questions. it is of concern to us. we want to make sure this is helping m.t.a. meet equity goals. that is why we are looking to update some of the requirements with the next go around. we have done a survey -- go ahead. >> i am sorry. i want to stop you and drill down on what chair peskin was saying. he is asking you to give your insight. is this program really working? what type of program is it? it is obvious we have permitted a program with a certain number of these on the street. there is policing issues. what transportation objective? that is the question i want to hear answered. what transportation objective are these scooters meeting, in

your opinion? >> let me preface that question by saying my apologies. i am the supervisor who created the legislation that puts this upon you and your agency. there is no wrong answer to your response. >> thank you. i know jamie is on the analytical side of the house. a key metric shifting ride from single occupancy vehicle. we saw 40% mode shift in our survey under the pilot program. that was a keynotable shift for us at the agency. >> does that mean that that is also a mode shift from muni? >> we can share the staff report

and do evaluation of the pilot. there was some small shift from muni. we saw a much larger trip being taken to and from muni. fundamentally where we see the value in the program. i will say i don't know where the program will be two years from now, five years from now. right now the value is that people have been using it instead of taxis which we see transportation benefits there. as we look at our current transit system and the transportation recovery with the challenges that muni service is facing. supplementing the muni service is an opportunity. there are a lot of challenges. the points on distribution are

well-taken. we have had equitable distribution since the beginning of the program. the outcomes on the street have not matched the intentions. we are looking to redo the requirements again because we do not see what we want. >> mr. parks, can i call on myself? >> go ahead. >> the three companies permitted are owned by what interests? >> speed is owned by. [indiscernable] >> stop. >> who is burt? >> burt is a scooter company. when we get into this venture capital i do not know who owns the companies. it is a multi-billion dollar

company. >> started by the people who came from uber. go ahead. >> lime is owned by lime. there is some complicated interests with uber related to the purchase of jump and a controlling interest from ford. the nature of the ownership of the companies is complicated and difficult to keep clear. >> are these companies that care about geographic distribution, equity, companies that need to have a city that enforces against them with a strong hand, yes or no? >> they need policy guidance and enforcement from san francisco to meet our goal. >> good answer. supervisor safai. >> thank you, mr. chair. i have more questions.

we spent a lot of time talking today about further accountability on behalf of s.f.m.t.a. for these companies. what i want to know as part of the permitting process do you ask the companies to hold themselves accountable and customers accountable. if someone is not wearing a helmet, not following the rules, riding on the walk. whatever the issues are, are the companies themselves policing or for lack of a better word, holding customers accountable. are you asking them to hold customers accountable? >> yes. we have a number of permit terms and conditions that relate to customer accountability. one of the reporting requirements is that each company, each permittee has to

submit a complaint database. they need to let us know how many complaints they have received and the status of that complaint and how they held the customer accountable. yes, that is of importance to us and that is a requirement. >> what about one of th the this we hear the most about is when the scooters are parked. are you all asking how many complaints that these companies receive themselves about their scooters parked and where and not necessarily returned to the appropriate place? >> we ask for all types of complaints. that is a common complaint. unfortunately we have a mechanism to enforce them. that is $100 citation for each

scooter improperly parked. >> how many of those citations have you issued? >> we issued over -- i think $275,000 we collected as it pertains to improperly parked scooters. i will take a look to make sure i don't give you an incorrect number. we have issued 3500 citations in this permit program. that is on slide six in the

lower right-hand corner. you can see the parking citations. you will note the gap that is related to the shelter-in-place order. we had the on street enforcement team giving disaster service work during the early days there so we did have a gap in enforcement related to support and disaster service work. >> is there a particular company with a worse track record? >> we issued the most citations to lime. lime has consistently had the most scooters on the street. >> i am seeing a pattern of behavior. i want to point out from this presentation today. company circumventing labor

harmony, company that has had the most issues of compliance, yet we recently doubled the number and allowed them to double the number of scooters on the street. we allowed them to expand with the purchase. i feel like from what i have heard today they saw some of the changes you are going to make in the program and holding these companies more accountable. i think there should be a connection between number of citations and rewarding companies to continue to be part of the process. 3500 citations issued and the majority going to one company, it seems to me one company is continuing to do the bare minimum.

