>> clerk: thank you. that motion passes. and then, chair, one more. a motion and a -- >> i thought because [inaudible] whatever you think we have to do, but the first motion with that section wrong, we really wouldn't want to approve, any way, because it has the wrong section? >> i think we could just vote on the amendment. i move item 11. >> two times. >> clerk: great. on the motion to approve -- [roll call]

>> clerk: thank you. that motion passes, and places you on item 12, presentation and discussion regarding the tow program. >> great, and we have -- is it miss hammonds? are you leading this conversation? >> good afternoon, board members. victoria wise, chief of staff. so i'm joined today by diana hammonds, senior director of parking and sales, as well as sean [inaudible] our parking director. so the purpose of our presentation is to give you the status of towing, two,

describing three different types of tows and what we've done to help homeless and those types of individuals, and really reevaluating our entire tow program generally, in terms of what it costs for a customer, what our towing policies are, which we intend to do during the rest of this calendar year. before we dive into the details of this presentation, i do want to spend a couple of minutes setting the stage for today's discussion. of course, when the pandemic emergency was declared and people were instructed to shelter in place, we discontinued it, but we doesn't bring back towing for these

three specific violations we're discussing today, and we held off on resuming those because we wanted to work with the homeless and poverty advocacy groups, nobody collectively as the coalition to make sure that we didn't add to the difficulty that the homeless are already experiencing. sfmta already has many policies, some of which are already in place to reduce the burden for people who are struggling, including various programs for people whose cars get towed, and we know we absolutely need to do more. so we spent the last few months meeting with the coalition

figuring out what to do in addition to the existing programs, and we'll be sharing those details with you today. i think the bottom line is we had a very specific covid response that suspended towing, and as we come back from covid, we're bringing back our trains and rail, but in the most thoughtful way that we can. during covid, with you took the time to discuss thoughtfully about the impacts to the vulnerable that towing has as well as responding to the calls for towing to resume. not resuming towing would be ignoring the people calling in

with problems. i think not bringing back towing, we would just see abandoned vehicles grow in our neighborhoods, and i think incentives for people to pay their parking citations and not to pay the fees would diminish. i would acknowledge the coalition for investing their time in meeting with us numerous time over this year and frankly spending times in reviewing our notices and spending time in making them more readable, if you will. with that, i will ask now diana to talk us through the details. >> diana hammonds, director of

sales and operations for m.t.a. okay. i just wanted to start the presentation with a couple of statements of our goals of on street parking management strategy. these includes maintaining safe streets, including uses that create unsafe conditions for the safe streets and shared right-of-way. incentivized compliance with state laws specifically related to registration requirements, ensuring vehicles operating on the road meet emission

standards and maintaining liability insurance, and finally, maintaining quality of life in our residential neighborhoods, including supporting e.p.t.s street cleaning program, picking up trash, and ensuring that side streets remain clear. i wanted to just briefly review kind of what has been happening with tow volumes over time. you'll see that in the last 20 years, we've seen a reduction in the number of tows per year by 45% with no significant change in our enforcement policies. citation rate has fallen 57%, representing a significant

increase in compliance. this next slide breaks down the tow volumes by category. in terms of the status of our towing, the towing suspensions, as victoria mentioned, we'll be talking about the 72-hour delinquent parking violation, moving that back six months, we

are enforcing that for those that are part of the one year. i did just want to bring to your attention that the commuter shuttle restrictions and peak hour commute toe away sewns are still suspended. these restrictions help facilitate the flow of traffic in fran sit and we'll resume these as businesses reopen and muni services is restored. just as background, i wanted to talk a little bit about our count programs and payback programs that exist. our community service program allows an individual to perform community service in lieu of payment. we partner with 40 nonprofit agencies, and we waive the fees for low-income people and people experiencing homelessness. there's a $25 minimum monthly payment, and i did want to

point out the $5 low-income refers to an enrollment fee and not the minimum monthly payment. the actions taken by the board of directors over the hears have -- years have demonstrated a tremendous commitment by the board of directors to help the most vulnerable.

/. >> elimination of this program would reduce compliance of parking regulations by eliminating consequences for

nonpayment. and so victoria mentioned we wanted to consider thoughtfully returning to enforcement operations. we met several times over the course of several months with the coalition groups. we are very grateful for the work that they did with us, recommending feedback and changes to the vulnerable population. regarding delinquent citations, we are working with our citation vendor to see if we can encourage them to pay their citations before we [inaudible] and this is consistent with our payment plan. we will also allow citations to be reenrolled one time if the penalty cannot completed.

the most significant change that we are recommending is to allow a one-time waiver of all outstanding citations for people experiencing homelessness. in addition, we plan on incorporating organizations serving vulnerable populations into the community service program, allowing people experiencing homelessness to receive support services to reduce parking citations. the next area is expired registration. the california vehicle code allows towing of vehicles behind on their fees by more than six months. this serves many purposes, including verifying insurance requirements and that smog requirements are met. 76% of the fee are returned to government to fund vital social

service programs, which amounted to $77 million for fiscal year 2020 for the san francisco department of public health and human service agency. removing the ability to tow removes any incentive for the person to insure their vehicle and paying the fees or eliminating the holding of the vehicle. we also note that meeting emission standards can be a significant barrier to vehicle registration, and we found a program offered by the state bureau of vehicle auto repair that allows residents to make the necessary repairs with a

smog check. and parking more than 72 hours, again, this is authorized in the vehicle code. vehicles, after being posted, are authorized to be removed. the purpose of this enforcement is to address long-term storage and also removal of abandoned vehicles on public streets. prior to towing, we post a notice 72 hours for owners to relocate their vehicle. the overwhelming majority of this activity is based on complaints. in 2019, we received more than 30,000 complaints. this results in only 6% of those vehicles being towed after they were posted, which we believe demonstrates the

notification program is effective. some of the recommendations that we've developed in conjunction with resuming this enforcement is to extend the posting period from three days to five days. so an individual would have up to five days after a parking officer posted notice to move their vehicle, and on those notices, we also will include information on request that we will provide an additional five days. we'll also revised these notices to include information again on resources and services that are available. we are proposing [inaudible] on june 21. we plan on beginning an outreach compain on may 17 for

the -- campaign on may 17 for the registration and citation enforcement, and this will include parking officers posting notices on vehicles that will be subject to towing. we plan on sending letters to all vehicle owners that have received registration violations over the past year or have received four or more citations. again, i would like to take the opportunity to thank the coalition who helped us review these materials to make sure that we are communicating most effectively. and finally, in relation to these towing categories, we also have developed a number of

items that the coalition suggested that we'll be working into. the first is in progress. we will be transitioning in the fall our payment program to the treasurer's office? this -- legalizing their system, it will significantly improve our communication to customers as well as providing an on-line portal that they can use to verify the status of their account. we are also working on utilizing a text messaging system to improve compliance. we also recognize of existing limit of 200% of poverty level for parking fee and fine discount programs does not address all the affordable policies in san francisco. we will be reviewing that and noting any changes.

next steps, after receiving feedback, we will be coming back to the board if required to make any legislative changes in june, and as victoria mentioned, in fall and winter, we will be coming back to the board with a comprehensive presentation on the overall tow program, including these and the larger policies. that concludes my presentation. i'm happy to answer any questions. >> thank you. we have a lot of people interested on speaking on this topic, so i think we'll go to public comment first. moderator, will you let people in on the line. i did see a member of staff of the board of supervisors is with us, and i'd like to give

her the chance to speak. >> thank you. thank you, chair borden and directors for having me today. i'm speaking on behalf of supervisor ahsha safai in district 11. abandoned vehicles are a magnet for activity such as car break ins and illegal dumping of trash that has become a major issue that our neighbors and constituents must deal with on nearly a daily basis. the photo utilized actually in m.t.a.s presentation regarding 72-hour towing is from district 11. it is a photo that our constituent had sent to us

repeatedly -- to us and m.t.a. repeatedly during shelter in place, begging for it to be towed. supervisor safai reports the recommendation of the towing and the 72-hour notice to help resolve this issue. thank you. >> thank you. and with that, we'll go to public comment. secretary silva, can you please reread the number in case people don't have it. >> clerk: yes. the call-in number is 888-808-6929, meeting i.d.

996-1164, pound. >> thank you. can we take the first speaker? >> good afternoon, directors. hayden miller. want to say i support this effort. i did have some questions at first, but i think this is a balanced way of ensuring important stuff like registering your vehicle and not parking illegally, but if you do end up having a ticket, making sure that you take care of it, whether that's paying it, using a community service plan, payment plan, so i think this is a good way to make sure that it's balanced. but i also do still think that the m.t.a. should tow for more things, such as blocked sidewalks. there's such a priority on

things like homeowners' driveways. they'll come out and tow it within the hour, but these cars sit on the sidewalk forever. particularly in district 10, i was trying to walk around and look at some of the new protected bike lanes and such, and it's crazy how many cars are on the sidewalks. entire blocks, and people accessing transit, they can't walk to the muni without walking in the street. so we need to look at new ways at how we can get compliant. but with the overall changes here, i do support them. thank you. >> thank you, mr. miller. next speaker, please. >> operator: thank you. you have 19 questions

remaining. >> next speaker. >> good afternoon. this is clare mobley calling in on behalf of the san francisco bicycle coalition. [inaudible] in fact they're recognized by federal courts as unlawful. a federal judge said it was illegal to seize a vehicle for the sole purpose of suspended registration. poverty codes means towing the vehicle of poor people, to be blunt. we must refuse to accept the

status quo of criminalizing and punishing poor people for not being able to payoff tickets they shouldn't have gotten in the first place. ending poverty codes is within our power, and you must end this racist, unlawful, inequitable policy today. thank you for your time. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> operator: you have 18 questions remaining. >> good afternoon, board members. i'm [inaudible], communications associate at tipping point community, a nonprofit in san francisco? tipping point invests in organizations and pathways and solutions to provide pathways

out of poverty for bay area residents. i just want to appreciate the presentation and the discounts for low-income people and people experiencing homelessness, and also the notice of three to five days. our research from our representative of bay area residents suggests one and two people in our region are unable to pay bills at some point in the year, and beyond my research in my work at tipping point, we hear from the community residents and leaders about just how hard it is to get by these days, and we all know how hard it is to support ourselves and our working families. imagine getting ready for work, taking care of your kids, and putting food on the table, and

you're hit with a $500 ticket, one of the highest in the country. each year, the city loses $1.5 million on poverty tows because the people can't afford to pay the fine. by ending poverty tows, it's good for us as san franciscans and m.t.a., so thank you, san francisco m.t.a. and community. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> operator: you have 19 questions remaining. >> next speaker. >> hi. my name is martha barnigan. several years ago, i volunteered as a attorney for

people doing the really horrible [inaudible] so i know compared to 2002, there's relative progress in forebearance and giving vehicles back after the fact. poverty tows are like criminal charges to homeless people. the presenter admitted poverty tows are mostly from complaints, meaning, housed residents, and we're moving other people who are treated as not real community members with

rights. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> operator: you have 20 questions remaining. >> good evening, chair and directors. my name is wesley saber, and i am the policy manager for g.l.i.d.e. g.l.i.d.e. is a member of the poverty tows coalition, and we ask you to end poverty tows. poverty tows have already been suspended, but we ask you to make this permanent.

