comparemela.com

Relatively highly but not at the same level. Disability or condition impacting travel. The individuals who indicated that theyre pretty close to pretty on par with your regular users. Theyre at 73 versus 70 excellent or good. 10 poor versus 8 for regular users. Continuing this is still the same question broken out by income level. I tink the interest on this particular one is very clearly if you look at those whose income is less than 75,000 theyre more satisfied. You go over 75,000, theyre not as satisfied. Perhaps not a big surprise but its almost linear. So theres a difference there. Part may have to do with choice. The question was on the service theyd most look to see improved and we coded it into categories. More frequent service, better ontime performance and overcrowding were the three top ones that came up when we asked people to tell us in their own words. We asked very specific aspects of muni. We had people rate those and thats coming up on the next slides. This was asking to give it in their own words versus rating attributes. The rating of specific muni attributes. We asked each respondent and asked them to rate it using an excellent, good, only fair or poor scale. The first comes up with a percentage. A couple items to point out on this one. The top two, accessibility for persons with disabilities and driver helpfulness achieving 70 or higher excellent or good rating are the top two coming up. I think a few things in terms of differences between previous years, one is the feeling safe and secure from crime on many vehicles. Thats a 60 excellent or good in 2017. Thats a bump up from 2016 when it was at 55 . Other item to point out is the bottom of the list on vehicle cleanliness. The 51 is the same of last year but in 2015 it was at 43 in 2015. So theres still room for improvement but there was a jump there and the 51 has remained at this point. Two more to point out. The last one, managing crowding on muni vehicles is also seeing a steady increase in terms of satisfaction. Its 39 . Youre not hitting it out of the ballpark but you look at 32 in 2015 and 39 is the direction you want to be moving. Then let me circle back to the top of the list to point out again the operator driver helpfulness. Thats over 70 . I think that deserves mentioning again. The 70 is a high percentage. I think when we present these often were presenting the negative and positive. I think it needs to be called out and made a point theyve achieved the 71 in 2016 and got it again in 2017. The next chart let me explain. These are the same attributes from the previous chart for the previous year. The purpose of this chart is to take each attributes and see how much they coral ace with riders overall satisfaction. As you move upward on the chart it indicates those are the attributes with the highest correlation with overall satisfaction. What i mean by correlation, if you make improvements on those higher up on the chart youll probably see an impact in overall satisfaction. If you see a drop in reliable, frequency of currency, if things start to go down on those in your study and other transportation surveys we do those are the ones that have the highest correlation on overall satisfaction and how happy riders are overall. It doesnt mean the other arent important. Each are important and they have value. Take managing crowding on a muni vehicle. That was the one at the bottom of the list, 39 . It did not rate well. If you look at the previous slide and say its rating the worst it wouldnt be a bad thing but wont have as big an impact as the top three. We did have other questions that werent related to satisfaction one is the responsibilities. Its how familiar are you with the sfmta and responsibilities. We included this on the last four surveys. Its been flat up to now. Its at 51 , 51 , 51 between 2014 and 2016 and it did increase in 2017. You are seeing an increase in terms of your awareness. This is among riders. Its still just over 55 . If youre providing information to potential riders or riders its 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 thats 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 whats 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. Its fast and goes direct to my destination. I dont want to wait. Doortodoor services and theres 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 havent used it in the past six months and asked whats the main reason you dont ride muni more. This slide represent whats 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, dont want to be held to a schedule that are actionable in terms of riders who dont 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 arent riding muni. As a result, director borden do you have a question . I think were seeing a strong rate increase of regular users and people who use it at all. Often thats a protection out there among people who dont use a service that its terrible and the people who use it regularly gets it where they need to go and highlights the imperative to speed up transit and weve been moving in a direction and i believe it val dates the efforts weve been making and kudos to the team making it happen. Thats great. I think whats interesting is i dont know id be interested to find out how theres a confusion to a monthly pass and card and now that theyre make more for cash payers. I think theres work to be done with higher income individuals because theyre 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 well never be the same as a private service. In general its a great report and im 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 thats what that is. It represents muni mobile 1. 4 . And the other category is 2. 4 and the last is i dont pay. A small percentage. But theyre honest on the phone. Director in terms of message from muni mobile. Were seeing paying as you go is the method for paying cash and we havent been using the messages of ease of payment so thats something ill 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 dont pay and we lose 10 million of people who dont pay . I dont 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 thats a substantial amount . I dont 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 its 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. Its tough to enforce but we have enforcement. Director do we know among people who dont choose to pay, do we collect their income information . I know we have the programs for seniors and youth and lowincome individuals but not always do people enroll and it would be helpful to know if they evade the fare because they cant afford it or they feel like other people dont pay so they dont have to . Do we collect that data . We dont, no. It may be interesting. If cracking down on people who cant afford to pay is what were going to be doing im not a big fan on that but if its