where police, district attorney, public defenders are community-based organizations are all involved to worked towards the common goal. nobody wants to see drug users in jail. they want them to get the correct treatment they need. >> we are piloting lead in san francisco. close to civic center along market street, union plaza,

powell street and in the mission, 16th and mission. >> our goal in san francisco and in seattle is to work with individuals who are cycling in and out of criminal justice and are falling through the cracks and using this as intervention to address that population and the racial disparity we see. we want to focus on the mission in tender loan district. >> it goes to the partners that hired case managers to deal directly with the clients. case managers with referrals from the police or city agencies connect with the person to determine what their needs are and how we can best meet those needs. >> i have nobody, no friends, no resources, i am flat-out on my

own. i witnessed women getting beat, men getting beat. transgenders getting beat up. i saw people shot, stabbed. >> these are people that have had many visits to the county jail in san francisco or other institutions. we are trying to connect them with the resources they need in the community to break out of that cycle. >> all of the referrals are coming from the law enforcement agency. >> officers observe an offense. say you are using. it is found out you are in possession of drugs, that constituted a lead eligible defense. >> the officer would talk to the individual about participating in the program instead of being booked into the county jail. >> are you ever heard of the leads program. >> yes. >> are you part of the leads program? do you have a case worker?

>> yes, i have a case manager. >> when they have a contact with a possible lead referral, they give us a call. ideally we can meet them at the scene where the ticket is being issued. >> primarily what you are talking to are people under the influence of drugs but they will all be nonviolent. if they were violent they wouldn't qualify for lead. >> you think i am going to get arrested or maybe i will go to jail for something i just did because of the substance abuse issues i am dealing with. >> they would contact with the outreach worker. >> then glide shows up, you are not going to jail. we can take you. let's meet you where you are without telling you exactly what that is going to look like, let us help you and help you help yourself.

>> bring them to the community assessment and services center run by adult probation to have assessment with the department of public health staff to assess the treatment needs. it provides meals, groups, there are things happening that make it an open space they can access. they go through detailed assessment about their needs and how we can meet those needs. >> someone who would have entered the jail system or would have been arrested and book order the charge is diverted to social services. then from there instead of them going through that system, which hasn't shown itself to be an effective way to deal with people suffering from suable stance abuse issues they can be connected with case management. they can offer services based on their needs as individuals. >> one of the key things is our

approach is client centered. hall reduction is based around helping the client and meeting them where they are at in terms of what steps are you ready to take? >> we are not asking individuals to do anything specific at any point in time. it is a program based on whatever it takes and wherever it takes. we are going to them and working with them where they feel most comfortable in the community. >> it opens doors and they get access they wouldn't have had otherwise. >> supports them on their goals. we are not assigning goals working to come up with a plan what success looks like to them. >> because i have been in the field a lot i can offer different choices and let them decide which one they want to go down and help them on that path. >> it is all on you. we are here to guide you. we are not trying to force you to do what you want to do or

change your mind. it is you telling us how you want us to help you. >> it means a lot to the clients to know there is someone creative in the way we can assist them. >> they pick up the phone. it was a blessing to have them when i was on the streets. no matter what situation, what pay phone, cell phone, somebody else's phone by calling them they always answered. >> in office-based setting somebody at the reception desk and the clinician will not work for this population of drug users on the street. this has been helpful to see the outcome. >> we will pick you up, take you to the appointment, get you food on the way and make sure your needs are taken care of so you are not out in the cold. >> first to push me so i will

not be afraid to ask for help with the lead team. >> can we get you to use less and less so you can function and have a normal life, job, place to stay, be a functioning part of the community. it is all part of the home reduction model. you are using less and you are allowed to be a viable member of the society. this is an important question where lead will go from here. looking at the data so far and seeing the successes and we can build on that and as the department based on that where the investments need to go. >> if it is for five months. >> hopefully as final we will come up with a model that may help with all of the communities in the california. >> i want to go back to school to start my ged and go to

community clean. >> it can be somebody scaled out. that is the hope anyway. >> is a huge need in the city. depending on the need and the data we are getting we can definitely see an expansion. >> we all hope, obviously, the program is successful and we can implement it city wide. i think it will save the county millions of dollars in emergency services, police services, prosecuting services. more importantly, it will save lives.