as a governing body, you should take great pride in this decisive action. this policy has greatly improved the health and safety of people who live in their vehicles and the stability of those experiencing poverty. again, you have already enacted this change. while the current moratorium may have been implemented purely in response to covid-19, can has presented us with an unpresidented opportunity to help the vehicularly housed and provide for a more fair, just, and equitable san francisco

rapidly accruing citations will result in people losing their homes, means of transportation, and debilitating financial difficulty, so we ask you to peep the towing -- keep the towing -- poverty towing measure permanent. >> thank you for your comment. next speaker? >> the people that these tows impact are largely unhoused san franciscans. people who have struggled so much during this pandemic but also are in a constant state of

struggle and survival. having your car towed means losing your car, your money, your phones and documents that they need to access services. it really just exacerbates the cycle of homelessness, where the things that they need to try to move forward in their life have been taken away from them, and to get them back, they have to pay huge amounts of money and time which they frankly don't have access to. there is a lot of people who would normally would have that done, and the sfmta can continue to leave people in their homes, not take their things, and it will help

thousands of people [inaudible] an estimated 1800 people were living in their vehicles. this is one thing we can do to help all of those people have a stable place to live, have a place to keep all of their possessions safe, and end the poverty cycle. thank you. i yield my time. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> operator: you have 18 questions remaining. >> next speaker. >> i want to -- i want to -- am i on? okay. my name is melody, and i -- some of you from the board may have read an e-mail that i send in 2015. i ask that you take the time to read it again. i just sent it again yesterday. once the m.t.a.towed my friend

mark's truck, and he was unable to access the vehicle. within four years, he was dead. how does taking away a man's only asset help him overcome being homeless? the answer is by deliberately, willfully, premeditatedly intentionally stressing his physical and emotional health and maintaining that stress level until he suffers a premature death. you probably know someone whose house has burned down in a fire. regardless of the material value of your home, the value of your home to you is the same

as my home. but a fire may be able to be prevented, whereas a home destroyed by the sfmta or police is intentional. thank you so much for your time today. >> thank you, melody. next speaker, please. >> operator: you have 18 questions remaining. >> next speaker. >> hello. my name is stella [inaudible] and i'm a working group member on the coalition with homelessness. over the past ten months, i've been on outreach talking to people living in their cars in the bayview. one of those people is melody, who you just heard from. i've only talked to a couple of dozen of folks, but the stories that i've heard are consistent. every single person i've talked to has experienced at least one

time of poverty tow -- type of poverty tow, and many of them have experienced them multiple times. i want to ask you, how would you feel after a stressful day at work to find your home was gone. where would you sleep that night? how would you possibly be able to go on with your life? for those that rely on their vehicle for shelter, this is the reality they're faced with when their r.v. is towed, their vehicle is gone. at the end of the day, it doesn't matter if you can pay the fine. the options are absolutely helpful, but it is most important to me today that in

the moment it is understood that the moment your car is towed, the deed is done because your vehicle is already done. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> operator: you have 18 questions remaining. >> next speaker. >> hi. my name is flo kelly, and i just want to say towing does not enforce paying debt. if a person has no money, they have no money, and towing completely turns a person's

life upside down, and it causes a person to be on the sidewalk instead of on their home, which is on wheels. last year, we had in-person meetings, and there was a large group of people that pleaded with you to end poverty tows. in response, even though we're not in person, we're virtual, i'm hoping that you can imagine what we're trying to say. at that meeting, jeffrey tumlin

was moved to tell his own story of how he lived in his own vehicle when he came to san francisco, and how if it had been towed, he probably wouldn't be where he is today. reducing fees, by the way, is not going to be enough. when the tows happen, the damage is done. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> you have 17 questions remaining. >> next speaker. >> yes, hi. this is stacey randecker, and once again, i want to reiterate something very well, that we are a transit first city, and while these methods sound compassionate, it's another way that our city like our nation is subsidizing vehicle

ownership and then taking money away from transit or active transportation, and i don't mean by fines, i mean by the time staff and energy that's put into this. we should be compassionate, but there is nothing in the presentation about helping the people in these states navigate the transit or access a bike. cars are one of the most expensive things that we have, and we are reinforcing reliance upon cars. instead of an aid for these car fixes, we should provide real housing with walls and plumbing. enabling these cars doesn't give them housing, it looks them inside them. cars are not housing, cars are not a right. enabling home ownership and

opportunity is climate denialism. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> operator: you have 17 questions remaining. >> next speaker? >> hi, yes, thank you. my name is lexie gallantino, and i am with the san francisco housing coalition, and we are [inaudible] the tows are not for any public safety reason. i recognize that towing cars that are blocking sidewalks or blocking fire hydrants are a different thing, but this is not. poverty tows are inequitable in their impact. folks that have jobs can pay it, but they are much, much more impactful to folks who

cannot pay it. most often, in these instances, it results in the person not paying that. also, the city doesn't get that money, and nobody wins. further when a car that somebody is living in is towed, it's devastating. it means loss of transportation, housing, etc., and i think as another caller takes away is their documents and possessions. i know that losing your i.d. is a hugely detrimental thing to happen when you're trying to get out of homelessness. now you have nothing to [inaudible] just doesn't seem in line at all with trying to get people to pay their parking tickets. so this is too drastic a punishment for the noncrime of being poor and saying move your

car all the time or finding another place to park your house. this plunges communities, particularly black communities, further into cycles of poverty, debt, and homelessness. this is super aggressive, and please, we must end poverty towing in san francisco. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> operator: you have 16 questions remaining. >> next speaker. [please stand by]

>> i see cases, and this is a very big issue for low income and communities of color. i'll give you two quick examples and then i'll hop off. i had a woman come to me, she's a working mom and she gotten a new job after going through a rough stretch. while she was at work, she happened to look out the window and saw her car being towed. she ran outside and it was towed for unpaid tickets. she was begging them not to do it because she couldn't afford to pay the ticket and to get the car out. she would face not being able to get her daughter from daycare

and possibly losing her job because she couldn't get to work. the employer helped her out. another situation was worse. i had a couple whose car was towed and they were liing in the car. >> 30 seconds. >> that was their home. it was everything they had. they never got it back. it was very tragic. thank you for your time. i'm done. >> thank you. next speaker please. >> you have 16 questions remaining. >> next speaker.

>> i appreciated the presentation and many, many other amazing organizations and community members urge them to end towing for those experiencing poverty and homelessness. throughout this pandemic, i worked with them on many projects. shout-out to jennifer. they're working hand in hand with the community on so many fronts. we had so much success with programs in the tenderloin like the shared streets program on valencia, redesigning neighborhoods for human beings to support the planet and people. what i seen time and time again is despite the challenges, people are making the impossible possible. this is the time to support folks struggling by providing policy that empowers and not penalizes those experiencing homelessness. san francisco is absurdly

expensive at the best of times but this is an opportunity to support the community with solutions, especially those living in their vehicles. many are struggling to work and live with dignity, equity and inclusion in san francisco. thank you so much for your time and consideration. >> thank you. >> you have 14 speakers remaining. >> next speaker please. >> hello, my name is javier. i'm with the taxpayers for public safety of san francisco and also representing the end poverty tows coalition. i'm asking that they don't continue to tow.

this is important as we continue to recover from the covid-19 pandemic. we shouldn't be making it more difficult for low income communities of color to get back on their feet. especially poverty tows have huge costs for the sfmta as well. san francisco has the highest towing fine in the u.s., so the city actually loses $1.4 million a year on poverty tows. this is because low income people cannot afford to pay the fine. the presentation that was given today, you know, one of the reasons for bringing back the poverty tows and the towing is to serve as a deterrent to not

paying parking citations, but the real deterrent to non-payment is being low income and not being able to pay these fines and people are more likely to lose their jobs and livelihoods because they can't get to work because their car has been taken from them. >> 30 seconds. >> we can see that it's not only socially and morally the right thing to do, but it's a win-win situation for san franciscans and the sfmta to permanently end poverty tows and that's what i'm advocating for today. thank you very much. i yield my time. >> thank you very much. next speaker please. >> you have 14 questions remaining. >> next speaker. >> hi, good evening, thank you directors for hearing public comment on this issue. my name is mary, i'm a policy

director at family services and the co-chair of the homeless emergency service providers association. we join our partners in calling for a permanent end to poverty tows. it's more important now than ever and it's especially important to consider the impacts on young moms and their children. there is an article in the chronicles about this, a young mom, a construction worker, living in her car with her toddler, trying to care for her toddler and meeting the demands of her job and getting a $90 citation that ended up in the loss of her car, which the shelter she shared with her son, her 2-year-old son. at the family home response system, we see these people all the time. we support families who are living out of their cars during the pandemic. families have been living in their cars nearby a shelter to

access supports at the shelter. even sheltered families were using cars, just parking them around the city to store their belongings. these families are trying desperately to secure access to stable housing. they have hard lives. they're solving problems for themselves everyday and the last thing -- >> 30 seconds. >> and the last thing our policy should be doing is making it more difficult for them to secure the things to care for their families. we're calling for an end to poverty tows. thank you for your time. >> thank you, next speaker please. >> you have 13 questions remaining. >> next speaker. >> hi there. i just wanted to say that while i appreciate the discussion related to the poverty towing policy, it seems a little strange to me that director, you can tell called this hearing partly in the action of being towed himself.

i think this raises some questions about how this director is benefitting from his possession -- position on the board. i'm curious if he has any unfair advantage in the permitting process, especially as these become permanent. these are far more important than the towing policy. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker please. >> you have 12 questions remaining. >> okay. >> next speaker? >> good evening. i'm calling on behalf of the baker center for human rights. i'm also a san francisco residents and someone that has been working with unhoused spoke folks in the bay area. i'm calling for them to end poverty tows and i wanted to address the earlier claim that cars are not housing. unfortunately for 2,000 people

in san francisco, predominately black and brown folks, cars are the closest thing we can get to housing. so, yes, we absolutely have to do more to provide housing for our most vulnerable residents and we have to abolish all poverty tows until all san franciscans are housed. it makes the experience of homeless more challenging and more dangerous. we seen how the covid crisis allowed us to prioritize care for our most vulnerable communities and the city's decision to eliminate poverty tows in opening possibilities. let's make our city safer and more just for the long-term. so as we start to reopen, we can't make it harder for low income communities of color to get back on their feet. we need to end poverty tows. thank you. >> thank you, next speaker please. >> you have 11 questions

remaining. >> next speaker. >> good evening, my name is tory. i'm an attorney for civil rights of the san francisco bay area. my work focuses on decriminalization of homelessness. i strongly encourage the board of director to end all poverty tows in san francisco. the sfmta has not been engaging these tows for over a year. individuals are just trying to survive what has been an incredibly hard year. i have been lucky enough to meet and work with many of these individuals. some of my clients, a single mother who became homeless as a result of domestic violence, lost her vehicle, she could not afford her tickets or registration. her vehicle is what helped her flee violence from our abuser.

she had citations for a number of reasons, and all of those were related to her poverty. her registration was held for small purposes, along with the tickets. i want to note that the program that assists low income canadard -- californians would not have helped her. it requires that your car be register in the last year. that means a huge percent of those needing assistance will not benefit from that program. it's a dead end bureaucracy. they will be vulnerable to losing their only shelter. my client permanently lost her car. she is one of the dozens of clients i have that has lost their only shelter. >> 30 seconds. >> she still doesn't have a vehicle three years later and i can't emphasize how devastating this has been for her and her daughter. those are forced to rely on their vehicle for shelter.