the bare min bare minimum. i haven't seen many of those scooters in my district. i can tell you right now i don't see lime. i said that is already an issue. along with citations along with labor practices. that is a problem for this supervisor. i think those are all things that should be considered. when are you going to be crafting and presenting your r.f.p. to the m.t.a. board? >> it is a permit process, and we are working on some changes as we went through in the presentation. those changes we are intending

to spring before the m.t.a. board in mid-december. updates to the transportation code. it is not an r.f.p. it is a permit process. >> no longer temporary, it is permanent? >> permits issued up to one year if the m.t.a. board approves the recommendation to approve the permits up to two years, that would be the timeframe. it is one or two year permit. it is a buffer present process. -- different process. the transportation code will be considered in mid-december. the elements of the application process will be updated as appropriate and issued in january so they will be the

chance for interested parties to apply to let m.t.a. know how they will meet our standards and help us meet our goals. >> your point, the application itself has a detailed scoring criteria as well. we haven't figured out the metrics for the rounds yet. in the past we had 66 separate criteria each application was scored on. a lot of points you are correctly raising today are things we can take into account in the scoring criteria for those applications. >> i feel like in the beginning this started off as companies just completely disregarding our local laws or attempting to work with us. we stopped that process. put the permit process in place.

it sounds like we have one actor. i know for a fact one actor repeatedly worked to meet the principals of labor harmony, working with full-time employees, haven't heard any real complaints, work to deploy their scooters in communities of concern. then we have another company doubled in size that is consistently having citations and fines, working around the labor harmony practices and not represented of communities of concern. what is your plan to address that and ensure in the next round of permits you are going to have enforcement? i heard the ability to sum airily suspend but i would also ask that you all take a strong look at increasing the criteria so we are not rewarding bad

behavior. these permits are about this fire in the spring. i would hope that when we go the next round of permits that you all are working to ensure that we are not rewarding or giving out permits to people consistently regarding our laws and our attempt to achieve fair labor practices along with dealing with communities of concern. not to mention in the next two weeks we will have results from the investigation from the fire which could tell us a lot more about one particular company. >> thank you, vice-chairman. we have been hearing this for a little bit of time. i have a meeting at 4:00, which is in 12 minutes. i wanted them to answer the

question with regard to these practices, this behavior and moving forward with the next round of permits. ms. torren, you are doing a great job of getting the wild west under control and you have done that remarkably well. i say that with all sincerity. the companies were complete aberrational behaviorists at the beginning. some of them have been better than others. lime not so much. we will get to the bottom of the fire. they have not been great players in our society. having said that, to the extent this is really a good solution,

i embrace it. i have been clear about that from the beginning. if these folks do not adapt to modern era, let me be abundantly clear, i am the author of the division i of the transportation code amendment which i could rescinds. it will end badly for the company. i don't want to take away my division i stuff and you and your board have to proceed very carefully on division ii. that is what this hearing is about. i have never spoken to supervisor safai about this until this meeting, not one-time or one second. if scoot and spin and lime are not listening. in our last hearing did not go

real well with those folks who were hiding the numbers, that is the way they have always behaved. if you want to operate in this town you have got to be transparent, collaborate and fundamentally be equitable. that means district 10 and 11. that is year. the funny thing is my district has compliance issues because we are over run. supervisor safai's district has issues because they cannot find one. supervisor walton's district has them clustered at one place because that is the way the rich venture capitalists think they will comply with your urgency or your division ii admonitions.

here is the deal, lime, spin, get it or get out. supervisor safai. >> thank you, chairman. >> i will be brief, supervisor safai. we are looking at compliance. it is very important. we consider at this point the companies are in compliance. if we do get information or if we verify information or we work to verify and find out that it is not correct, we will certainly follow up. all of your feedback will be rolled into the next round of permit issuance. this is a very helpful hearing for us, and we take it very seriously. we take our division ii responsibilities very seriously and point well-taken that it is important for those that are issued permits that they understand what our goals as a

city are and that they must comply. all of this is very important to us, and we are working on following up. we will follow up with specifics and continue to -- >> i want to say for the record based on the information today and all that you have presented i don't believe one company in particular has been specifically in compliance. i want to say when it comes to meeting the labor harmony, communities of concern, citations, overwhelming number. if you have the ability to suspend that toed all would be grounds to suspend the permit. when you come up with the new criteria that it is abundantly clear the bar will be raised. not just because someone has 2000 permits today or 1,000

