to potential riders or riders it's important to know they have to know who you are and you have to educate them or a fairly high share may not know who you are. we also asked questions about alternatives to muni. so think about your last muni trip if it was not available for the trip how would you have gotten where you needed to go. the biggest alternative that is most likely to be chosen is used ride hailing services. 34% said that's my first option. the others are driving at 17% or walking at 17%.

the ride hailing is up is an increase from 2015. when asked what's the main reason you would use uber or lyft rather than muni. one is really the top three have to do with speed and direct service. those are the key reasons far and away. it's fast and goes direct to my destination. i don't want to wait. door-to-door services and there's others but in terms of the top ones they have to do with that theme.

the last slide was an asked of a different group. this represents those who haven't used it in the past six months and asked what's the main reason you don't ride muni more. this slide represent what's people told us. we took down their responses and coded them into different categories. the commute travel out of the city is a tough one and other ones such as muni trips take too long, rules, don't want to be held to a schedule that are actionable in terms of riders who don't currently use muni. that concludes the presentation. thank you very much. >> director: thank you. very much. that was a good director i said to director borden the last slide is a result of her question last year why people aren't riding muni.

as a result, director borden do you have a question? >> i think we're seeing a strong rate increase of regular users and people who use it at all. often that's a protection out there among people who don't use a service that it's terrible and the people who use it regularly gets it where they need to go and highlights the imperative to speed up transit and we've been moving in a direction and i believe it val dates the efforts we've been making and kudos to the team making it happen. that's great. i think what's interesting is i don't know -- i'd be interested to find out how there's a

confusion to a monthly pass and card and now that they're make more for cash payers. i think there's work to be done with higher income individuals because they're payers into the system around how the system function and the satisfaction. people with more wealth have more options which is the reason they can opt out of the system and sometimes have higher standards of what they expect because they can compare a public service to that of private service and we'll never be the same as a private service. in general it's a great report and i'm glad we do this consistently every year and look at the metrics. >> >> one question i have is about the fair payment method. the 2% and maybe this is for

staff, is that muni mobile? the 2% other category? >> i can see what the break out is on that. >> i think it could be interesting to convert the percentage that would prefer to pay as you go into muni mobile because essentially that's what that is. >> it represents muni mobile 1.4%. and the other category is 2.4% and the last is i don't pay. a small percentage. >> but they're honest on the phone. >> director: in terms of message from muni mobile. we're seeing paying as you go is the method for paying cash and we haven't been using the messages of ease of payment so that's something i'll take back to my team as we roll out new communications it will be front

and center. >> director torres. >> we hear bart loses almost $20 million from people we don't pay and we lose $10 million of people who don't pay? >> i don't know the percentage but i know there was a fair payment study done at some point. >> what are we doing about devising ways to collect that money because that's a substantial amount? >> i don't know the dollar amount. we have a fair evasion rate of 3% and 4% which is quite low for comparable transit agencies but for us it's an important part of the operating budget. we have a proof of payment fair inspection program we have 38 fare inspectors who randomly ask passengers to demonstrate they have a valid pay clipper car or transfer or proof they paid. it's tough to enforce but we have enforcement.

>> director: do we know among people who don't choose to pay, do we collect their income information? i know we have the programs for seniors and youth and low-income individuals but not always do people enroll and it would be helpful to know if they evade the fare because they can't afford it or they feel like other people don't pay so they don't have to? do we collect that data? >> we don't, no. >> it may be interesting. if cracking down on people who can't afford to pay is what we're going to be doing i'm not a big fan on that but if it's actually getting people who should be paying to pay, that's different. if we can collect information on that process maybe when they are filling out the ticket what's your income level or something. that would be helpful.

