i certainly appreciate the concerns of the people to have their block included in district 5, but i still would like you to take what i have said into account. thank you very much. >> thank you, sir. >> good afternoon, and again, thank you for coming on saturday. i had to get up also. i am a resident, and i live on the 300 block of lyon st., and i have been a renter for 25 years. when i first moved to the neighborhood, merci terrace, which is an anchor project, was an abandoned, crime-ridden crack house. i have seen the neighborhood absolutely transformed. the work done in the last 10 years that have really notice -- we have a community block party

every year. there is a halloween party for the children. st. cyprian's church has programs -- tamale making, arts class is, all kinds of things. to divide our district at fulton would be like splitting up a family. turk is a natural border because there are steep tend again, our district is between the visit arrow and masonic. the neighborhood is also an architecturally primarily victorian. that is a whole different type of homeowner who cares about historic things. it takes a lot of care. this is a neighborhood that has just made an incredible transformation. i am a local publicist. i have worked with the mayor's office of economic workforce development in launching the bid is a narrow part wall. the corridor itself is a miracle story. it is his serve.

this is an area that just cannot be split up. i see that there are a lot of other districts and neighborhoods that will be affected. it is very hard, but i can speak only to the fact that the organization is like a family, and that is an area that cannot be split up at fulton. it just does not make sense. thank you. >> good afternoon. thank you. i live on dartmouth street in the two southernmost blocks of the district. i can barely speak for myself, but i do not presume to speak for anyone else, but i want to thank each of you for including those to the wheel blocks into district 9 and keeping our portion of the neighborhood

together with the rest of our neighbors. thank you very much. >> thank you. our final speaker on this item. >> thank you, task force members. i attended every one of these meetings that possibly could have. i spoke at your first district meeting and a number times since. my concern is that primarily that of the district 7, and i think we won the lottery by having our neighborhoods and communities of interest reserves. concerned that what you did hear what have an impact on district elections and the whole fight to keep district elections, if we have to fight to defend them some time in the future. i am still concerned that that may come about. i think you men and women have done a remarkable job, and everyone who fought for district

elections over the many years would be proud of the work you have done to keep district elections as it was first intended to be. but the one thing i wanted to speak today was i have watched are no duffy time and again come before you. he is perhaps the most passionate advocate that i have seen for a neighborhood for his tenderloin. he might be a little disheveled in the way he presents himself, and i have been trying to grab him outside and give him little hints about how he could become better at organizing his neighborhood to present his issues, but i would ask you, on behalf of myself and mr. duffy and the people of the tenderloin -- if you could give one more consideration to his most recent request, which is to bring the maria manner and bristow hotels and to district 6. i think the numbers he is talking about, 380 people, that

could be arranged. i think we owe him that if we can do it. thank you. >> thank you, sir. anyone else here today that did not have the opportunity to sign in wishing to offer public comment on item four? ok. that concludes. [applause] we are going to take a short break before commencing with discussing, deliberation of the now >> now with deliberation, consideration of tweaks to the current draft with the percolation of finalizing maps once and for all. here's the process i would propose. i have tried to capture a couple

of items that were noted in the last few meetings as well as during today's public comment. it is a very, relatively speaking, short list. i will ask in a moment there are others who would like to add items. again, i would ask you to offer them in the spirit of new, not revisiting, although, we will not prevent you from raising something that is a revisit, but i would ask you to err on the side of new. we will do those in the context of population-based shifts and changes. second, we go to non-population shifts and changes. finally, we will turn to our consultant for the lines and borders assessment. that will be the final piece of, if you will, the puzzle. any questions? >> i actually wanted to do the lines and tweaks first because i

understand it could impact something. >> based on an early assessment from the consulting, there's only one line that has population implications of 64 people, so certainly, we can start with that. that is fine. the short list that i have -- and again, i will invite others to add, erring on the side of new, with the bristol hotel, the central business district, the mason street, the question of showplace square. precinct 39. the question of that bloc in sunnyside that was highlighted at the overlap of sunnyside and glen park. and then, finally, the northern

border of d-6, the question of do you go to 14th or 15th street. >> [inaudible] >> which? >> the last one you talked about. going to leave northern parts, whether 9 goes to 16 -- or are we talking about another place? >> i believe we are talking about another place. you may be correct. when we come to it. >> once again, we already captured bristol hotel. that is it. >> in talking about the bristol hotel, if we could also take up the maria manner. it is right around the same area. -- maria manor. and then the issue that mr.