tomorrow. the bar needs raised as to chair peskin's points to allow them to continue to operate in this environment. that is the last thing i will say. >> thank you, chair peskin. and thank you to supervisor safai calling the hearing. i have a lot of questions. i know that time is short here. i just want to echo the concerns raised. i have a specific question about the process that you have described about the permitting and it is one year permits now looking when those expire at the possibility of per year permits? given the significant concerns

raised, the broad range of them. i won't repeat them all. have you considered proposing this as something shorter than two year extensions or in certain cases, particularly if they are companies that are maybe don't warrant renewal at all. there may be companies on the fence where either some shorter renewal might be appropriate or probationary renewal revoked upon a finding of further violation. can you shed light on why you are proposing two year permits to the board? >> our intent is not to issue two year permits, to increase maximum flexibility. option to extend rather than two year permit. we feel the option to extend six or nine months initially with option to extend later based on

good behavior. if we don't exercise that option the permit expires. that is another tool for compliance. it is option to expand and not longer permit. >> are we viewing the potential renewal coming up as an extension that could be denied the behavior that is not good? there is a right here of renewal with potential consequences later. >> it is a new process entirely. companies will apply and have to meet our criteria. the fact you have a permit today does not guarantee a permit in the future. we saw that from the pilot to the permanent. not all companies that operated under the pilot got an i mitt. it -- permit. it is independent process.

>> real quickly, what you were saying earlier about two of the three companies suspended operations during early shelter-in-place. was that a violation of any rules of the program? are they free to continue or discontinue service as they move forward in the next phase? >> scooters are essential as part of the transportation network. it was new for us and short term. we hadn't anticipated this type of event occurring. i don't think anyone had. you know, we may want to look to that to build in something going forward. it was not violation. it was a short period and they restarted operations. >> how long was it for?

>> i think a couple months. they started backup in may. they were ramping up in may and june. >> one other thing to clarify. you mentioned about muni and some of the movement mode shift from muni as being limited or minimal or smaller. can you quantify that and within that number of folks, how much is replacing a muni trip versus to and from the muni stop? >> it was a year and a half ago. we did not do one this year because of the pandemic. we did collect whether or not people -- there were those

people that took the scooter instead of muni. more people that took a scooter to muni and supplemented the muni trip. it was a met positive for muni service. it was give and take. some people used it instead of muni. others used it to get to muni. we can share the specifics of the evaluation report which goes through the details of the survey. >> i see a huge difference this is effectively while we have our drastically reduced muni service if we are using this as a crutch to replace lines through the private companies versus something that is actually helping people get to and from muni to the point that those are night and day to me.

>> we found and i will put up the number. 34% used scooters to get to or from public transit. 28% of respondents stated they would not have taken transit at all if a scooter wasn't available. that is the user report. they may not have perfect knowledge what they would or wouldn't have done. it is a substantial update. >> jamie, the margin of error is what? >> we had almost 2000 responses. it is not a question of having enough responses. it is whether or not they were accurate and what they would have done if there was not a scooter available? it is are they responding to the

survey? >> that is really important. can you do the numbers at a high level again? >> sure. we had 36% said they would have taken uber or lift if not for scooters. 34% said they used scooters to get to or from public transit. 28% of people said they would not have taken transit at all if a scooter wasn't be available. 31% of users said they would have walked if not for the scooter. it is disheartening to think scooters are taking away from walking trips.

>> you can/that in any number of ways. this would be a fun conversati conversation. conversation.

>> they are part of what is going to the board now? >> they would not need to be approved by the mta board. there's something that is -- there's something that staff put together and we're happy to share that with individuals offices before we publish it but it's not something that requires approval by the mta board for us to change the retirement. >> great. i will wrap-up. thank you. just a final comment just on the labor issues that we were discussing and the representations being made by the companies whether it's certain things should be under percentage. personality of perjury. i would like language for

liabilities and truthful and i also don't think the lack of that date they have any aspects of this program in their application to a government agency for a license and they are not free from liability enforcement actions whether they said it's under penalty of purge on and i am very troubled by some of what commissioner safai said and what folks in the labor community said around some of the labor practices being in play, which are not consistent of labor harmony requirements and objectives of the program and some of this i think is dating