>> director: sometimes people will scan several times and is there any way to prove the person attempted to scan the card? i've had people i know that have been really upset because they got caught and they had actually thought their card swiped and it didn't. it wasn't like they purposefully tried to do it. >> that's a frustrating experience for sure. i know the fare inspectors will community with the driver/operator and the driver will know if the fare -- clipper tag isn't working so he or she can community that with the fare

inspectors as they board the bus to prevent the citations from being issued. >> director: so there's no way it tags it as invalid? >> director: dr. ramos. >> thank you madam chair and for your report. director gordon i understand our policy is we as fare-paying customers need to be sure we have a proof of payment. if you're card isn't tagging, it's your responsibility to make sure that maybe you go to a different much. what i've noticed is often times a machine will be broken on one end of the car and you as a fare-paying customer should probably find another machine to tag it to demonstrate proof of payment. from about what i understand the proof of payment policy has demonstrated reduced and fare evasion and we're winning in terms of saving time and saving

money and it's going to require cooperation and with respect to the presentation, i thought it was interesting you went after cash-paying customers versus those playing with clipper. i'm wondering if there's a way we may be able to check on what your response rates were to that question and what we actually get like in our books and test the accuracy of either one. >> yeah, there would be. i know there are other studies done on a larger scale. this study is primarily focussed on satisfaction and it pick up the other information. we would be able to look at it versus other studies. i don't know the numbers now but we can get back to you on that. >> director: it would be interesting to show if it was within the margin of error.

>> one of the reasons we asked that question is not so much to track what your share of cash users are but make sure we are representing a wide share of users and able to look at satisfaction levels among cash users. it's a great point. >> excellent. and i'm curious, did we have any opportunity to talk about the rationale on slide 8 on why people are less willing to walk if they know it will save them time? >> it's still high as you mentioned. it's still a decent percentage in willingness to walk but the drop in 5% with hypothesis was the changing of the stops and having an impact in a share of folks saying i'm already walking a couple blocks more now than a year and a half ago. sometimes it's late.

it's not exactly this year. now i'm not sure i want to walk longer. that may be a reason why it dropped. we'll keep an eye on this one to see if it's flat or where it goes. >> excellent. >> director: it's also important we're mindful of the improvements we make to the pedestrian environment whether it's safety or imply improving the physical environment for walking is not just something we're doing because of a walking advocate asking for it but protecting customers. >> our great secretary roberto boomer got back to me and i forgot about this, october 31, you wanted to update pe -- and we decreased evasion over the last five years. so it's dropped from $19.2 million to $17 million in evasion. that's how much we're losing. thank you, mrs. boomer.

>> director: that you all. a couple observations around the fare evasion i'll remember commander natella when she was in charge and i went on a ride along with the proof of payment directors and i remember the director telling me when they were sometimes so surprised with who the fare evaders were one day they did a bunch of emergency room doctors evading the fair coming back from lunch. it goes back to the previous discussion about bias and we can't assume that we know who is evading the fare or to your point, the reason they're evading the fare. that was an interesting discussion. i'm sorry vice chair heinicke is not theor because we focus on that and on slide 7 we can assume the 9% who say the cash

transfer is a better value as the new fare box come on board and they get those that match the clipper or muni mobile that's 9% that will hopefully get them to realize it makes more sense to use muni mobile or clipper card. the cashfare -- cash fare is one we find interesting to watch and it goes back to the equity discussions we had. how do we get people to use clipper or use muni mobile if there are equity questions that we're not sure we understand around that. really interesting survey results. i know it's easy for us to say we should have asked this and that and ooh wouldn't this be fascinate. but i don't think we appreciate how challenging and delicate to create these surveys to make a survey people are willing to answer and get you the data

without getting bogged down in the weeds or distracting the situation. >> i appreciate that. i will say having presented at the board before, there's been some pretty good ideas that have come up. you can't fit everything in there but we have added questions in as result of questions that have come up in the board meeting so it's a nice back and forth. >> director: and it's good because your firm continues to do the survey. i imagine the experience you get around crafting it and dissecting the information is valuable to that and if i was asked on the survey would you be willing to walk further for a shorter ride since the two closest stops to me on the 5 and 21 have been removed i'd be one of those to say what? thank you very much. both of you for this and we will now move to public comment. >> thank you. >> the clerk: herbert wiener the only person to submit a speaker

card on this matter. >> herbert wiener. one question that wasn't really examined is ridership down. the riders were questioned but what about the general ridership? and why is ridership down? it was tangentially touched on because people were taking alternative means of transportation. other people are simply getting in their cars. and what about those who are 65 and over? why are they displeased with muni? and what about asking aspects of walking a longer distance? do they feel it's detrimental to their health? how many are on oxygen? how many are on arthritis?