the solution from the back end will not help those who most need our support. as you heard from other public commenters tonight, poverty tows is a racist tool. i respectfully request san francisco ends all poverty tows. >> thank you, next speaker please. >> you have ten questions remaining. >> next speaker. >> hi, my name is brandon green. i work at the aclu at northern california. i'm calling as others have to request that the sfmta abolish poverty tows. i reiterate what all the other callers have said. community service and other things are ineffective making

someone engage in endentured servitude because they can't pay a ticket is not an effective solution. it will not help with the underlying circumstances of poverty. the ability pay programs, one of which we and others who have joined help write the bill 8503 around have also been ineffective, using the federal poverty line for example, even if you're using the hub standard would be under inclusive of those needing the service and you would have a reduction down from the top amount, people still can't afford to pay. so all of the programs that you talked about while noble in their efforts, are insufficient, ineffective, and creates a robust system that will fail to deliver for the people who need it. the most effective means is the abolishment of poverty tows.

thank you. >> thank you, next speaker please. >> you have ten questions remaining. >> next speaker. >> hi, i just want to say thank you to the board for hearing this item and allowing the conversation on towing policy to continue, especially preventing poverty towing. however, i want to emphasize that the issue here is with the policy itself, not the operator or the people working hard just to get by and this is their job and to keep the city running. these people are just doing their jobs and the board should really recognize their work and not penalize them for a policy that hurts others. thank you. >> thank you, next speaker please. >> you have nine questions remaining. >> next speaker. next speaker.

moderator could you switch the line perhaps? >> sorry, yes, i'm here. hello? >> yes, please, go ahead. >> hi. i am a social worker from the public defender's office. i'm calling to end poverty towing in san francisco. i wanted to highlight one particular case where a black transitional youth is living in his car. he appeared in court only to have his car cited and towed for unpaid parking ticket and parking above the two hour time limit. a hold was put on his vehicle and i had to accompany this client to sfpd property room, and i contacted the officers to sort everything out. by then, you know, it was just weeks of just bureaucratic nonsense and the client was

unable to pay the fees that accrued. he only requested access to his possessions. he had been living there for almost half a year. his hygiene items, food, this was his small space of refuge from his life of violence. they refused to allow him to retrieve this property and you don't know how devastating this is for a person of color trying to get their life back on track. there are so many people like this, clients that are criminalized and the consequences following that is being punished. that's why i'm advocat advocati those experiencing poverty -- >> 30 seconds. >> that it should be made permanent. thank you for your consideration and your time.

>> thank you. next speaker please. next speaker. >> you have eight questions remaining. >> next speaker please. >> hi, my name is adam. i live in selma and i am not going to repeat what all these fine people have said. obviously there's been a lot of good information as to why you shouldn't do poverty tows. i'm going to present to you the practical reason. there is no money in it. if this is about money, there is plenty of other enforcement the sfmta could be doing. the biggest example is parking in the bike lanes. you're talking about reactivating a policy to punish the poorest of us, who don't pose any safety threat. at worse, it is an aesthetic

thing because residents don't like seeing an older car parked on the road. everyone on this board and director tomlin are perfectly happy among the well off among us using the bike lanes throughout the city as free parking with punity. address the safety violations first and then you can get money on the side. another good point, you already had one or two lawyers on the call. martin versus bose. if you haven't looked at it, this board should and this board might want to get the city attorney's opinion because we're not talking about cars, we're talking about towing people's homes from public places. this is something that the ninth circuit says is a civil rights violation and the california supreme court has upheld it. so if you move forward with

povertitous -- poverty tows, you're telling the city you don't care about civil rights, safety, or money, the only issue is aesthetics and trying to please people who don't want to see older cars or poor people on the road. thank you. >> thank you, next speaker please. >> you have seven questions remaining. >> next speaker. >> hi, my name is ann. i'm a resident of san francisco and i direct the financial justice project. we were set up to look at our ticks and we worked closely with the sfmta and community a advocates over the years. i would like to thank the sfmta staff and delegates. we have a lot of dialog and i

think we're truly listening to each other and that's the way we're going to get to the best solutions to our city. the sfmta has done a lot in the last three years. there are discounts for low income people for towing and booting, and there are waivers for those experiencing homelessness and the remedies put forward today are meaningful. i do however want to challenge us to go further as a city, create solutions that are commensurate to the problem and continue to think through what we can do to prevent towing before it starts. we know that a third of people who are unhoused live in their cars and their cars are often their only source of shelter and their home. when they lose this shelter, we know there is a devastating human cost and there is also a financial cost to the city. i want to encourage the board of directors and mta staff to continue looking into this process of open dialog, creative

solutions, and listening to people. the best solution comes from people who are closest to the problem. as we reopen, we want to be sure we're setting everyone in our city up to succeed. i want to thank you for this time. >> thank you, next speaker please. >> you have six questions remaining. >> next speaker. >> hi, this is jennifer and i am calling from the coalition on homelessness. i believe this issue to be seen in the context of the national reckoning with individual racism that we're facing in the united states. four communities, not just in ferguson, but here in san francisco are targeted disproportionately by these practices of fines and fees and the impact is severely disparent, especially by race. simply said, if someone has a lot of money, paying a fine or fee is not much of a punishment.

if someone has not enough money to pay the fine or fee, it hurts badly. it hurts really badly. they either are paying something and giving up something else that they badly need. in this situation we're talking about today, with regards to the tow, they lose what is likely their greatest asset. they may lose their transportation and/or their job. they may -- it may be difficult for them as a parent and potentially for a lot of folks we're talking about, hundreds and hundreds of san franciscans, if they are so poor, they cannot afford rent and are living in their car, they lose everything. everything. this is a devastating punishment simply for being too poor. so, please stop poverty tows. thank you. >> thank you.

next speaker please. >> you have five questions remaining. >> next speaker. >> hi, my name is sam and we're a member of the end poverty tows coalition. while we've been grateful to work with the sfmta, we remain committed for our original request to ends poverty tows for a more just san francisco. we want to end punishment for the poorest and address the root cause of poverty. the city can collect unpaid debt for those unable to pay. people who lose their cars after a tow for unpaid tickets and unpaid registration are between 50% and 60%. during the pandemic, there has been more than 1,700 tows for vehicles for expired registration. i spoken to individuals who simply could not afford to pay their registration fees, not because they didn't want to

register their cars, but just because they couldn't afford it. one of those people was a small business owner of a construction company who employs four immigrant construction workers. their car was towed for expired registration and they couldn't work their job. his employees weren't able to go to work because of this tow at a time when they had so few jobs they could barely pay for that registration. he was eventually able to get his car out using one of the waivers that currently exists but the reality is that the proposal before us today can help low income san franciscans but does not end the harm of towing when it happens. many of us were on a similar call about towing just a year ago. >> 30 seconds. >> they were forcing people out on the sidewalks and out of their homes. we need to figure that out. in 1999, people borrowed her car

and it was towed for tickets instead. if i was living on the street, i would have a hard time koppeling -- koppeling. sfmta director spoke of his own experience and said if my car had been towed during the weeks living there, i probably wouldn't be here today. we agree with these sentiments and commitments with the board member and staff and urge you to please end poverty tows now by extending the moratorium we already have in place. thank you. >> thank you, next speaker please. >> you have five questions remaining. >> good evening board members. my name is kelly and i'm a human rights organizer at the coalition of homelessness, and i'm on the san francisco coalition board. i've been -- i'm calling to strongly urge sfmta to permanently end poverty tows by

continuing not to tow failure to pay parking tickets or remaining in the same space for 72 hours. i've been coming to these meetings for so many years now. we had discussions on how limited the city's resources are for people experiencing homelessness. covid has made everything even more challenging. usually they come and tell you how there are over 1,000 people waiting on the shelter wait list. since covid hit, we don't even have a shelter wait list for people to sign up on. that is the reality. we're anticipating things getting worse when the eviction moratorium ends. i think it's important to look at poverty tows in light of our current realities. for years we've been receiving calls from the coalition of homelessness on a weekly basis, who are having their vehicles taken from them.

it's such a hard hit. it's so brutal. there are no alternatives for most people. when they lose their vehicle, it's their home. they have to sleep on the ground, no protection, it puts people in such danger. this afternoon, i was out on outreach and speaking with some folks who were being displaced to a freeway -- >> 30 seconds. >> i was talking with a man, 67 years old, who has been renting a spot there for five years. with the trade in ownership, he is at risk of losing the space and at risk for having his home taken from him. this is how we're treating our elders during a pandemic and it doesn't need to be the case. i strongly urge you sfmta to permanently end poverty tows. thank you. >> thank you, next speaker please. >> you have four questions remaining. >> next speaker. >> cynthia.

>> you're live. >> yeah, my name is cynthia, and me and my husband and dog live in a camper. we were always afraid that we were going to get our camper taken. i could not -- we couldn't handle being on the streets. we're senior citizens. we just can't do it. i'm scared my camper will get taken away. i just need people to understand that we're not bad people. we're good people. we don't need our campers taken away. we have to get something done to help us. it's scary knowing you could be homeless at any time. my friend died and they took his camper away. he died on the streets. we tried to feed him and give him food, but he wouldn't take it. he just laid there on the street and died. a couple days later, they took his camper away.

i don't want to be that person laying on the street dead because they took my home away. we need our home. we can use all the help we can get. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker please. >> you have three questions remaining. >> next speaker. >> hello? is someone on the line? hello? moderator, can you switch to a different line and come back to this one? >> you have two questions remaining. >> next speaker. >> hi, my name is mike. i would like to tell the board that i appreciate the arguments that are being made and empathetic about the poverty tows. the board must continue to work and have the tools available to

them to get the abandoned cars off the street. there are legitimately abandoned cars that have been there for years, have no wheels, and are not moving. they're not going to move any time soon. the mta must have that option as a tool available to them. now i'm not advocating that we go out and tow every single car tomorrow. we must work -- put our big brains together and think about a solution that is going to adjust the needs that people are raising about property tows and does not hamstring us in our ability to manage the streets we have in this city. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker please. >> you have two questions remaining. >> next speaker. >> hi, my name is hannah, a

member of the end poverty tows coalition. i'm calling you to please end poverty tows. eliminating poverty tows will provide stability and relief to san francisco unhoused and low-income families, elders, and individuals at no cost to the city. city's tow programs losing $4.7 million annually and low income.income.4 so most drivers whose car was towed, then sold at auction would owe 2,600 in fees. as a result, san francisco is incurring expenses that will never be repaid, resulting in a net loss to the city. poverty tows will continue to

lose money for the city. an equitable solution is to end them. please end poverty tows. thank you. >> thank you, next speaker please. >> you have one question remaining. >> next speaker. >> hi, this is miguel and i am the director for the center for social justice at glide. many of what has already been said, i would have said -- the people said it so eloquently and for those who didn't see this piece that we did at glide in the state's chronicle tells a story of someone living out of their car. you know, we're getting back to reengagement in the world post covid and people are saying we're getting back to normal. i hope we're not getting back to normal. normal has not been kind to people. it's my hope that those of us who are advocating for the homeless, those who are advocating that we don't get back to normal.

i hope that as a body, mta body, that you help end poverty tows. let's be a compassionate loving city that takes care of each other. for the woman that lives in the camper, we feel you and we're here to help you. no one should be fearful about living in the streets. when you take away someone's car, you're taking away their shelter, their sense of identity, and everything they own. that's not right. so we're asking you to please show as a city, let's be compassionate. let's live up to the values of what st. francis said, help the poor. so we're asking you to please help end poverty tows permanently in this incredible city of st. francis. thank you. >> thank you. are there any additional callers on the line moderator? >> you have one question remaining. >> next speaker please.

