Supervisors press SFMTA on scooters after 440 Davis fire; committee refers matter to audit committee

San Francisco supervisors pressed the Municipal Transportation Agency on Nov. 30 over safety, labor and enforcement in the city’s electric‑scooter permit program, and moved to send the matter to the Government Audit & Oversight (GAO) Committee for deeper review.

Vice Chair Asha Safaei convened the hearing and said she wanted a status update before a planned RFP process next year. The hearing focused on three issues: whether permitted companies were involved in a recent fire at 440 Davis Street, whether companies comply with labor‑harmony rules, and whether enforcement and distribution requirements are effectively protecting equity and accessibility goals.

Chair Aaron Peskin said the fire at Golden Gateway (440 Davis) involved five scooters found on an eleventh‑floor unit and demanded that permitted companies say whether their devices were among them. Representatives from Scoot and Spin told the committee their fleets were not charged at that private residence and that they do not charge devices in individual homes; a Lyme (Lime) representative later said the company likewise had "no connection whatsoever." SFMTA director Kate Torren said she had spoken with the fire department and had not been provided information indicating a permittee was involved; she pledged to follow up.

SFMTA staff (Kate Torren and Jamie Parks) reviewed the permit program’s history and compliance framework: the program began as a pilot in 2018, was made permanent in October 2019, and currently operates under 75 permit terms and conditions addressing parking, distribution, a low‑income plan, reporting, and labor harmony. Staff said the agency issues weekly complaint reviews, on‑street enforcement, monthly and quarterly reporting, and dashboards showing complaints, citations and service levels. Current permitted fleet counts are approximately Lime 2,000, Spin 1,500 and Scoot 1,000; staff said permittees can request growth in 500‑device increments based on compliance metrics.

Supervisors pushed SFMTA on verification of labor‑harmony claims, asking whether monthly reports are submitted under penalty of perjury and how the agency audits companies’ staffing claims. SFMTA acknowledged limits in compelling employment status under federal law but said it collects monthly staffing data and would pursue stronger verification and contract language with the City Attorney. Staff also said they are considering code changes to allow summary suspension of permits for public‑safety or compliance issues, a faster option than full revocation.

Public commenters included labor representatives who urged stricter enforcement of labor‑harmony provisions and applauded Spin for unionization, business groups that supported continued scooter access for essential workers, and company representatives who described compliance efforts. The Teamsters urged that Lime not be permitted to expand while questions about contractor use persist.

After the presentations and public comment, Chair Peskin moved to duplicate the file and send it to the Government Audit & Oversight Committee — which can subpoena testimony under penalty of perjury — so staff and company practices (including the 440 Davis fire) could be investigated further. The committee approved the referral and also continued the item to the call of the chair.

Why it matters: The hearing addresses public‑safety, equity and labor questions central to future permit decisions. Staff told supervisors the program has issued roughly 3,500 parking citations under the permit program and collected approximately $275,000 in parking fines to date.

What’s next: The GAO Committee will receive the duplicated file and may call company representatives to testify under penalty of perjury. SFMTA staff said they will incorporate supervisors’ feedback into the next permit round and consider stronger verification and enforcement language.