how many have serious diseases? this has never really been asked. and sometimes with lower income this is the only transportation they can have. so are they satisfied with it or not? now, one group that hasn't been asked have been the drivers. i would like to see the muni drivers be surveyed for their satisfaction. this hasn't been done. i think they constitute the conscience of the muni. so you should ask input from the driver. so as far as saying that public service use of transportation won't be as good as private i dispute that. i think you can have the best transportation system if the country with muni you just haven't worked at it or examined it seriously. and i think it's really tragic that all all managers with these advanced degrees from

outstanding universities haven't come up with something better. you have failed a worse situation. >> director: thank you. any more public comment on this item? no, seeing none we'll close public comment and thank you again for the survey wore on this. it's fascinating information. thank you. we'll move on to the next tight em. >> the clerk: item 13 is approving the sfmta legislative program. >> good afternoon chairman brinkman and i'm director of government affairs for the sfmta i will present the proposed draft legislative program which governs all aspects and becomes our work plan to the extent we can predict anything that will happen in any legislative body we attempt to do that. this becomes a framework for that engagement. we attempted this earlier in the year and we see departments trying to get their programs lined up as early as possible.

we took the program to our citizens advisory council early in october and was approved with the support position as required this draft program was also presented to the city-state legislation committee comprised of representatives the city attorney's office, board of supervisors and mayor's office and other and approved in that arena as a draft as well. in the process of doing this work, it's important i think to share with you that we have also sat with the metropolitan transportation commission, our colleagues at the transportation authority, checking across both at the regional and local level to see where we can be working up partnership. i think we're very fortunate in san francisco to be so aligned particularly as it relates to our work at the state and federal level. the other jurisdictions really do not have that good fortunate. that combined with a strong support of an effective state

and federal legislative delegation is fortunate for the work we do. the program itself on the local side, i'll acknowledge my local government affairs manager effective effectively managing the relationship for the board of supervisors and attempts to cover the topics in general we'll be working on in the coming year. we can talk about any questions but i think it's guided in general by some of the work you've talked about vision zero, our transit first. the muni equity strategy. a lot of those policies end up playing in policies at the board of supervisors and there's contract and capital projects. to the degree we have to go to the board for contract approves that also happens under the

local government affairs work. on the state side we're going in the second year of the current state legislative session. for our work i'll acknowledge our senior legislative analyst has been adding capacity to provide the board with more frequent updates on our work at the state and federal level. we'll continue to do that. in the past year in sacramento, it was a landmark year in terms of transportation funding. some of you know based on your past experience at the state level, how hard it is to get agreement around state transportation funding. i think as soon as the -- before veep -- even the ink was dry the repeal efforts were launched. the attorney general approved the title in summary yesterday for the fb1 repeal and the proponents of the repeal started their signature gathering campaign as of today.

they need 587,000 signatures to qualify that repeal for the nof 2018 ballot. i think all of us working in partnership with statewide organizations like the california transit association, through the fix the roads coalition are working -- committed to preventing that repeal even if it does qualify for the ballot and we'll keep you apprised on that work. cap and trade funding. there's an increase and what's notable for the agency, that program in particular has provided upwards of $95 million thus far for the shinee new lrv folks had a chance to ride friday. we'll still be seeking another $100 million plus out of the program for the lrv facilities investment we're committed to we'll be following that work closely. another area to highlight and where i have found myself