>> hi, good afternoon directors. i'm a manager with glide. thank you for having this conversation on different citation and enforcement policies. this is an important issue for the glide community and the san francisco organization committed to addressing the issues of equity that are tied to the tows. it's part of a harmful system, perpetuated by needs. it incurs a cost on san franciscans and the sfmta. this reliance on financial penalties remains flawed and inequitable and towing cars when people can't afford to pay for parking tickets or expired registration is costly and counterproductive. it impacts people who don't have money on hand to pay off the debt in a timely manner.

we can't continue to collect fees from those struggling to meet their basic needs. poverty tows make it harder for the sfmta to collect money. the sfmta has suspended tows during the pandemic, including poverty tows. poverty tows only serve to punish people for being poor and utilizing them during the city's recovery is not only cruel, but will further plunge communities hit hard by the pandemic. please reduce the harm, stop the discriminatory tows, and permanently end poverty tows. thank you very much. >> thank you. moderator, are there additional questions on the line? >> you have zero questions remaining. >> with that, we will close public comment. ms. hammond, if i could ask you a question. 9% of all the calls end up

yielding a tow situation. do we know what percentage of those towed would fall into poverty circumstances? do we have a sense of that? can you talk about the process when a pco visits a car, it looks like someone might be living in a camper or vehicle, is the h.o.t. team employed on the first ticket? when in the process does that happen when we do outreach to try to help get assistance before they have tickets racked up? >> sure, thank you director. for the second question, i will send it to shawn, our enforcement director. on the first one, we don't maintain any demographic information related to tows because it's related to a vehicle. we don't have that information. then shawn, if you can take the second question. >> actually, can i ask a question about that? all the cars we tow, what

percentage is auctioned? there are a percentage of the cars being auctioned. it's not that we can totally assume that those cars are all people in poverty, but it would give us a better sense of people who couldn't afford to or didn't bother to get their cars. >> sure, unfortunately i don't have that data right now. i would be happy to get back to you on it. >> yeah, on the second side, it's just understanding what process we engage when we think there is a circumstance for someone living in their vehicle. >> yeah, i will take that. i'm the director of parking enforcement and traffic. when we come across a vehicle that is particularly housed, when the officer comes upon the vehicle, if they're going to tow it for any number of reasons, they will make contact with the occupant.

we're not going to tow a vehicle which is occupied. if we're towing it for 72 hours because it's been on the street, and we've already -- on the first visit, if we see the person, we will tell them what you have to do to remedy the situation. you have to move the vehicle. then they're in compliance and there is no reason to tow it. if we didn't see them on the first visit and we saw them on the second visit, we do the same thing. they just need to move the vehicle. then i'll talk a little bit more about the second steps with notifying the h.o.t. team. if the vehicle had any parking tickets, we can advise them on how to make a payment plan or contact customer service and get a situation. we don't need to tow that car this very minute, if they're going to resolve the situation. the same thing for vehicle

registration. they need to get the vehicle registered with the department of motor vehicle. when they correct that situation, there is no further action to be taken. if the occupant needs more time to really complete don't those steps, we can grant an additional five days, just proposed by diana when we were talking about the 72 hours, if they needed a need additional time. if the occupant is unwilling to remedy the situation or take care of the situation, the officer will contact their supervisor and then the supervisor will make a contact with homeless outreach team, the h.o.t. team, so the city can have someone come out and attempt to provide services. at this point, the office is going to clear the location, and provide that information to the

supervisor and will come back when the h.o.t. team has come out. if -- the only time we're going to tow a vehicle is if it's a public safety, or if it's blocking a fire hydrant. i helped people push their cars out of the way and get it out of the middle of the street or whatever, just to help them get out of the way. so that's what we do when we come across a vehicle that are occupied, appear to be in use for housing. to be honest, it doesn't -- if it's occupied, it doesn't matter. if the person can take care of the situation, there is no reason for us to continue to be there. >> right, but in the situation where someone doesn't have the money, they're not going to have the money. how do we deal with that? do we then enroll them in the community service program? i'm just trying to understand -- you know, i have a $100 ticket

but i have $25 to live for the next two weeks. i can't pay that ticket and i can't pay it in the next two months because i have to choose between eating and paying the ticket. what do we do in that situation? >> yes -- >> oh, we would always recommend that they go to the office and start the process. diana can explain that a little bit. once they started, they get on a payment program, or of any type, the vehicle is not going to be subject to being towed right now. >> is there anyway, i mean just something to think about, a way for us to enroll them on site? it's very hard for someone to leave their space when they're living there, pretty much, to go to -- you know, then asked to fill out paperwork and all that stuff. is there any way that we can bring that to them, that

process? if it is enrolling to do the community service, maybe to get some other services, maybe to get community passes, i don't know. is there a way to bring that to them instead of having them proactively come to take care of it? [please stand by]

-- not to mention that i'm trying to figure out how do we deal with people who actually, obviously, you are breaking the law, and poverty is not an issue of concern but separately to deal with people in situations of poverty.

and that's kind of where i'm trying to figure out how we trouble shoot -- because i don't think that it makes sense to do poverty -- from an economic standpoint, and not even talking about the moral one, right? so if we know that someone is distressed and living in their home, like, what can we do -- to do everything possible to not have to tow those people. and there's a secondary issue which, of course, is not our issue but something that, you know, we have talked about before, this safe parking thing i know that a lot of church and community groups are on this call and i don't know if any of those organizations have places where people could safely park. i know that is kind of another one of the conundrums of the 72-hour or the overnight parking bans is that there really isn't a place for people to go and a consistent place and the whole idea of shuffling people around the city to avoid being towed is not a sustainable or even a good way for people to live or to be

treated if people are trying to get their lives together or work a job. so i don't -- i know, that is not really the agency's purview, but i just hope that we could work with, you know, with the faith-based community and the coalition on the call here and the mayor's office to have a safe parking program. if we say, you have to move from this location, here's a place that you could actually go and it's just hard to say just move to people -- you know, which they do -- but there's not really anyplace for them to go. so that's -- that's my struggle and i absolutely think -- i had a car -- i lived on mission street, parked here for six months, and in a metered spot that wasn't moving and no one was living in it. and it got ticketed multiple times and finally got towed but sat here in front of my building

on a lot that has mostly a bus zone and always has cars parked in the bus zone so it was a big problem. it still didn't stop people from parking in the bus zone but i have the idea that we need to tow and it was just an abandoned vehicle. and so my feedback on the program, if we could figure out a way to deal with the population, it's much easier to identify and to figure out strategies for not at all towing that group of people because we know that they can't afford to pay, and we know that it causes more crisis. and we know that, you know, that people are in distress, and whether it's working with the teams to get people enrolled in services and also to help them to start a payment program or, you know, a community service program more likely, that would be great. but that's what i'd like to figure out -- knowing what we know, you know, to separate the two issues out because we do,

again, for the core reasons that have been discussed, we need to do -- we need to resume other kinds of towing, but not at the expense of people living in their vehicles is my struggle. and so i'll stop and move on to director heminger. >> director heminger: thank you, madam chair. diana, there was quite a bit of testimony that some of these tows that we're losing money on and first of all, can you confirm that, and have you had an estimate of the revenue impact if we were to approve the three recommendations from the coalition? >> yes, thank you, director heminger. so, yes, taking a look at the tow program and the cost recovery so for that we look at the direct cost and the revenue that we receive. so it is true that we do not

collect 100% the costs of the program, or about $28 million a year. and we collect about $4.5 million less. but that $4.5 million is represented by almost to the penny to the discounts that we provide, not only to low income and people experiencing homelessness but also stolen vehicles. and it's the decision of our board and agency to not pass those costs on to people who are paying the sole price. and to your second question regarding the fiscal impact of not towing, the issue is really around about collection rates. you know, we talk about compliance and how citation -- issuance promotes compliance with parking regulations. historically again over about the last 20 years our collection rate on citations have been

around 80%. we have found in the last 12 months that collection rate as a percent of the citations issued, and that collection rate has dropped by 11%. and so if you apply that to, you know, the total -- if you estimate what that would mean in the course of, you know, an upcoming year, it is about a $9 million decrease in citation revenue. which also points to, you know, a reduction in the deterrent effect of these citations? >> director heminger: so i guess that i'm looking for a bright light, and maybe there isn't one. but if we were to adopt their proposal, do you have a number that you could associate with that? >> well, i would actually compare it -- >> director heminger: because we would lose some costs, right? and we would lose some revenue. and how much of each is sort of what i'm getting at? >> and let's compare it to

previously in the discussions about fair compliance on vehicles, what happens when you don't have enforcement. >> director heminger: right. >> and those -- you know, it's sort of the same question. do we recover the costs of our fare enforcement through citations? but that's not the point. the point is that what we can't really estimate is what is the -- what we get in compliance through having enforcement and having these escalations for non-compliance and non-payments and so it's very difficult to estimate what that would look like. >> director heminger: in the case of transit fares we want to collect the fare, that's the objective. in the case of tickets, we don't want to give anyone a ticket if we don't have to. >> supervisor mar: >> it's nuanced that people are paying their parking meters or

using off-street parking, the behavior that we want to see. so it's a little bit tricky. we can point to decreased collection rates over time but what we can't point to is what the impact would be on compliance with parking regulations. which is our ultimate goal. >> director heminger: well, a number of the commenters as well talked about continuing the dialogue and i would certainly endorse that because it sounds like we've got a situation that nobody is really happy with. and if we could somehow segregate the impact on the streets with the collection or attempted collection of a lot of penalties and tickets, i think that it would be a better place i don't quite know how to get there. >> and we are committed to that, you know, as i mentioned. these conversations have been ongoing for the past three to four years. we learned something from every conversation that we have.

this most conversation, it was a conversation where each time we came back and thought about where we heard and that's where we land with some of these recommendations is the one-time waivers for people experiencing homelessness. so we're committed to that. >> director heminger: thank you, madam chair. >> chair borden: great. director eaken? >> vice-chair eaken: i'm happy to follow director lai if you want to go ahead. >> chair borden: director lai. >> director lai: thank you, chair borden. okay, so i actually confer with a lot of the sentiments that chair borden had already shared i do have some questions. i guess that one of my top line questions is do we have the ability to distinguish between a truly abandoned vehicle or someone who is able to pay their tickets but don't, versus the population that truly are

impoverished and cannot pay and cannot move their vehicles and cannot leave their vehicles because it's their home? do we have the ability to distinguish between those two sides? >> shawn, i'll defer to you on that one. >> we don't actually have the ability to determine what, you know, what their financial situation is when we're out there either issuing citations or preparing to tow a vehicle. we have no way of knowing that. >> director lai: okay. >> could you say more about the techniques that you use to differentiate between a car that is junked and abandoned on the street, versus one where somebody is obviously living in it? >> yeah, so when we look for vehicles that, you know, are clearly missing major parts, like the tires are gone and the windows are gone or the doors are missing or part of the engine is gone, those vehicles

are clearly abandoned and we tow those under a different section and we don't even need to wait the 72 hours to tow those, it's a separate section of the vehicle code that allows that to be considered a public hazard and we can remove the vehicle from the street for that. there's lots of situations where, you know, we have had vehicles and we don't know necessarily whether or not the vehicle is abandoned, or it belongs to a resident in the neighborhood. sometimes we confirm that the vehicle is from out of town, but it might be some vehicle that has just been purchased and they haven't finished the transfer of the vehicle to somebody who is actually living in the city. so it's very difficult for the officer in the field to have 100% certainty one way or the other. i mean, clearly, when there's a lot of personal property around the vehicle, it's clearly giving an indication that somebody is living in it. >> director lai: okay, thank you

for that. i did not realize that they already had the ability to tow abandoned vehicles. that is good to know. so right now we're only talking about vehicles that we actually are not truly abandoned. >> can i just clarify one thing on that one? >> director lai: sure. >> just because it's abandoned on street, it has to be missing make parts. so have seen vehicles until someone steals enough parts off the vehicle to get it to the point that we can actually tow it. because that picture that was in the presentation that supervisor safai's office referred to, it was on the road for three months before we could meet that section of the vehicle code. >> director lai: okay. thank you. and i understand from staff that we do not collect demographic information from towing. could you talk a little bit that and why we do not collect demographic information?