actually getting people who should be paying to pay, thats different. If we can collect information on that process maybe when they are filling out the ticket whats 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 . Ive had people i know that have been really upset because they got caught and they had actually thought their card swiped and it didnt. It wasnt like they purposefully tried to do it. Thats 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 isnt 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 theres 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 farepaying customers need to be sure we have a proof of payment. If youre card isnt tagging, its your responsibility to make sure that maybe you go to a different much. What ive noticed is often times a machine will be broken on one end of the car and you as a farepaying 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 were winning in terms of saving time and saving money and its going to require cooperation and with respect to the presentation, i thought it was interesting you went after cashpaying customers versus those playing with clipper. Im wondering if theres 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 dont 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. Its a great point. Excellent. And im 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 . Its still high as you mentioned. Its 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 im already walking a couple blocks more now than a year and a half ago. Sometimes its late. Its not exactly this year. Now im not sure i want to walk longer. That may be a reason why it dropped. Well keep an eye on this one to see if its flat or where it goes. Excellent. Director its also important were mindful of the improvements we make to the pedestrian environment whether its safety or imply improving the physical environment for walking is not just something were 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 its dropped from 19. 2 million to 17 million in evasion. Thats how much were losing. Thank you, mrs. Boomer. Director that you all. A couple observations around the fare evasion ill 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 cant assume that we know who is evading the fare or to your point, the reason theyre evading the fare. That was an interesting discussion. Im 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 thats 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 were not sure we understand around that. Really interesting survey results. I know its easy for us to say we should have asked this and that and ooh wouldnt this be fascinate. But i dont 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, theres been some pretty good ideas that have come up. You cant fit everything in there but we have added questions in as result of questions that have come up in the Board Meeting so its a nice back and forth. Director and its 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 id 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 wasnt 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 its 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 hasnt been asked have been the drivers. I would like to see the muni drivers be surveyed for their satisfaction. This hasnt 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 wont be as good as private i dispute that. I think you can have the best Transportation System if the country with muni you just havent worked at it or examined it seriously. And i think its really tragic that all all managers with these advanced degrees from outstanding universities havent come up with something better. You have failed a worse situation. Director thank you. Any more Public Comment on this item . No, seeing none well close Public Comment and thank you again for the survey wore on this. Its fascinating information. Thank you. Well move on to the next tight em. The clerk item 13 is approving the sfmta legislative program. Good afternoon chairman brinkman and im 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 citystate Legislation Committee comprised of representatives the city attorneys office, board of supervisors and Mayors Office and other and approved in that arena as a draft as well. In the process of doing this work, its 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 were 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, ill acknowledge my local Government Affairs manager effective effectively managing the relationship for the board of supervisors and attempts to cover the topics in general well be working on in the coming year. We can talk about any questions but i think its guided in general by some of the work youve 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 theres 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 were going in the second year of the current state legislative session. For our work ill 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. Well 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 well keep you apprised on that work. Cap and trade funding. Theres an increase and whats 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. Well still be seeking another 100 million plus out of the program for the lrv facilities investment were committed to well 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 jose. The first pass we couldnt 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 jose. We have made incredible process. I think weve 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 were spending our time. One thing that happened the past month in sacramento during the quieter time its 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 were working to coordinate a possible visit for her in the coming months. Whether or not this ends up moving the needle well see but were 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. Were doing the work in partnership with the other large city departments of transportation around california. Weve been in partnership with these departments, los angeles, oakland, san jose, sacramento, fresno, long beach, san diego the past two years and its 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 didnt have a home but its an initiative brought to us by the transit folks and its 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. Theyll seek an offer for that and similarly near and dear to director ramos heart is the transitonly 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. Its important to note the enactment of 80503 which provides a program for low income and indigent individuals to pay parking tickets. Theres been lots of focus in the legislature and beyond about the impact of fines and fees on lowincome individuals. The city has a task force so 8503 was a very broadbased 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 theres legislation. In moving