spending most my time the past year is around vision zero and our efforts which some have been involved in and supportive of, i appreciate the support of the board. a work like 8342 which would authorization automatic speed enforcement for san francisco and san josé. the first pass we couldn't get an offer. this year we got an offer with assembly member which and senator wiener in san francisco and senator bell and in san josé. we have made incredible process. i think we've built relationships with stakeholders from the equity side to privacy interests around motorists perspectives, triple as. we still have hurdles to overcome particularly with regards to the highway patrol andian embedded opposition to

automated enforcement. happy to answer more questions. these are deep dives. i just want to give a sense of where we're spending our time. one thing that happened the past month in sacramento during the quieter time it's a nice time to be up there and have more in depth policy conversations. this summer the national transportation safety board as reported to this board, released a report on reducing speeds recognizing that speed is an underreported behavior as it relates to severe and fatal crashes in this country. we have also tom and i have had an opportunity to talk to one of the mtsb board members who love san francisco and is willing to come here and be an advocate for the work. so we're working to coordinate a possible visit for her in the coming months. whether or not this ends up

moving the needle we'll see but we're working hard in that arena. another bucket is emerging mobility and innovation. this is the broad arena the board has taken action on principles around the emerging mobility transportation arena which is broad and changing landscape before our eyes. we're doing the work in partnership with the other large city departments of transportation around california. we've been in partnership with these departments, los angeles, oakland, san josé, sacramento, fresno, long beach, san diego the past two years and it's proven to be a great way for us to bring big city voices to the conversation around things like the dmv rule making as it relates to autonomous vehicles. i added in the section of specifically -- it didn't have a home but it's an initiative brought to us by the transit folks and it's the bullet that

talks about efforts to authorize three bicycle racks on motor coaches. it turns out other properties around the state are also interested in this and we brought that idea to the california transit association. they'll seek an offer for that and similarly near and dear to director ramos' heart is the transit-only lane enforcement beyond the limits which are only in the red lanes and explore the possibility of that technology to enforce parking in bus stops beyond those areas. that is a problem. and there are other agencies, ac transit, l.a. metro, we are now in conversation whether or not we can pursue legislation in this session or how we can proceed to look at that as an opportunity for improving the effectiveness of our transit system. parking policy another big very

active arena for the legislature the past year. it's important to note the enactment of 80503 which provides a program for low income and indigent individuals to pay parking tickets. there's been lots of focus in the legislature and beyond about the impact of fines and fees on low-income individuals. the city has a task force so 8503 was a very broad-based stakeholder effort. and the aclu along with cities engaging in we support the principle but how can we make a program that works. those kinds of conversations i think will continue to going into year two but most notably we anticipate the introduction at least of legislation around disabled placards.

the l.a. city council this past month passed a resolution in support of reforms around the placard program mirroring the work this body did four years ago on the same issue. we will be looking to engage in that work once there's legislation. in moving to the federal side, these items are familiar. we're looking to ensure that the federal transit program remains intact. we have a capital development grant program to fund future priorities once we close out central subway but projects like gary brt will be looking for any opportunities that arise through the administration's discussions around an infrastructure pack taj, wok in the arena of autonomous vehicles. we've already seen legislation in the house and senate that attempts to lay the grouped work for how manufacturers can begin producing and operating

autonomous vehicles. again, all these are in partnership with other agencies and mtc when it relates to regional interests. that's a high-level overview and i'm happy to answer questions. >> director: thank you very much. questions? comments? director ramos. >> thank you very much for anticipating my interest and i'll be watching eagerly for some progress and i'll say it again, if i can be of any assistance let me know i'm happy to help out. >> thank you. >> i anticipate as our streets get more congested and competitive over space that more and more people are going to be inclined to use the transit only lanes. not that i have anything against the idea of that but they slow our busses and that ultimately has an effect on folks more people trying to get some place and should have priority use to