>> you can jump in if you like but fundamentally, parking violations are issued to the vehicle, and for shawn -- i mean, most often people are not present when the citation is issued. so we wouldn't have a way -- and it's not information that is maintained by the department. >> and it doesn't require the person who is there, it's the last person of possession. so there's a whole potential equity concern about that and a privacy concern. because we do absolutely when they pick up the vehicle, we do need to know their name and all of their information so that we're able to put those two pieces together and that has some potential data security issues. >> director lai: okay. i guess that i'll just make my position clear here.

i do not feel that we should be towing vehicles that are effectively someone's home if we do not as a city have the ability to house them or to connect them with services. i am -- i very much appreciate that it sounds like we are instituting a policy to connect individuals with i think -- staff had mentioned 40 different service providers or programs or something like that. but i really wonder how successful those connections, handoff points are and if we're taking someone's home away, how immediately and how -- what rate are we able to house these folks? do we at least have that type of information? >> so the h.u.d. team and a.h.s.

is not allowed to share that demographic information directly with us. they may have it when people are offered services, but we don't have that specific demographics available to us at all when people are accepting services or not. >> director lai: yeah, i guess that it's really hard for me to engage, you know, in policy discussions when i feel like we don't really have information for perhaps good reasons, but quite honestly, without the data or demographic information or even the success rate information, i can only go off of my own encounters with the community as well as the public testimony. and my impression is that overwhelmingly the public commenters are saying that a lot of these tows are happening on individuals who can't afford, you know, to pay tickets. or even to register their cars.

and they don't have options. so i understand that there's no actual action in front of us, but i'm quite concerned about reinstituting the tows when we have not yet heard anything about the increased ability to house individuals if we remove their vehicles eventually. thank you, chair. >> chair borden: thank you. director eaken, would you like to go? >> vice-chair eaken: yeah, thank you so much. i guess that i just -- i want to second director lai's comment, that this seems like a situation where we actually need so much more data in order to be able to really understand what's going on. i ask the same question of staff in the meeting, what is the demographic breakdown? for example, thinking back in time to the very helpful discussion that we had on the budget and the potential to

raise fares, that was to clearly say if we raise the cab fare this is who will be affected and if you raise the fares this is who is affected and it allows to us make a informed decision. we don't have a clear idea of who is being towed and there's a lot of anecdotes of those living in their vehicles and those who are being towed but we don't have that information. and that makes it very hard as a policy body to make these kind of decisions and really to understand at a fine grain level what is the impact of these decisions that we're making. and i guess that we have heard a lot from the public and the letter that we received from supervisor preston and there are assertions that those who are being towed primarily are impacting those who are low income and those who are people of color. but it's disconcerting to me that i ask the staff to have the data and we don't know if that is true or not.

so, i guess that i just wonder -- one of the commenters talked about there's a map and most of the tows are happening in district 10, and i don't know, i have not checked that source of data. but could staff share what you do know? because the response that i receive, we don't collect demographic data, how can we make decisions if we don't understand the impact of this policy on others? >> so i can speak to that. in terms of the -- the distribution of tows and, you know, to follow up with more detail on this and the map that you referred to -- that is based on the location of the tow. and so you can't necessarily correspond a location of a tow to the demographics of the registered owner. and, shawn, maybe you could speak a little bit why they might be overrepresented in some neighborhoods? >> yeah, so we do -- we do tend to find vehicles that are being

left whether abandoned or in some cases people actually living in their vehicles in areas where there are fewer and fewer regulations. so the bayview, excelsior, those areas have limited regulations and some parts of the city they don't have any regulations and there's not even a street cleaner that goes by on those streets. so those are the quiet streets that people will tend to move towards. but they end up a lot of times in the commercial neighborhoods because there's nobody to bother at night. but we do get a lot of complaints from the businesses about, you know, they're concerned about being able to have access to their business because there's vehicles parked in front. and the security of their employees in their businesses. we continue to review all of the locations of the tows to try to make sure that, you know, we're fairly enforcing across the city, which i truly believe that

we are. it's just that this is the area that we get the majority of the complaints and we do respond to these complaints primarily based on, you know, a member of the public contacted and saying that here's a vehicle that i think that needs to be addressed. >> vice-chair eaken: okay. so we're in a situation where we don't have the ideal data that we would like to have. i guess that we've heard a lot of concerns from the public about reinstating these proposed tows. and so that impacts me. that's very important to me. so many people are concerned and bothered to turn out and expressed those concerns today. so i guess what i would love to understand in balancing this is really clearly to try to understand what is the -- what is the policy mandate that sfmta

is trying to achieve by reinstating these tows, that it is so important that it's worth it to us to disregard all of these public comments? and just going back to your slides, your slide five, looking at the percentage of all of the tows that are represented by these three categories, it looks like it's something like 17% of all the tows that are represented here. so it's a pretty small minority of all of the tows. so i just want to hear you sort of explain what is the great concern that we are hoping to address by reinstating these 17% of tows that feels so urgent to the staff? >> let me see if i can dive in and, victoria, you can correct me. so we're wanting to reinstate this policy for exactly the same reason why we wanted to reinstate our transit fare policies. which is to ensure compliance --

first of all with our parking rules. we need to manage commercial parking so that motorists can find a space. and we do that through parking meters that are set at the lowest rate that ensures one or two spaces are available. and, you know, towing is the absolute last resort after many other steps of ensuring compliance with our basic parking management rules. our other effort here is to -- to ensure a reasonable quality of life for residents and business owners, particularly in districts 10 and 11, where we see the overwhelming majority of complaints about abandoned vehicles on the street that are taking up commercial parking spaces and making it difficult to do business. or taking up residential street parking on residents' blocks. so a lot of this work has been constructed around the needs of

residents and business owners in districts 10 and 11. so we're not dialing things back to exactly where they were pre-covid. we're basically going from a pretty laissez-faire environment which we had during covid, to a thoughtful place about halfway between where we were and where we have been, so that we can actually deal with the inequities of the fact that the majority of this kind of vehicle abandonment program is in the parts of the city where there's the fewest parking regulations which are the lower density parts of districts 10 and 11. so those are our two primary objectives. we also know that there is data that we would love to be able to get but it's illegal for us to get it. and so there's the possibility of thinking about work arounds to that problem, and we are interested in a fuller policy review of this complex policy.

and we're hoping that as we go to the halfway place that we can start getting data about what is the absolute least amount of towing that is necessary in order to get a basic level of compliance with the rules? that's our goal. like, we don't want to do towing. it costs us money. it is incredibly disruptive to everyone's lives and particularly the lives of people who are most vulnerable. so we're trying to find that sweet staff and the staff intend to do additional experimentation once we make this adjustment to see how do we fine-tune all of the dials to get to a place of basic compliance but a place that is also rooted in compassion that helps, particularly direct people who are housed in their vehicles, towards a more stable housing situation. >> vice-chair eaken: yeah, and, you know, you speak about a case, a scenario that clearly makes sense.

it's an abandoned vehicle, and of course that vehicle should be towed, that makes perfect sense. but i guess that i lack the ability to know that we could differentiate in these circumstances. it doesn't necessarily feel that we have a clear understanding of what are the different circumstances. so i guess that the last thing they would offer is that we have been talking so much about racial equity and i think that you, director tumlin, have spoken with so much commitment with racial equity. many callers are raising this as a racial equity issue and so i would like our racial equity officer to look at this policy and know what she thinks rooted in her experience and expertise if we could have her weigh in that would be very, very meaningful and helpful to be able to wrestle with some of the issues raised by the public. thank you. >> great. >> chair borden: thank you so much, director eaken. director yekutiel.

>> director yekutiel: thank you, chair borden. i think that it is not at all a mystery to this board my thoughts on towing. and i have struggled a lot with this non-action item/action item as soon as i knew that it would be before us, because i knew that it was going to be difficult and prickly. i just want to say in my mind it feels that we're talking about six different kinds of folks. we're talking about truly abandoned vehicles, and we're talking about a vehicle where someone is living in the vehicle and that's just the situation, it's not causing any issues. and then we're talking about vehicles that someone is living in it and there's some complaints coming from the neighborhood that might have just cause. maybe their furniture is laid out everywhere and maybe it's causing a situation that is non-hygienic and there are pictures that have been shown that show, you know, folks using the streets as a laboratory because they're living in their vehicle and folks are complaining. so there's some kind of issue

being caused by someone living in that community for the community. there are vehicles where no one is living in the vehicles and it just hasn't been moved for a couple days. so there's no one living in the thing. and there's vehicles where no one is living in the vehicle and it hasn't not been moved but the registration is expired or they have received parking citations and the reason they have not done it is because they cannot afford it. and the sixth and final one, they have a vehicle that they're not living in and it's not the 72-hour rule or they have parking citations and the reason they have not paid for it is a nefarious reason. they know they can't get a smog check done, so it's not that they can't afford it but there's other reasons that we do need to take care of it. what is concerning to me and i think that the other board members have represented this is that it sounds like we don't have a lot of good ways to understand two three six. and officer mccormick said that there's something in the vehicle code that allows to us tow a vehicle that is truly

abandoned without any of these rules, but also that a car that we've seen has had to be in the road for three months before we could determine that it was actually able to be considered abandoned. so i have a couple questions and then i have some ideas. my first question is to officer mccormick, and it's been wonderful working with you in the last few months, what is that threshold to determine whether a vehicle is truly abandoned? what do we need to know? you said that there has to be parts missing, can you help to totell us about that. >> it's the radiator or the grill or tires are missing off of it and there's no windshield or rear window. you know, just a car being on the street with a broken window might have just gotten broken and the person hasn't had a chance to take care of it yet, versus a car missing major parts

and that's -- the vehicle code is somewhat vague in the fact that it says major component parts, but those are usually figuratively the windshields, missing doors, missing seats or missing tires or major engine parts. >> director yekutiel: and one of the slides, officer mccormick, it said 30,000 complaints of vehicles that need to be towed for these reasons and only 6% were responded to. do you feel what percentage of vehicles on our city streets are reported and actually towed by your part of the agency? >> well, that's -- i mean, those numbers are accurate. we get 30,000 complaints a year and it takes two trips to the vehicle and we make one trip out to mark the vehicle for the 72 hours. and then we come back, you know, 72 hours or more later, and if the vehicle is still there, then is when we initiate the tow. so the percentage of the

vehicles that are actually abandoned, you know, it's going to be, you know, much less than that. you know, 5%. >> director yekutiel: um-hmm, okay. how does a p.c.o. identify that the registration is expired? how do they know that is actually the case? is there a scan on the license plate? >> you know, the first indicator is obviously the tags are not up to date. and the second check is that you use a radio and a contact dispatch to verify whether or not the registration is current or not and we check real-time with the d.m.v. >> director yekutiel: a quick question and this is maybe for diana. why in the recommendations did we come to providing that one waiver -- that one-time waiver, for folks to waive all of their parking citations?

