okay. thank you madam clerk so we have five items today and one is a hearing that most of the members of the public are here and we ll take them out of order and that will be the longest and the others are not long and madam clerk if you call item 1 first. item 1 is a resolution authorizing the san francisco department of public health to accept and expend a grant in the amount of approximately 2.8 million in active transportation program funds through the metropolitan transportation commission safe routes to school grants program for a period of for the period september 1, 2017 through august 31, 2019. okay. thank you madam clerk so i know dph is here to answer questions unless there is anything to say? no. i am here to answer questions. colleagues seeing no questions i appreciate it. we don t have the budget analyst report for item 1 so we will move on to public comment. seeing none public comment is closed. supervisor could i have a motion to move this forward wi
worth saving. so as lou demonstrated only less than 20 percent of that existing siding was there and will new foundation and he resided lay out it that makes no sense to try to patch that when it s only in the 20 percent of the west corner. i candidly believe they did owners should be given an award for the short time they ve improved the building. thank you. good afternoon, commissioners aim sheri live 3 block on the other side of alamo s square from the property. i can t wait. it to be finished. i m in full support. i go there numerous times of the day i pet sit and that neighborhood has changed so dramatically in the 20 years i ve been living in my house that i purposed in 1994 when we couldn t get a pizza delivered now we have hundreds of tourists coming everyday. so i want to put that implicit context. also i read something recently in an article it must have been in t in t in t in t in the new york times. this building is an example of what will be better it may not
but they would in many cases be similar to what you ve already reviewed. the over all title 6 report shows no impact to minority community or low income communities. that s because over half of the routes that benefit under these proposals are minority and low income routes. the title six documents were included in your packet. since the new circular came out, a pretty good change is that you will be adopting the title 6 analysis. previously title 6 analysis was something we did and had on file with staff, but wasn t included in the board packet. here is just an example of the map of the minority routes that benefit. these are routes that a percent of customers who use them exceed our citywide average of 58 percent. and then this shows the low income routes that would also get increased frequency. these are routes that exceed the citywide average of 51 percent. even our least low income route though still has almost a quarter of it s customers of low nvenlth in addition to do
all title 6 report shows no impact to minority community or low income communities. that s because over half of the routes that benefit under these proposals are minority and low income routes. the title six documents were included in your packet. since the new circular came out, a pretty good change is that you will be adopting the title 6 analysis. previously title 6 analysis was something we did and had on file with staff, but wasn t included in the board packet. here is just an example of the map of the minority routes that benefit. these are routes that a percent of customers who use them exceed our citywide average of 58 percent. and then this shows the low income routes that would also get increased frequency. these are routes that exceed the citywide average of 51 percent. even our least low income route though still has almost a quarter of it s customers of low nvenlth in addition to doing the more formal title 6 analysis, we also did an overall equity analysis that
cover hoffman and douglas. while that does provide some basic access for folks what we heard is they are really trying to make connections to 24th street as the commercial street as well as to j and bart. so what we recommended is that the 58 when it is adopted that it be extended to cover the stops up on grand view which are on a very steep hill top and that the 49 48 would not move forward until the proposal is in played. the reason we recommend the 48 and not the 58 is the loop for the route and the others taking advantage of the service. right now it s in the middle of it s route and everybody in the bus is traveling through that 5 or 6-minute deviation as they try to reach other destinations. there were several routes that were modified prior to march 14th that the policy and governance committee supported and i do have those maps if any of those questions come up as a response to public feedback. over all for these proposals, their strength i believe is that not that