the lanes. thank you very much for that. >> i did see a picture from new york. new york is allowed to camera enforcement in their transit lanes and it was work a former mta staffer was doing on a queens bus express lane and the picture she showed of the traffic lanes going relatively slowly and the bus zooming along was lovely. the fact the people on the bus is probably what 50, 60 people were doing the right thing riding the bus and getting there fast. i do understand what a delicate balance it is and we have those not thrilled on camera enforcement so we appreciate the continued work. if we can't trust the drivers in the city to stay out of our transit lanes to not walk the bus stops or double park, things like that, we'll have to turn to other means to keep transit

moving. directors? >> a quick question, can you talk more about mta's position or role on autonomous vehicle. >> it's being crafted. it's very dynamic. at the state level the work is primarily at the dmv rule making process. we have weighed in on that through correspondence that this board has been provided with. and really working to make sure in the work we've done in the realm of innovation which is in tom's bailiwick we're sporting innovation but at the same time trying to have a program that tan work effectively and be consistent with the emerging mobility principles. at the federal level, i think

napto t for america and then the large city dots in california have been working along with mtc to weigh in on many different aspects of both senate and house legislation. frankly, we haven't been winning. there are really fundamental provisions in both pieces of legislation that would pre-empt city's ability to establish policy at the local level if the measures are enacted. those are two examples of the engagement. we're not in it alone. we're not making this stuff up for san francisco only. we're not trying to be and -- anti-innovation but trying to bring a voice in how to manage the system. >> director: i'm preaching to the choir i know so i'll give a shout out to universal design and encourage us to do as much as we can to make sure to the

extent we have any say we need to make sure the technology is inclusive of everyone. i think it's a good call for our future. >> i know in terms of the blue placard abuse work we've been doing has been stalled but my understanding is the dmv audit turned up a lot of areas for them to tighten their controls and they're actual going to be revamping their placard issue and re-issue issue which will hopefully give us relief. >> sb611 embodied the recommend from the state auditor's office

on the blue placard program. on accessible policy working group's perspective that's the first step. cleaning up the house of how dmv administers is fundamental to an effective working program. we've seen the dmv step up enforcement but from the past work here and the current work in los angeles the conclusion has been you cannot enforce away the problem. the question is what else do we need to do. the recommendations of this body and los angeles include increasing the number of blue zone. it's a package and increasing enforcement, doing the dmv cleanup and bring a fundamental change to how the program is administered which includes pricing and time limits and therein lies the need for change. >> director: thank you very much. directors, any other questions or comments. thank you. excellent presentation and thank you for your continuing work on this.

i know sometimes it must be frustrating but we're seeing good results so thank you. do we have public comments >> the clerk: madam chair, no one submitted a speaker card and it doesn't look like anybody's making their way forward. >> director: we'll go ahead and move on. it would be appropriate for a motion. do i have a motion to approve the legislative slate. second? all in favor say aye. opposed? hearing none approved. >> the clerk: item 13 is the advertising standards to prohibit the advertisement of any material that constitutes commercial advertising of cannabis services, business. >> thank you directors. i'm gail stein for finance and information technology. due to uncertainty in the regulatory environment both at the state and local levels we

are proposing an amendment to prohibit advertising for this and we would like to revisit the matter when the environment clarifies then language is similar to the way in which we treat alcohol, tobacco and firearms. there's more information for you in the staff report. i'm happy to answer any questions you might have. >> director: thank you. my understanding is any advertisement will go ahead and run and in terms of the advertisements that would be allowed, if for example, a medical cannabis organization was going to advertise with the name and mentioning nothing about the product how would that work under this change to the policy?

>> when we think of non-commercial advertising we're usually speaking of something like drink responsibly, don't drink and drive. that type of thing. i think the equivalent would be use responsibly. to the degree it was more like that and less than buy cannabis, it would be allowed but it's more of the other i wouldn't be. you have to see how the ad looks. >> director: so if companies wanted to advertise on our busses and things they could figure out a way to craft an advertisement that met the guidelines it would still ab lo -- be allowed? >> we'd take a look but theoretically this allows non-commercial advertising of cannabis. >> director: director torres.