why did we not include folks who are considered low income by the standards that we have been presented, 200% of the federal poverty level, why not include those as well instead of folks just experiencing homelessness? >> in our conversations we really have been focusing on the impact of people experiencing homelessness. we do have a number of other programs available, but that was the focus because of the impact and potentially we have all heard this evening about someone losing their shelter. so it was the priority and the focus that we placed on these discussions. >> if i could add a bit -- i think that it's important to note that while there's a whole bunch of discounts and waivers built in, each of those have been built in because of the dialogue that diana has had with both the coalition and other stakeholders and the fact that

we focus those treatments on the most vulnerable people. if we're going to offer a waiver, we're offering to people who are at risk of losing their home, you know, that's -- that is not a saving in the abstract and that's reacting to the dialogue and -- >> director yekutiel: got it. i wanted to return to director heminger's question to diana, on kind of trying to understand what making changes to these policies would do to our overall costs. we obviously have variable fees feeswith auto return where the marginal cost of one fewer tow is reducing those fees that we pay out of return. and a part of our understanding of the cost of these tows is p.c.o.'s time and the time of their dispatchers. so the truth -- and i want to make sure that i'm not incorrecr reasons to tow, you know, that

is less p.c.o. time, and less dispatcher time and reduced costs to the agency of trying to go out and processing these tows, is that correct or incorrect? >> the variable -- (indiscernible). >> so it's hard -- depending on what the levels of that reduction is, but, yes, if we reduce the number of tows and the numbers weren't there, we would have savings on the labor side. >> but if we were to reduce, but or keep the proportion the number of tows of, let's say vehicles for drivers -- (indiscernible) and the homelessness waiver, you would have a cost structure -- you would have less revenue without a drop in the cost pressure, and

more pressure on the full fares that is now over $500, right? you have to subsidize them even more. >> well, that's assuming that our internal costs don't go down and that our fees that haven't changed won't be renegotiated to a lower rate because we're asking them to do less work. >> and jeff alluded to coming back this fall with a comprehensive look at the tow program. we want to bring you, like, three radically different flavors of towing. a no-towing approach and negotiate hard for the future year of the contract, and have all of the variable fee that you pointed at, manny. and also business as usual but in the long term we can't bring both down the top end and subsidize, you know, more -- forgive more and more people's parking tickets if we don't change that cost structure and that's what we want to do this fall. >> director yekutiel: and bear

in mind that the reason behind the towing program is a third step backstop to compiens with our parking regulations. and so just as avoiding fare enforcement during covid resulted in a nearly 100% loss of our muni revenue, we're also concerned about severe reductions in the towing program resulting in a loss of our parking revenue. >> though it sounds like an 11% loss in the actual -- payment of the parking citations, is that correct? >> again, the revenue -- this is not about making revenue off of parking citations, it's about making revenue off of parking fees. >> director yekutiel: right, what we're trying to predict here is behavioral outcomes. if people know that they'll not get towed they won't care about paying their parking citations anymore and it's hard to predict that. but i'm trying to learn here -- what we have learned from last year is that suspending a lot of our tows resulted in a 11% reduction in people paying their

parking citations, do i have that right? >> that's right, we did see a 11% decrease in our collection rate. >> i'm sorry, go ahead. i do want to make a connection between the revenue and the behavior. so, yes, we collected 11% fewer dollars but there's 11% of the drivers out there now who think they can get away with, say, pulling up in front of a restaurant and not paying the meter and parking all day and your deliveries can't get in. and so once you start to lose that sort of multilevel backstop that director tumlin mentioned all of the work that we're doing to try to make end double parking and make the streets safer, we're going to lose the sense that drivers need to comply with the rules at some point. >> director yekutiel: okay, i'll finish with this is that i think that we have to find a way to parse out the vehicles that need

to be towed for a legitimate, public safety reason, and the tows that actually make the problem worse and do not need to happen. i'm not stepping out of turn here. i think that a lot of the other board members have expressed disappointment that it seems that we don't have a ton of surgical ways to figure that out and the end result of people who fall through that filter, these are lives which are irreparably damaged. in our city i do think that we owe it to ourselves -- and i would like to know that i am on a board of an agency that is filled with brilliant people thinking outside of the box on ways that we can figure out the determination. does this car really need to be towed for our ability to manage this street properly? or is towing this person's car -- not only not particularly necessary, but it's going to throw this person's life into a tailspin and make it much worse for them and actually cost us money? so i want to say while this is

not presented as an action item, it is a de facto action item. because we are saying that -- we are presented that through a policy that is reinstated with alterations that are the result of our agency doing a lot of good work in community, to figure out a middle ground. and us as a board hearing this informational item and not taking any proactive action on it is as i perceive a defactor action step by saying, go ahead and do this and we'll see, you know, we're expressing concern but not doing anything about it so i want to let director hinze speak and i have ideas to ask for in a timestamp that don't hamper the ability of our agency to actually pursue cars that need to be towed, but give the agency the signaling from this board that we want to see real solutions to this issue that are not presented to us today. and that we want to see it in an expeditious way. so with -- i don't know, chair

borden if you want me to present those now or after director hinze has spoken. >> chair borden: do you want to speak first director hinze. >> director hinze: you can present your ideas and then i'll weigh in. >> director yekutiel: okay. they're very short and we are just responding to what the other board members have said. i would like to have a commitment from the sfmta to establish a process, a clear process, for us to determine whose car is -- whose car are we attempting to tow because that do not have the ability to pay for it. and is not presenting a safety concern for the neighborhood and the community. and whose car is presenting that concern and needs to be towed. so creates a process for us to be able to establish that and to make that determination and then being able to evaluate it at the point of tow. the second is to provide alternatives to towing

non-abandoned vehicles for the board to discuss in the next three months what we are hearing is ways to make the towing less burdensome but i'd like to see what other things that we can do other than towing the vehicle. maybe we should work to come up with lots around the city to move the vehicles that are not under the purview of auto return. maybe we can work with our ecumenical organizations to where the vehicles could be moved that aren't under the auspices of auto return. i would like to figure out what the budgetary barrier for folks who are currently at 200% of the federal poverty level and not just folks experiencing homelessness because of what just happened to our city over the last year and the amount of people who are living under the debt that they have accrued over the last year of the pandemic. and those are things that we'd like to see to happen in three months and to give the agency three months to come up with a plan and a way to do this better. and then see what ideas we have

>> chair borden: great. >> director hinze:just a few things to follow up on my colleague's very eloquent distillation of this issue. and to the point that i echo that we sort of don't have the appropriate level of data to see how many folks are actually using their vehicle as their home, and i don't -- and i worry a little bit about resuming towing enforcement of these so-called poverty tows two weebs before completing that analysis so just to say that in response

the public testimony that i have heard and the conversations today. and then the question to miss hanlon as a follow on, i know that in your presentation that you're going to look at etion expanding the definition of so-called low income. can you talk briefly about possible measures that you're looking at to help expand that definition? >> i don't have any specifics on that right now but just an acknowledgement that it's something that we're going to revisit. as a reminder, that level for discounts also applies to our transit fare programs as well. so there are some tradeoffs that we would need to look at as well

as the administration, just as an example, increasing that level to 80% of bay area median income would be actually 160% increase in the number of folks that are eligible. so we do just need to take a look at all of these tradeoffs from a policy perspective. >> director hinze: all right, thank you, chair. >> chair borden: great. director brinkman. >> director brinkman: thank you this is such a difficult topic and it's one that the board has wrestled with for so long. it started with oversized vehicle restrictions. and i think that we are really making good strides. it's a balance between being able to actually do something about the cars that need to be handled -- the abandoned cars and the people who are racking up citations who could afford to pay for them. and the neighborhoods that are being affected by these vehicles

left there. but putting in place really careful and thoughtful practices to avoid towing somebody's home i do believe that the p.c.o.s who go out can make those careful, thoughtful decisions on the fly as they go. i have to believe that there are certain signs that the p.c.o.s can recognize to know when somebody is living in a car, or when somebody's car is storing people's belongings. you know, we have heard the horrible stories of people getting their car towed with their i.d. in it. and i did confirm with staff that you can get your belongings out of a vehicle without paying for the tow, which i think that used to not be the case. because you used to hear horrible stories about people being towed and they could never get anything back out of it. so now they can get things back out of it, and i know that is not a solution, but at least there is that, that people don't

have to pay to get their belongings back. they can get their belongings back. so i want to say that i'm supportive of continuing this discussion. i actually am supportive of going ahead and restarting some of the tows because i feel like we need that tool to be able to keep -- to keep order in the streets and to keep order on the parking lanes of our city. and to make sure that just as certain people don't disproportionately suffer because of the towing, other neighborhoods don't disproportionately suffer because of our lack of towing. so i'm glad that we're having these discussions. i'm so glad that this board is so careful and thoughtful and really aware of the problems, but i'm also very aware of the problems that occur when we absolutely don't put any of these tow practices into effect

>> chair borden: great, thank you director brinkman. director eaken? >> vice-chair eaken: thank you, chair borden. i guess that i just wanted to respond to something that my colleague made a comment on. this is a non-action but it is also an action in a sense. you're bringing this to us and we're hearing from the public about it, and you're letting us know but obviously you brought it to us because you want some kind of hearing on it, otherwise, you would have just gone ahead and done it. my guess is if you asked this board to affirmatively to vote today to reinstate towing, i bet that it would fail. that is my sense of this board is that it would not get a majority yes go ahead. so just that kind of in between policymaking is a little bit odd, given that i don't think that we can -- even though i appreciate the creative recommendations, i don't think that we could do a recommendation today in taking action. i guess that i would be in favor of doing a little bit more analysis on this and having our racial equity officer weigh in

and actually bringing this back to the board for an official vote, an official action in a future date to your creative solutions, director yekutiel. this sort of in-between policymaking doesn't seem like it's doing our job. >> chair borden: director yekutiel. >> director yekutiel: thank you, director eaken. yes, that is kind of how this feels to me as well. and i understand as well, director brinkman, there are a lot of competing needs here. i just want to make it very clear that i think that our agency should have all much the tools in our toolbelt necessary to maintain safe and operating streets. and i guess that i just have to believe that there are ways in which we can make more surgical determinations at the point of tow to be able to figure out who is who and what situations we have. and i -- while i do trust our p.c.o.'s ability to do an amazing job, i think that it is

important for us to also create systems where we don't have to rely on an individual p.c.o.'s determination. where there are actually processes in place where we can figure out who it is that we're towing. so i don't know what the process is, chair borden, for this. i don't want to do anything out of turn, but, you know, i guess that i just leave it to your guidance to figure out kind of how in a situation like this where there seems to be a lot more information that we need in order to deem that an action is condoned by the board, i guess -- like, how do you -- how do we make that determination? >> basically, first off, we're providing feedback to staff and i think that giving them clear direction on what it is that we want to see in a new policy, so the kind of data. i think that we have given them insight on the kind of data and information and insights that we need to better do

decision-making. i think we have all made comments about working with various groups and outreach things to be done, having the hud teams to enroll people on the spot, all of that kind of stuff. so what we can do is to say that we want to you bring policy back to us in -- at some future time -- does these five things, 25 things, whatever it is. that's within our purview to do, or to address the policy goals. it's probably easiest to do then the tactical things necessarily this is not an action item so it was not notice to the public that we would take an official action. it was informational and the purpose is for staff to gather from us the kind of input on the direction which direction they should go with the long-term policy. i think that any further guidance that we can provide here and even for thoughts after the meeting, i think that, you know, to follow up with staff

with additional things that we maybe doesn't discuss is likely but i think that what we're all saying and what i have heard from everyone is that we are not -- the board in general is not willing to entertain a -- resuming a towing policy without adequately having data to support the imperative, and a way to deal with the poverty aspect -- the aspect of the poverty tow. is that a fair statement from what i have heard from everyone here? i think that is generally what we want to say to staff. we need a much better picture of who is being affected overall in our towing, who the people are along the towing eco-system and then how we can extricate the very specific population of people that, you know, cannot afford to pay this, even with a payment plan, right? and the people who are -- you know, just -- i think that it is

encouraging that 30,000 complaints are made and only 9% of those are towed. but i have no context from how you get from that number to the bottom number and what happens once you have that bottom number, who does that represent so if we could get more context, i think that could help. any other things, tom, mr. maguire, miss hanlins, any other input that we could provide you that would be more helpful as you pursue trying to figure this out? >> no, i think that i very much appreciate the range of issues that you have highlighted here and said that you'd like us to -- like us to think through. i think we want to get back to you as fast as possible. i think that one of the things that i'm hearing from the board is very much a sense of urgency in response to the questions a few minutes ago, i talked about coming back in the fall and i think that we clearly need to do

that sooner than that, but we do need to come back with a full picture that gets into the issues with the cost structure of the contracts and the impacts on our budget of towing or not towing. it would be an incomplete picture if we didn't have that information with us as well. >> can we say, you know, could you come back with more information within three months on this particular set of things so that we can -- there's a little bit more -- are we allowed to say that and ask for that specifically? chair borden? >> chair borden: sure, i think that is fine. i think that is fine. i also -- what i was going to also ask is that i know that there was that map that was presented -- it was talked about. and as i understand, if i understand it correctly, most -- a lot of the activity that leads to people being towed is actually encouraged by neighbors calling, right? identifying the problem.

