i believe it is 0 population. quex the>> the other element of mission bay hospital would be disconnected from this, correct? >> i do not -- yes, but i am not sure. i am not sure which things are north of 16th and which are south and what is being built and all that. i would advise that this area is more connected to dog patch and potrero hill than mission bay proper and there was a request to keep this with district 10. i was advised the opposite. that is why we're here. >> population and deviation? >> this is your population. >> we did get a handout on this.

>> the division is 0.91%. and for this 6 -- district 6, 0.7 -- 0.87%. commissioner schreiber: no. commissioner melara: yes. chairman mcdonnellcommissioner . commissioner alonso: yes. chairman mcdonnell: we will not make this change. thank you. >> this was the 610 corridor. >>commissioner melara: i am

wondering sometimes when we say no to something based on the fact there was no real population in the area and we have ha a community testimony on that change that we go against it, i would like to hear the rationale against that. sometimes we're making changes for populations. when we're not exchanging for population, i am confused. i would like to hear it because we could be here all night and saying no to certain things that

make no difference. >> it is the ucsf campus. it is all in six currently so i do not see a reason to move that portion where they're moving the site in tutan. -- into ten. >> all right. thelis list we started with we have completed. the 911 border, seacliff, 49

people and corner of 16th street. >> please remind us of the deviations? >> district 1, -4.99%. district 2, -4.91%. district 3,-[inaudible] district four, district 5, 2.12%, district 6, 0.87%. district 7,--2.8%. district 8, at 2.304%. district 9, 4.84%. district 10, -0.91%. district 11, 4.94%.

>> thank you. >> could i go back to 7 and 8? >> give me the population related proposals before we go to non-population related.

>> can i propose something? if not -- is not a proposal to change anything. i am looking at our numbers. unless there is an urgency to add or delete something in some neighborhood, i would say that we probably want to just stop because we are within the numbers we want to be in every district. and so i am afraid that if we move something we will end up living something else and restoring some of the things we're already -- we had put on the map and people had believed we were going to put it.

and leave it there. i am concerned about that. >> i would ask we take a 10 minute break to collect ourselves and insure there is nothing else we want to do. que>> if we are -- if that will create a massive ripple, problem among ourselves, i say stock. any move will make anywhere is going to require a move someplace else -- any move we make anywhere will require a move someplace else. >> are there any other population related proposals? we will take a break before we go to non-population.

so again, while we can never say never, this means we will move forward with non-population. we will also ask carin and jaime to walk through the line. with those two steps, we will be at a place of conclusion. anyone not good with that? ok. we will take a two-minute blake -- break. we will go to non-population

but a at a a >> thank you. with that, we will resume our conversation on mapping, number three, just a restatement just prior to the break, we will consider non population proposals. we will then go to our consultants and have them walk

us through to see, and that will be the last piece of are concluding a at final draft. any questions before we proceed? hearing none, let's go to the golden gate park. >> ok. >> so the first proposal there, we have already made the change in the southeast corner, and that is a base move. that is cool. so starting by mclaren lodge, a and a and -- south of kennedy

and the west of the line. a at -- a broader proposal to see where we are before we begin the more fine division of the park, so the proposal on the table is to divide the park. miss sidwell? -- tidwell? the proposal is where they will talk about dividing the park at all. >> i think i am ok with where i currently stand. >> mr. schreiber, mr. pilpel,

mr. leigh, mr. alonso. ok. mr. pilpel. >> back to where we are, in the block to the west as well. this is with me haight and inner sunset.

the big rack. the children's playground carousel. the tennis courts. but there probably are a couple of other things, but, yes, they are a major feature. this is reasonable. a little odd to look at, but i am wondering if there is any population in this highlighted area. a at -- the deviation of

district 5 would be 1.3%. it would be -4.99%. >> i so propose. >> thank you. mr. mr. leigh, mr. alonso. [reading names] who did i leave out? ok. ok, phase two, and i am not as supportive of this, but i am thinking about this on the west side, north of four.

select certain blocks, so starting at 19th and lincoln /crossover. north of there. south of their headed west. yes? yes? keep going. and let's try that for a moment, and then we can talk about it. these are the areas just inside the park on the south, and it seems to me that this is in an interest, and this does not include the polo field. not even south lake. there you go.

rock and roll. >> mr. pilpel, this would be moving from district 1 to four. >> correct. >> miss tidwell, ms. mondejar, and members? >> i do not think is splitting apart in three different districts -- >> i have less concern. this is more of an impact in connection. and the need for the involvement of the supervisor.