bowman had raised about the 39 people at the top of clarendon ave. >> and i thought that the -- >> one moment please. one moment. >> the other issue that i did not hear on your list that i myself would be curious about, and i do not think i have clarity on what the borders are, but what was referred to with respect to mission street near duncan -- i'm just not sure exactly where those blocks are. >> i also saw that the trade- off between those blocks in the northern panhandle, the trade- off was new because it is a very easy trade off. >> thank you.

and nothing other than what has already been raised. >> thank you. >> with the last one you mentioned, the 15th street to extend to valencia -- >> that was mentioned. it was not the last one. the last one we mentioned was -- no, that is correct. we did capture it. ok, thank you. >> i thought that was a repeat. because it is already at the freeway. and we have been dealing with that extension for a long time. >> ok, thank you. >> i had three items, but then i had a recall. i wanted to consider that three- way trade. if there is any interest in that, that was one to revisit.

>> it is a revisit. >> understood. >> the second is the ucsf block we heard about today. i did not think that was on the list. >> we just made that move at the last meeting. >> right -- no, we did not. we considered that move and did not reverse it. raising it again? >> if we heard some further public comment on that today. >> it was not a different case, though. >> understood. >> so what is the case? >> it is to put it on the list that it has a relationship with d-10. >> here is how we are going to handle the items that are revisits, whether there was, today or not. we will quickly assess whether

we are willing to hear it. not whether we are going to do at your not, whether we are willing to hear it. to hear it or not. we are just going to do this -- i am absolutely fine with voting on it -- >> we are voting right now. i am asking you to vote. to revisit or not. >> revisit. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> yes. >> no. >> yes. >> so we will not revisit. i don't know. ok, and then the last one i had on my list was treasure island. but my broader comment was -- >> hold on. we need to finish treasure island. what is treasure island? >> it is a revisit of that move

-- >> a proposal you made at our last meeting, which we decided not to do. >> correct. >> hold on, hold on. misted well? >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> okay, we will not revisit that. >> my broader point was on this list, i thought we had reached a discussion that we were not going to make any further tweaks of us were going to discuss whether we were willing to consider any of these changes today and make a rather broader statement about whether we are good with the working map or willing to reopen it. because that is a rather important threshold decision, and i would prefer we do that as a group rather than assuming that we can get into these things.

>> i am willing to go through the same assessment, but by virtue of the fact that members have proposed a means we need to consider them. >> but i'm not sure that as a group we have -- >> i understand that, which is what i will -- totally fine to take them case by case. >> i would like to think that if we are going to consider some of the new things that have come to the table, that we may have to take on a couple of the things that we made decisions on. so it is not like we are not doing anything, again, unless they happen to need to be done because we may change some things today by taking on some of these new issues that we are bringing to the table. >> thank you. any other comments? ok.

in reflection of the question of the other proposals, again, we will move it very swiftly. >> i did not know if we have finished going down the slide. >> we have not. my apologies. >> nothing further. >> the only thing i would raise is instead of the swap, i had an alternative proposal of the nopa issue that would require revisiting, but it is an alternative. >> the subject is the same, but it is a different move? >> yes. the other issue, which is somewhat related, is just the cathedral hill campus. i cannot quite honestly remember where we ended up on that. >> just for clarity, when you say you cannot remember where we ended up, what do you mean? >> i would have to look at that area again, but i think the

proposal was to add these zero population of the campus to district 5. >> and it is not there right now? >> ok, thank you. ok. >> clarification. going back to the request to consider 15th to extend to valencia to harrison, is that a revisit, or are we going to discuss it? >> it is on the list right now, and we are getting ready to make a determination on whether we do consider it, opened it up. so we had a list here that we are going to go down, ok? we are going to determine whether or not we will reopen it, and then based on what is left with the list, we will reopen those items and not those that we determined not to hear it all right, beginning with the bristol hotel.

>> my request was not to go one by one but to have a discussion about whether we are going to revisit anything at this point. >> there have been proposals to revisit, so by virtue of making proposals, clearly, there is a readiness to -- so i'm not sure what discussion you want to have. >> individuals made suggestions to reopen. i am still debating in my mind and would appreciate some discussion with the broader group as to whether we should reopen any of these things, notwithstanding that there is interest in various corners to do it. >> by show of hands, would like to discontinue making any changes to the map and conclude with where we are now? anyone? >> i am somewhat inclined to lock it down where it is now. >> i understand. anyone, please, raise your hand

if you are interested in ending changes to the back right now -- to the map right now. >> ok. >> thank you. thank you very much. presuming that all the others made the list because there is a willingness to revisit them, let's begin to revisit them. >> ok. >> we are going to start first with the representation of the lines and borders, in particular, the 64-person . >> ok. this was a two-part project. we looked at the population alignments with existing districts, and we are talking about the assembly, the congressional, and the bart line because those were the lines that the department of elections gave us. what we did is we aligned your lines with the existing