so i think that it would be great to also segregate, like, i mean, how many of those are calls generated by the community versus action that we're just taking independently? because i do think that is part of the other issue, right, that there are communities that feel disproportionately impacted which are generating a lot of calls. i think that we need to understand that picture also to help to figure out -- i think that in a bigger picture way there are larger structural issues going back to this whole overnight -- this ban of oversized vehicles and all of those sorts of questions, right? and limited areas in the city where people can pretty much do whatever they want from a parking standpoint and they're concentrated mostly in, you know, the district 10, district 11. so it doesn't surprise me that it generates a lot of calls. so how do we -- specifically knowing this circumstance, how do we present -- how do we change that for the neighborhood

to have what they need but not have it be the dumping ground. because we know that there's general dumping and stuff that happens in those neighborhoods, but also, you know, to deal with the fact that for people who are unhoused it is the only place for them to go, right? >> yes, and i think that in order to help you all to understand the complexity of this topic, i would like to invite all of you to join me and shawn mccormick and his p.c.o.s out in the portions of district 10 and 11 where the vast majority of these calls are coming from, where neighborhood residents and business owners do feel like their neighborhood is a dumping ground. so i think that it would give you the opportunity to see the nature of the issues and to actually talk to the p.c.o.s as well as to talk to folks living in vehicular encampments which we are managing. there are many parts of the city where there are blocks set aside for people to be able to live in

their homes and we are accommodating that with considerable care. and so talking to the folks who we help to manage while also keeping streets clean at the same time, i think that it would be really be useful as well as seeing the kind of discernment that our p.c.o.s use every day in order to keep the streets sanitary and clean and well kept and livable, but at the same time to show a tremendous amount of compassion to those of us who do live in vehicles, because we don't want to put those people out literally on the streets. and what we're trying to do with this policy is to have tools for managing the streets, but also to do it in a way that is thoughtful and compassionate. that does require creating some space for judgment on behalf of our p.c.o.s, because there are

certain situations in which it is impossible to collect the data that we would love to have, but that data is illegal for us to collect. >> i'm sorry, chair borden, i'm struggling because this conversation is happening up here, right, board members and directors. and what is actually -- with the action that we're talking about is happening on the ground and i would love to go on that tour, director tumlin. but i would like to step away from this meeting knowing that there's some deliverables with a certain time frame that we could come back on this board and chew on this issue and i don't think that we have heard it yet. >> can i take a shot at what i think that -- what i think that we're asked for and something of my own at the end? i think that we're asked to come back to you with a clear process for making a much clearer distinction between the cars and the vehicles, rather, that are -- that need to be towed for

health and safety and hazard reasons versus those that we would prefer to tow. and secondly, giving you an update and reigniting our conversations with many advocates about the -- what the alternatives are and can we create off-street parking areas for some of these vehicles. i'll caution you that the demand will always wildly exceed the supply. but it doesn't mean that we can't serve some portion of the people that way. and then an analysis of the specific budget impact of bringing that citation waiver all the way up to 200% of the poverty line. so those are three analytical things that we would do. and i also heard much more data and not just -- not just the

finance and streets teams but the racial equity executive having addressed on analyzing the impact data to give analysis of the different aspects. and the last one is exploring something about how to improve enrollment in some of the payment or the community service programs possibly in the field so that we don't make people come down to south van ness. so those are five clear action items that i got coming out of this. and that said, i can also tell you that i have -- i mean, shawn and i and others in the streets division have multiple requests for every district in the city to address very, very -- very, very acute situations in the street where there are vehicles they think that would certainly fall on this vehicle needs to be moved side of the line as director yekutiel said, and i'm very nervous about going three months without the ability to do that. >> director yekutiel: i don't

think that anyone is proposing that right now, at least i'm not. i think we're all interested in giving that flexibility but we have a lot of questions and we have had them mentioned on how this policy is not leaving folks behind. if you could get that to us within three months? >> we can accomplish that for you, yes. >> director yekutiel: that would be great, thank you so much, director maguire. >> chair borden: great. any other questions or comments for director maguire before we close out this item? then this concludes this item. >> clerk: director as a reminder that items 13 and 14 have been continued to the may 18th meeting. i also did during your last item receive an additional request and wanted to announce the continuance of item 15, the legal requirements of the sfmta informational to the 18th meeting or a future meeting as well. that said, directors, that concludes the business before you today. >> chair borden: i do need to take public comments as it

wasn't previously noted that we were continuing this item. so to the members of the public, we are continuing -- we have already continued items 13 and 14, and we are going to continue items number 15, number 15. if you were holding on the line to speak on item 15, which is presentation discussion regarding the legal responsibilities of sfmta, now is your time to give comment. you can press 1-0, if you would like to speak. moderator -- >> clerk: can i get one moment to get the bridge -- i believe -- i need to check in with staff regarding that. give me one moment, please.

>> chair borden, can i comment to make sure that we have clarity on the direction that we gave the staff on the last item? i think that it was a little bit murky. i know that you closed the item can i -- >> chair borden: sure. attorney, is it okay if director eaken did that? >> yes, it's still the same meeting. >> chair borden: perfect. go ahead. >> vice-chair eaken: okay. so the staff proposal is to resume the enforcement of the 72-hour on may 17th and to resume enforcement of expired registration and delinquent on

june 21st? director, you could still ask for more information over three months but that information doesn't sound like it would be ready in time, like, we would not have had the updated analysis and the equity officer review in time for these tows to resume. and i think that the sense of the board that she heard is that we're not comfortable resuming tows unless and until we have had that further data analysis. so i think we're clear on the timing of everything and i just will note that your proposal is to bring us some legislative changes in june to expand these waivers and discounts for low-income people and people experiencing homelessness? i was going to make a recommendation that if you could bring any of that data analysis or the further review that we have requested at the same time as we approve those legislative changes that would seem to make a lot of sense. if that could be in advance of the resuming of the tows in

june. >> so the proposal in front of you is to resume the tows as in the staff proposal. i'm not proposing to change that. we desperately need some tools in order to address dire needs, particularly in districts 10 and 11. so i am hearing clear direction from the board, so as we move forward with towing, that we will do so with great gentleness as we continue to refine and come back to you with the potential recommendations for policy changes. so, tom, is that -- is that what you are hearing as well? >> that's what i thought that i heard, yes. >> chair borden: any final questions, or questions or thoughts before we go to comments on this final item? >> director yekutiel: yeah, just a question of -- a process

question. if this board wanted to vote on a policy do we not have the authority to do that? >> chair borden: not without it being noticed to the public. >> director yekutiel: right. but i think that what we're hearing is that we want to take a stand on this thing and we're basically being told that we don't to give you an opportunity to take a vote on it. is that what i just heard? >> chair borden: no, what i'm saying is that -- is that the policy is going to be voted on for us and right now it's informational. so it has to be brought to us to take the action. >> i don't think so. it sounds like staff is intending to go ahead and to resume enforcement regardless of the vote of this board. >> sorry, staff can speak to their intent, which i think that director tumlin did just summarize. if the board wants to schedule an action item you can make a

procedural motion tonight to schedule an action item by majority vote. that's a procedural motion and it doesn't need to be noticed. but you can't take -- you can't act on a resolution or give vote to take a direction tonight. >> chair borden: director lai? >> director lai: thank you. so -- yeah, i kind of -- i was aware that we -- this was not an action item, which is why i sort of tried to state upfront my sentiments about it, but i'm going to try to just state it again as an individual request to staff that i feel very strongly that we should not at this moment be towing unless we are certain that the vehicle belongs to someone who can afford to pay the fines or a citation or the tow itself.

i don't feel like that based on this conversation that staff has been quite clear that we don't have the absolute ability to distinguish, which is why i would -- i would have preferred to err on the side of caution and not further individual's lives by waiting to, you know, to reactivate this tool until staff has better capabilities to discern whether somebody is either struggling with housing insecurity versus those who can actually afford to pay the tow cost. so i understand that staff is going to go ahead and it's not within this board or my ability to prevent you from doing so, but i guess that i'm just making this request in case staff would be willing to reconsider. >> so a point of clarification

to jeff or to tom. you were telling us this for us to just know, but you're going to do this anyway? or were you telling us that having this conversation because this conversation was going to determine how soon you would pull the trigger, i guess is the question? >> i could start and maybe jeff you could see if i missed anything. but we brought this to you today because we heard loud and clear as far back as the budget workshop that you wanted to hear much more information about our tow policies, both how we execute them and also how the fine and the fee structures worked to create what i think that is generally a policy outcome that -- a policy regime that no one seems to (indiscernible). and this is a first in a series of tow presentations and the next is bringing additional ones in june and intending in the fall to bring a real reimagining of tow options package to you for action. so this is really an informational update to address

that i think very acute desire that you had to find out much more about the towing process. i think that it's gone in the direction of discussing our actions and it was not our intent to come and to ask you to make that decision. it was to inform you on something that seemed very important to you. >> and to add that so back in early in the pandemic, i used my authority as director to fully eliminate towing across the city. that created a whole array of problems that we are now struggling with. and so what i am doing now is using my director's authority to not bring back the pre-covid policy, but to bring back a much smaller more compassionate, modest program with a whole array of waivers in order to give us the critical tool for managing the situation, particularly in districts 10 and 11, in a way that absolutely

minimizes the chance that someone who is vehicularly housed would have their home towed away. >> chair borden: okay. >> and as tom described to get into some of the larger technical policy questions with all of you later about where exactly we end up. because, obviously, this is an extraordinarily complex situation and there is key data that we wish that we had that we have not been able to find a way to get. >> chair borden: great. so director yekutiel and then director heminger. >> director yekutiel: i'll let director heminger go first since i have put in a lot on this item. >> chair borden: you muted. >> director yekutiel: although he is muted. >> director heminger: to me this is like a movie where the spaceship goes from warp speed to impulse power. and jeff has been operating under warp speed during the

pandemic, and i think that we've given him quite a long leash. now we're sort of crashing back into reality, and i think he's fashioned a midway point. and i do think that it's valuable, actually, for this new policy to be out there for a couple of months because it would be another data point for us. so we would know what it used to be like, what it was like in the pandemic and now we've got somewhere in the middle of it. i also think that we've got a pretty good and detailed summary from tom about what he's committing to do in 90 days. so i take him at his word. he's not going anywhere. and i think that we should just move forward on that objective. i am very encouraged, in fact, director yekutiel, with the variety and the depth of the ideas that you have put forward so i think we can pull something out of the hat.