>> the chronicle mischaracterized my support and i never to equate opiates with marijuana but i do want to ask and i support the advertising regulations you're proposed, number one. number two, what are we doing about opiates, do we allow them to be advertised on our busses? >> right now it doesn't refer to opiates at all. that might be something we should talk about but right now if it's not cannabis it would not be banned. >> well, we need to talk about it and i don't agree with anything the president has done other than stating we have a national problem with opiate usage. what is the process for the agency to consider that? >> director: we'd need to bring it before us as we always have. is that something, this time do you think, again if a company brought to our advertising

partners something like advertising opiates would they bring it for us for review or heads-up like with other controversial ads that have appeared on our buss? >> generally if advertising contractors are not sure or think it's controversial they would let us know so we know before something goes up. >> director: i think we get a good early warning system from other agencies when controversial advertising is being proposed on city busses. have we heard from any other cities? around cannabis or advertising of any like director torres goes to opioids. >> new york already prohibit advertising of those types of

things in their system. >> director: director borden. >> it doesn't seem -- we chose to ban advertising of tobacco and firearms. i thought because things were prohibited for people under 18. what's our overarching policy where it's not legal for those under 18. is that the rationale? do we have a policy like that? is it related to youth or just making a statement in our society. it gets tricky. because it wasn't legal many years there's not a lot of studies or information that are

necessarily positive about cannabis and there's two sides of the issue that are complex. if you say we're not doing advertising that can be seen by youth i understand drawing the line in the sand. i think we ought to think about our basis in terms of making these policies as a body in terms of the rationale. i don't necessarily think it's a bad policy but i also think there's a perception we're making a value judgment on cannabis in this process and that's what i find to be problematic. >> that's interesting. >> without of basis of why it's problematic. >> i'm not sure. would you like to take a crack at that? it's a sticky subject. >> i guess two sides is we

received a lot of correspondence about this and sfmta have received complaints and secondly we the our colleagues at the board of supervisors are in the process of going through very important legislative decision making about the land using side of this and i think what they assigned is actually a wait and see approach. six months? >> approximately. >> a six-month period. after which we might revisit this and i think we'll know a lot more about where the board of supervisors end up and what the broader land use policies on cannabis businesses are at that point. >> one thing to keep in mind, if i may, is prop 64 which prohibits advertising within an area of a school so this may be mute in terms of a necessity for

it. >> director: if nobody has more direct questions i'd like to go to public comment. >> the clerk: we a member who has submitted a speaker card, wilson which. >> director: mr. which. >> director: mr. chu. >> commissioners, thank you for the fun to comment and for deliberating on this. i'm wilson chu and i'm the president of the chinese-american democratic club. we've been in san francisco as an organization 59 years. we have also supported medicinal cannabis 20 years ago as an outcoming -- outcome of our relationship with the lgbt community during the aids crisis and understand the benefits to the community and last year we supported recreational cannabis as an outcome.

we have also now currently -- we do support people that require the benefits and also we choose to be able to participate in that particular cultural lifestyle but with that said, we have also been helping the neighborhoods express their voice in shaping the policy. with that said, i would also encourage you to adopt the ban on advertising within the busses. in order to support the public health policy in san francisco. as it pertains to reduction in smoking or consumption of sugary taxes. we know in san francisco we have a school assignment program and there's many students who travel

on muni to get to schools. we think it's important to minimize that exposure not to expose the kids to the recreational aspects of cannabis. with that said, just to be able to support the public policy in san francisco as well as endorse the kids. >> director: thank you, mr. chu. we appreciate it. any more public comment? no, seeing none, public comment is closed -- wait, we have one more, mr. pollack. >> good afternoon directors. chair brinkman. i'm jeremy pollack. i wrote you a letter earlier today expressing my opposition to the policy and i posted it online and i reconsidered it after hearing feedback of exp exposure to youth and it should