>> roughly five years, i was working as a high school teacher, and i decided to take my students on a surfing field trip. the light bulb went off in my head, and i realized i could do much more for my students taking them surfing than i could as their classroom teacher, and that is when the idea for the city surf project was born. >> working with kids in the ocean that aren't familiar with this space is really special because you're dealing with a lot of fear and apprehension but at the same time, a lot of

excitement. >> when i first did it, i was, like, really scared, but then, i did it again, and i liked it. >> we'll get a group of kids who have just never been to the beach, are terrified of the idea, who don't like the beach. it's too cold out, and it's those kid that are impossible to get back out of the water at the end of the day. >> over the last few years, i think we've had at least 40 of our students participate in the city surf project. >> surfing helped me with, like, how to swim. >> we've start off with about two to four sessions in the pool before actually going out and surfing. >> swimming at the pool just helps us with, like, being, like, comfortable in the water and being calm and not being all -- not being anxious. >> so when we started the city

surf project, one of the things we did was to say hey, this is the way to earn your p.e. credits. just getting kids to go try it was one of our initial challenges for the first year or two. but now that we've been doing it three or four years, we have a group of kids that's consistent, and the word has spread, that it's super fun, that you learn about the ocean. >> starting in the morning, you know, i get the vehicles ready, and then, i get all the gear together, and then, i drive and go get the kids, and we take them to a local beach. >> we usually go to linda mar, and then occasionally ocean beach. we once did a special trip. we were in capitola last year, and it was really fun. >> we get in a circle and group stretch, and we talk about

specific safety for the day, and then, we go down to the water. >> once we go to the beach, i don't want to go home. i can't change my circumstances at home, but i can change the way i approach them. >> our program has definitely been a way for our students to find community and build friends. >> i don't really talk to friends, so i guess when i started doing city surf, i started to, like, get to know people more than i did before, and people that i didn't think i'd like, like, ended up being my best friends. >> it's a group sport the way we do it, and with, like, close camaraderie, but everybody's doing it for themselves. >> it's great, surfing around, finding new people and making new friendships with people throughout surfing. >> it can be highly developmental for students to have this time where they can learn a lot about themselves

while negotiating the waves. >> i feel significantly, like, calmer. it definitely helps if i'm, like, feeling really stressed or, like, feeling really anxious about surfing, and i go surfing, and then, i just feel, like, i'm going to be okay. >> it gives them resiliency skills and helps them build self-confidence. and with that, they can use that in other parts of their lives. >> i went to bring amy family o the beach and tell them what i did. >> i saw kids open up in the ocean, and i got to see them connect with other students, and i got to see them fail, you know, and get up and get back on the board and experience success, and really enjoy themselves and make a connection to nature at the same time. >> for some kids that are,

like, resistant to, like, being in a mentorship program like this, it's they want to surf, and then later, they'll find out that they've, like, made this community connection. >> i think they provided level playing fields for kids to be themselves in an open environment. >> for kids to feel like i can go for it and take a chance that i might not have been willing to do on my own is really special. >> we go on 150 surf outings a year. that's year-round programming. we've seen a tremendous amount of youth face their fears through surfing, and that has translated to growth in other facets of their lives. >> i just think the biggest thing is, like, that they feel like that they have something that is really cool, that they're engaged in, and that we, like, care about them and how they're doing, like, in

general. >> what i like best is they really care about me, like, i'm not alone, and i have a group of people that i can go to, and, also, surfing is fun. >> we're creating surfers, and we're changing the face of surfing. >> the feeling is definitely akin to being on a roller coaster. it's definitely faster than i think you expect it to be, but it's definitely fun. >> it leaves you feeling really, really positive about what that kid's going to go out and do. >> i think it's really magical almost. at least it was for me. >> it was really exciting when i caught my first wave. >> i felt like i was, like -- it was, like, magical, really. >> when they catch that first wave, and their first lights up, you know -- their face

lights up, you know you have them hooked. >> i was on top of the world. it's amazing. i felt like i was on top of the world even though i was probably going two miles an hour. it was, like, the scariest thing i'd ever done, and i think it was when i got hooked on surfing after