>> director yekutiel: well, thank you, director heminger. i appreciate that. and i love -- i love your -- i love when you compliment me in a meeting. i guess -- >> director heminger: don't get used to it. >> director yekutiel: that's a really good place. and i wanted to go back to susan's comment though. i'm confident that director maguire will come back with those things and it will allow us to have a much better -- a much better evaluation of how we're doing this thing. i guess that perhaps -- would it then be a good idea to propose a procedural motion that when that is presented to us that we take a vote on this and so that we can actually be able to speak as voting members of this body based on the information that director maguire brings to us? >> sure, i mean -- yeah, i think that -- i mean, as the city attorney says that we can do

that, we can do that. >> if i understood -- i'm sorry, deputy city attorney, chair borden, if i understood the staff correctly, when they are going to bring back the new revised policy, that that would have been potentially an action item, depending on the depth and breadth of the changes. so i'm not sure that would require a vote, but ig think i t the director and director maguire are hearing that maybe you would like it to be a sort of an action item. i don't know that you need to take a vote on it tonight but if i'm incorrect on that, let me know. >> what? >> on video for a second there. sorry. i think that we -- our intention is for this board to take an action item on the tow policy, i have been saying this but we can

do it three months from now. so i think we can bring responses to all of director yekutiel's issues as well as the structure of the tow contract and everything. >> director yekutiel: i'm so sorry. but to be clear, there are two different things here. there's overarching tow policy which is a much bigger set of things -- blocked driveways and transit only lanes and that kind of thing and the auto return contract. i'm not hearing a lot of folk with discomfort with that happening in the fall. and it's a much deeper level of review potentially. what i heard is that in three months that you would come back with a proposal based on mere moredata and how to implement processes to do this thing better. and for that the question is, can we make that a voting item? and that also gives the agency three months to clear up some of the backlog that director tumlin has mentioned that has caused us to lose faith with folks in our community and we have a

responsibility to deal with. >> so the answer is, yes, we could bring this back for an action item. with specifically folks in the violations that we talked about today, the 72 hours and the five citations and the registration. >> chair borden: i would like it to be brought back as an action item before it's reinstated, not in the fall or three months from now, but in the june 21st timeline that is in the staff report before it's going to be e instated that this board would affirmatively to take a vote to say that we think this is the next right step. i think that is what you were intending to get at, director yekutiel, is that right? >> director yekutiel: that would be great. >> okay, but respectfully, june, and three months of now are two

different things. >> i'm sorry because of the nature of this issue that you were not hearing from the district 10 and 11 residents who are responsible to have this tool back. i have a responsibility to them as well and feel strongly that we need to be doing a more respectful job of managing the streets in the southeast. and we need this tool as a back-stop in order to do that. so i wish that we didn't have to, and i will use this tool with the most sparing care, but we have made assurances to the people of the southeast that we're going to help to manage their streets better. >> chair borden: understand completely and presumably your next steps in your powerpoint about seeking our approval on legislative changes to expand the waivers and discounts would

be an action item in june at a board meeting. so all i'm asking to amend that june item where we'll already be discussing this so that this board would proactively take a vote on those two -- what seem to be in the public the most meaningful pieces and the expired registration and the delinquent registration prior to having enforcement resumed in june. does that make sense? >> staff, are you able -- willing to do that? >> tom, do you understand? >> yeah, i think that -- so director eaken, you're asking that we wait until june -- you are asking that the board take action in june to direct or approve us to re-start those two types of towing as part of a package that involves the additional waivers and discounts? >> vice-chair eaken: that's

right. >> the only thing they would add and i would like diana to chime in. before we usually make a policy or enforcement change that we give the public notice through communications. and so i don't know that we can both inform the public and sort of give them the notice on the date that enforcement is going to start if we also make a decision at the same time. so, diana, is there some sort of lead time that you need to communicate to people? and we usually give them notice and we have on other enforcement actions. can you let the board know. >> sure, yes, part of our plan for resuming the enforcement included an outreach program that i outlined. i think that it's important that we include a date specific in those notifications, you know, to provide a sense of urgency. so i would be able to -- i would be a little hesitant to start that outreach process if the intent is that the board has to approve it, you know, or would

like to approve the policy first. >> chair borden: anybody else want to comment, director yek yekutiel? >> director yekutiel: because i waded in here and i feel that it's important for me to comment. it seems that we have an interest in voting on this before it starts, and also an interest from director tumlin on being able to clear some of this backlog and do the work that he believes is necessary. we have an appropriate three-month timeline from director maguire about coming back to us to answer a lot of our questions and create processes that we might feel more comfortable with. and some of those timelines are clashing with each other. and so i guess that i would just say that hearing all of that, perhaps director eaken and i, we slightly disagree on this one, because i feel that we're at an impasse and i am comfortable, you know, giving director

maguire the 90 days to come back with that information and for this board to then to make a determination about what we want to do based on that information because i want to give you the time to do it and director tumlin the ability to do what he believes is necessary as director. i think what that means is that unfortunately from june 25th to about -- sounds about 60 days after that there's a period of time where the tows are reinforced and we're waiting for more information from our agency about how we might do this program better. it's unfortunate, but it seems like the best course of action at this particular point. does that make sense for everyone? okay. >> chair borden: great. i want to get a sense from the board whether or not we're asking staff to wait -- is there a general consensus that people would like staff to wait and then get an approval in june or

would we like them to proceed in the manner they had already planned but get further refinement from us in june? so let's start with who wants to make sure that we wait until we have all of the -- we don't want the director -- director eaken, does anyone agree with director eke own that position? director lai and director hinze so it seems like we are -- there is interest from the board to -- you don't feel that way, director yekutiel and director brinkman. >> director brinkman: yes, i would like the staff to have the ability to go ahead and start implementing the tows that district 10 and 11 so desperately need while continuing to work on doing this in a thoughtful manner so that

we're not unduly harming people i feel like district 10 and 11 need those tools and i have confidence that the p.c.o.s and tom and all of the other staff can actually implement this in a way that can be thoughtful until they can continue to take a deeper dive into this. >> chair borden: director heminger. >> director heminger: well, i think that as i said earlier, you know, in an ideal world that would be the smart way to approach it, but we're crashing out of the pandemic right now. and to the extent representation has been made in those two districts about trying to get a handle on the situation, i think that we ought to move ahead under the plan that jeff has devised. but i think that the fact that we've got a hard stop in three months is the assurance that i need that we're just not kicking the ball down -- kicking the can down the road, that we're headed

towards a decision. >> chair borden: and i will say that this is a very painful -- like, i'm very torn. at the end of the day i think that if you had made these commitments and you have the authority to do this, then by all means -- i guess what i would say is that everything that we can possibly do to ensure that we are not towing people who are impoverished because, obviously, if that happens then we'll want to shut the program down. it's just that simple. i think that is kind of the outcome is that we have to make sure that we engage the hud teams and to do the work that we need to do, start implementing creative solutions, so that we don't have a situation where people are being displaced from their only place to live. all right. so with that, we will -- and i

guess that we'll get more feedback. so for now it's not an action item and you have your direction and your marching orders to do what needs to be done. and everyone okay on this item for now? can we close it out and move on to our final item? >> director heminger:if i could make one summary comment, one thing that i love about this board is that you're very involved and i'm hearing pretty much unanimous agreement about the policy outcomes and that is a policy desire that i share with all of you. so i think that the question is how do we get there. and how do we -- how can we tell with we've actually arrived there. so one of the things that tom and i are committed to is doing the necessary staff work to tackle these extremely complex delicate issues and being out in

the field understanding the details of how this works. and so thank you all for your comments. we will fold that into our work and make sure that we have something that is more robust for nujune. i'm sorry -- in three months from now. >> chair borden: thank you very much. we'll move on to item 15. which we had -- secretary silva already read into the record. we have decided to continue this item but we will take public comment for those who would like to comment on item number 15. so can you please bridge the line so that people may speak. >> there was an issue with the line but we have one caller on the line. go ahead, david. >> caller: hello, can you hear me now? >> chair borden: we can. >> caller: okay. so i thought -- i am confused because i thought half an hour ago you were done with the tow thing but then you went back to

it. so what is happening with item 15 so i know how to have my comments here? >> chair borden: we're continuing it to the meeting on the 18th but since we decided at this time to continue it, you can give comment. >> caller: thank you. okay, so items 13, 14 and 15 will be on in two weeks in addition to whatever else was scheduled so that will be another marathon meeting? >> chair borden: no, it's not. actually, i am -- one of the items -- two of the items are on the next calendar and one will not. >> caller: got it. we'll look forward to follow that. in any event, meetings are getting to be very long, very comprehensive, but confusing and exhausting, frankly. probably for me and all of you. so on my initial comments on item 15 are as follows -- it is frustrating to find ceqa documents related to the m.c.a. board and some m.c.a. administrative hearings. there is no easy way to

communicate with the city attorney office with m.c.a. legal matters and making public record requests takes time and effort, though caroline salia does a good job and i want that to be known. taken together, however, it is difficult to interact with m.t.a. legally and that can lead to adversarial proceedings like sunshine complaints and like litigation, like -- i don't know what -- other things. item 11 today did not have the correct planning department case number. do i need to file an appeal or litigate that matter? how do we get these things fixed? you have more staff than i do and yet i keep finding these things, it's incredibly frustrating. we should work together and find better ways to interact with the public and not just me, but the rest of the public as well. >> 30 seconds. >> caller: for a better public outcome. thank you very much. i'll have more when you do the actual legal training. >> chair borden: thank you.

are there any additional callers on the line? >> go ahead, caller. >> chair borden: hello? >> you have one question remaining. >> chair borden: next speaker, please. >> caller: hello again, board members. last time tonight, hayden miller. on item 15, first i wanted to share concerns that hopefully the next meeting that all of these items are continued that it won't be as long as the last two, but, anyways, just in talking about item 15, i think that there are a lot of interesting stuff that i read looking through the presentation and i will talk more about it once it's presented. but just some things that i want to comment just in the spirit of

hoping that the government and the m.c.a. board -- and i think it's very difficult for a lot of students and youth to have their voices expressed. you know, it's very difficult to attend these meetings, despite the fact that i try to come to every one. and, you know, while there are things like the youth advisory board, there's no options to make public comment there. and the m.c.a., i don't know, it seems like they don't really go out of their way to listen to the people who don't show up at the meetings. and that often leads to -- to decisions that can't be fully informed. like the last one while we didn't hear from anyone from the bayview, district 10, district 11, the excelsior about the real concerns they have with these vehicles not being towed.

we need to really be looking at needing to be more accessible to the public and being online is good for access, but it also creates other issues for people who don't have as much technology knowledge. so there's a lot of ways for the m.t.a. to improve in getting the public input and being more open with the public. another thing is that email correspondence -- not -- and voicemails, it's not posted online with the rest of the agenda, despite the fact that (indiscernible) so that's something that would be nice to just have it. that's what every other board and commission does is to post the correspondence that you get in advance of a meeting with the meeting agenda and all of the materials. but i'll have more to say when this comes before the board. but thank you for listening and have a good night.

bye. >> chair borden: thank you, mr. miller. any other additional callers on the line for item number 15? >> you have zero questions remaining. >> chair borden: seeing none we will close public comment. that puts us to the end of our agenda and we are now officially adjourned. >> well done, chair borden. >> you're a champ, madam chair. >> thank you, chair borden. >> thank you all.