boundaries if there was a zero population involved. would you like to see those first? >> no. >> ok, then there are three areas that have population involved. one has nine people, one has three people, one has 64 people. would you like to start with the 64 people? this concerns the border. we are going to highlight it for you right now. this area in question actually has a medium that has the 64 people in it. it is this middle area right here. essentially, if we were to align our lines with the bart boundary, then that would require moving 64 people into

district 3, which would bring the deviation of district two to -5% even. >> ok, again, population of 64. it would raise the deviation in district two to 5.0 -- >> -. >> -5.0. >> in district 3, the deviation would be -4.2%. >> excellent. the question before us is do we make this shift with the implications of deviation just noted, or not? if we do not, the implications -- i am not weighing in positively or negatively, just as a point of fact, it means that -- >> it means that the registered voters would basically have to

create a new ballot group here. for 64 people, that is a little easier to do than for one person. >> excellent. >> i had a question for the city attorney. that is whether a deviation of exactly 5% meets the requirements. >> i was just looking in the charter, and the charter language says population variations between districts should be limited to 1% from a statistical mean and less additional variations limited to 5% of the statistical means are necessary, so i think you can go to exactly five. >> ok, thank you. >> thank you. >> also, clarifying question. site, on the math, if that takes 64 people are the two and moves to 3, am i going in the right direction? i had district two at 69606, -

64, is 65042, which is less than the 5%. it is 1 percent pure, so unless there's some other -- >> we do not debate that point. whether one does math bug come down, or around, i did not think that will physically changed our decision one way or another. >> my point is that i think it would require us to make some other corresponding change to bring it back into balance. >> not we have just been told by counsel that we can go to 5.0. >> i am telling you it would be greater than -- >> you are saying it is more than 510? >> yes. >> can we get clarity of that? >> it is going up two decimal places, so it might be 4.00 or -

5.006 or something like that, and then rounding down. >> we need to look at it. >> we need to look at it and take it out to further decimal places. >> let me be clear. the way i have this figured -- >> hold on, hold on. >> clearly there is a calculation question. if, however, task force determined not to make the change, it is not a relative question. let's first take the question up on whether to make the change, and then we can determine in making the change that we have to account for it or compensate for it in some other shift. the question before us now is whether or not to make this change. >> yes, and i had a proposal. >> great, thank you. >> yes. >> yes. >> yes.

>> yes. >> yes. >> no. >> no. >> thank you. please make this change. >> just a second. we are going to make the changes. >> we put three decimal points on. -5.001%. >> please. >> i suggest that the task force errs on the side of caution and keeps it at or under 5% to as many decimal points as you can. >> there is a proposal? >> the thinking with sort of overall be this is in relation to the swap that was proposed. i am not in favor of it because it think it also breaks of the neighborhood boundaries that

were suggested. my thinking was if we drew straight lines, in the district 5 two lines, i think it is worth reconsidering, since we were doing it four straight line purposes as opposed to neighborhoods and communities of interest that we look at putting some of those blocks in. if we move to the outer richmond side, i think people have previously suggested a 27-block, and that way, you would then add one block into district 5 going that way. i think that way, you end up with in the variants. >> ok. let's highlight the first. if you could give the consultants direction. >> they are looking -- sorry, let me pull them up. i would say it would have been

blocked between -- it looks like bush and setter, peers and scott. i just want to verify that is consistent. >> would you like me to put the japantown later up? >> yes, thank you. i would first suggest the block.

>> deviation would become -4.5% for district two, and for district 5, -2.8%. >> i would then move down one block. >> the highlighted area -- the deviation would become -4.8%. deviation of district 5 would become 1.61%. >> can i ask for clarity on the block to the right as opposed to

the bottom going down? >> yes. >> cell -- so deselct this and select this? the highlighted area has a population of 270. the deviation of district two -- 5 would become 1.76%. >> i'm not quite sure on the numbers that we need. if we can look at california and links between 25 and 27 -- one moment please. >> could i just offer an observation? i understand the logic, i think, of trying to get it moving between one and two, but just an observation that the

25th avenue boundary is as it stands now, but we have moved blocks on the eastern side that are now in district two over to district 1, and that is another way that we could accomplish -- >> i would suggest that the 25 to 27 is more consistent with the outer richmond compared to the lake street corridor. supervisor farrell testified last time that that lower half of lake is more consistent with district 2. the bottom line is everyone -- th