to the federal side, these items are familiar. Were 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 administrations discussions around an infrastructure pack taj, wok in the arena of autonomous vehicles. Weve 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. Thats a highlevel overview and im happy to answer questions. Director thank you very much. Questions . Comments . Director ramos. Thank you very much for anticipating my interest and ill be watching eagerly for some progress and ill say it again, if i can be of any assistance let me know im 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 cant 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, well have to turn to other means to keep transit moving. Directors . A quick question, can you talk more about mtas position or role on autonomous vehicle. Its being crafted. Its 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 weve done in the realm of innovation which is in toms bailiwick were 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 havent been winning. There are really fundamental provisions in both pieces of legislation that would preempt citys ability to establish policy at the local level if the measures are enacted. Those are two examples of the engagement. Were not in it alone. Were not making this stuff up for San Francisco only. Were not trying to be and antiinnovation but trying to bring a voice in how to manage the system. Director im preaching to the choir i know so ill 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 its a good call for our future. I know in terms of the blue placard abuse work weve 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 theyre actual going to be revamping their placard issue and reissue issue which will hopefully give us relief. Sb611 embodied the recommend from the state Auditors Office on the blue Placard Program. On accessible policy working groups perspective thats the first step. Cleaning up the house of how dmv administers is fundamental to an effective working program. Weve 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. Its 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 were seeing good results so thank you. Do we have Public Comments the clerk madam chair, no one submitted a speaker card and it doesnt look like anybodys making their way forward. Director well 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. Im 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. Theres more information for you in the staff report. Im 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 noncommercial advertising were usually speaking of Something Like drink responsibly, dont 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 its more of the other i wouldnt 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 . Wed take a look but theoretically this allows noncommercial 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 youre proposed, number one. Number two, what are we doing about opiates, do we allow them to be advertised on our busses . Right now it doesnt refer to opiates at all. That might be something we should talk about but right now if its not cannabis it would not be banned. Well, we need to talk about it and i dont 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 wed 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 headsup like with other controversial ads that have appeared on our buss . Generally if advertising contractors are not sure or think its 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 doesnt seem we chose to ban advertising of tobacco and firearms. I thought because things were prohibited for people under 18. Whats our overarching policy where its 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 wasnt legal many years theres not a lot of studies or information that are necessarily positive about cannabis and theres two sides of the issue that are complex. If you say were 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 dont necessarily think its a bad policy but i also think theres a perception were making a value judgment on cannabis in this process and thats what i find to be problematic. Thats interesting. Without of basis of why its problematic. Im not sure. Would you like to take a crack at that . Its 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 sixmonth period. After which we might revisit this and i think well 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 id 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. Im wilson chu and im the president of the chineseamerican democratic club. Weve 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 theres many students who travel on muni to get to schools. We think its 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. Im 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 theres 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. Thats 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 isnt 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 wouldnt 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 its 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 bordens comments that we dont 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. Ive had Close Friends who use it for medical reasons. Its 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. Id like to hear from other directors if you think and if there is a reason why we need that if were 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 wouldnt want to advertise because we do have a broadbasis of ridership and our policy doesnt state that and perhaps we want to add that and the Regulatory Environment wouldnt change whether we think its 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 youre on the resolution or the policy not necessarily the staff report. I think for me one of the more compelling things is its no different from the advertisement policy we have towards tobacco and alcohol and i havent even thought about firearms. I was wondering whens the last time i saw an ad for cigarettes or booze on the bus and i couldnt 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 attorneys office. Since were 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. Thats the big picture. We do work closely with our attorneys. The uncertainty part of it we were thinking about whats going on at the board of supervisors. Its not the over arching law starting january 1 its 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, im hearing regardless of the Regulatory Environment were likely to not want to advertise cannabis on the busses based on the fact theres 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 . Thats 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. Its our policy falling in line with what we believe should and should not be on our

© 2025 Vimarsana

comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.