only be in places where there's adults and i can approach this from the point of view of adult and not looking at it through the youth issue. i think cannabis legalization is the law of the land. that's not going back anytime soon. i think the line of the resolution expressing the changes are intended to address the uncertainty in the state and regulatory environment isn't seem accurate. the regulatory environment the permutations a permutations can change and i suggest something about protecting youth or along those lines. lastly i have to talk about director torres' comments in the

chronicle -- >> director: they were not accurate. >> it wouldn't be the first time it would be incorrect. i appreciate you making that record straight. i think all this draws to attention the need for a real public education campaign around cannabis and the risk to youth and when it's appropriate to use and the real benefits of it as a strong tactic in combatting the opioid crisis. thank you for your time and my apologizing for my mischaracterization director torres. >> director: thank you for clarifying. congratulations on being one of the americans that can take in information and have a change in thought. so you do bring up an interesting question. i do intend to support this change in advertising policy. i hear director borden's

comments that we don't want to obviously present this as any kind of value judgment. will be the law of the land. people do use medical cannabis for a variety of things. i've had close friends who use it for medical reasons. it's not a value judgment and simply falling in line with what standard advertising practices are. i do wonder do we need that last bullet point due to the uncertainty in the state and local regulatory environment. i'd like to hear from other directors if you think and if there is a reason why we need that if we're planning on coming back and looking at this again in six months or so. do we need that in there or can we perhaps leave that -- >> director: can i add to that and i think the youth component which i brought up and i think was brought up before, maybe we ought to make that as part of a statement in our overall

advertising policy. then it better carves out what issues or things we wouldn't want to advertise because we do have a broad-basis of ridership and our policy doesn't state that and perhaps we want to add that and the regulatory environment wouldn't change whether we think it's appropriate to advertise to youth. >> and you want to put that in our overall advertising policy. >> yeah. >> director: so we could come back with our overall policy to look at sort of the youth aspect of it and for this one, we really would only need to change the resolution or the policy is that what -- >> director: you're on the resolution or the policy not necessarily the staff report.

>> i think for me one of the more compelling things is it's no different from the advertisement policy we have towards tobacco and alcohol and i haven't even thought about firearms. i was wondering when's the last time i saw an ad for cigarettes or booze on the bus and i couldn't remember and those things are perfectly legal. from my perspective the public would benefit to hear more about that logic about why and how that policy is implemented and what they found on those issues. i know you referred to it on your initial opening statement but wondering if you might be able to talk more about it. >> so putting together the advertising policy work very closely with the city attorney's office.

since we're a public agencies our buss are a limited forum but we still have to be careful in what we disallow. we are circumscribed in what we disallow. we look at the first amendment and look mostly at health issues. we have not had a commercial advertising for tobacco, alcohol or firearms ever. but we have had some drink responsibly and party responsibly. that's the big picture. we do work closely with our attorneys. the uncertainty part of it we were thinking about what's going on at the board of supervisors. it's not the over arching law

starting january 1 it's more what the regulations will look like here. >> so if we were to take out the sixth -- whereas" where it reads whereas the changes are meant to change the regulatory environment sfmta will likely revisit this matter in six months," i'm hearing regardless of the regulatory environment we're likely to not want to advertise cannabis on the busses based on the fact there's so many kids in the city that see the ads and we have a lot of children on the bus. am i hearing that correctly? >> that's my sentiment.

do i have a motion to strike the sixth "whereas." all in favor say say. opposed hearing none none. do i have a motion for a mended resolution. all in favor say aye. supposed. great. it's our policy falling in line with what we believe should and should not be on our advertising busses. >> the clerk: madam chair the concludes the business before you on this day. >> director: we are adjourned thank you very much for spending your tuesday afternoon with us and we'll see you tuesday afternoon.

>> good afternoon. welcome to the san francisco board of supervisors transportation and land use for monday, december 4, 2017. we want to thank the clerk of our committee and jim smith and jesse larson at sfgov tv for streaming the meeting. do you have anything else? >> items, aed upon today will appear on the december 12 board of supervisors agendun