>> i am not opposed to having its supervisors. i think it makes this very neighborly. >> ms. melara? >> no. after hearing public testimony, i am against it. >> mr. leigh? >> also know. what i remember from public testimony is one or more of the individuals that we heard from that represent parks or that are involved with institutions that are in some ways community shepherds of the park, i believe they expressed support for the eastern part of the parked being shared with district 5, but i do not recall any similar testimony regarding the southern

and western part with district four, so as other folks have said come on and going to say no. >> mr. alonso? >> i am going to say no, because even though i live right there, i am going to say that i think two supervisors is more than adequate for the park. that should be fine. >> mr. mcdonnell? >> i say no for the same reasons. i am actually opposed to splitting the park at all. >> so we will not make this change. >> thank you. >> i thought the eastern side had more merit. thank you very much. >> thank you, sir. are there any other non population based? >> yes. i had, i was wondering if we could consider moving all of the

uc campus into district 5 and keep it together. initially, i had suggested district 7, but it looks like more of district 5 once it, so i would propose doing that. >> could you please highlight that? >> it is, the borders are? drive, clarendon and up. all of the way to parnassus. >> do we know if there is student housing or graduate student housing? it is within a region highlighted? >> the population.

>> in the highlighted area, there is a population of 405. would you like to know the resulting deviation? >> yes. >> 2.69% for district 5. for district 7 -0.84%. >> ok. i will propose that. >> thank you. mr. alonso? >> yes. >> mr. leigh? >> no. >> ms. lam? >> yes. >> ms mondejar? >> i thought this was about a non population moved. >> that is correct. you are tracking correctly. [laughter] >> so for now, i will say no. >> ok. mr. pilpel?

>> no. i think this potentially affects the woods area, and we have heard some testimony on that. i hadn't and seven previous meetings to put all of this into five, and i explained before the road that is not there, so i am not with doing this at this time. i am sorry. >> thank you. mr. schrieber? >> no. >> i am actually leaning towards yes. i was trying to clarify, so i am actually going to say yes, based that this does not really encroach on the area. yes.

>> excuse me. so it is -- -- >> can we just overlay public testimony? i think the council submitted boundaries. i am sorry. do you guys set boundaries for that amount? >> no, i do not think we do. >> and do we have the council met but they submitted in the entirety? >> i believe that we have one large, like one large layer for

that. >> yes. please? >> this is not in the individual neighborhoods, is that fine? >> christine, you know? >> did that persuade you one way or another, mr. pilpel? >> no, not yet, but i am waiting. >> this would be west of twin peaks. >> and can we highlight again what was suggested? >> would you please repeat what that was? >> it was the campus which would be there between clarendon, christopher drive, claremont, all of the way to parnassus. >> thank you.

>> can i just ask them? >> yes, mr. pilpel? >> to john stone, what is the other corner there? the southeast corner of the highlighted area, clarendon and johnstone? the northwest corner is judah? south of there, , is that correct? can you just walk me through getting from their along the south? what are those named streets, or how do you describe that, is what i'm trying to figure out. >> and then christopher. >> uh-huh.

>> that is on the other side. >> that is crest mont. that is the cabinet. >> ok. and i guess my problem with this is not in describing it, crestmont and some point there, and it is to a point north, at fourth, it becomes very difficult to describe. >> difficult for whom? >> to the consultants, the lawyers, you know? rather than speak for them, consultants, would this be difficult to describe? >> it looks straightforward with the id tool. >> it certainly is a census block, no question, but the streets do not connect, so in terms of describing it,

crestmont drive does not get to fourth and kirkum. >> i understand, and you just said it was difficult to describe. >> and i am just wondering. >> we can work with that. there may be some descriptions in the law that allowed geographical ordinance. >> all right, i am still not convinced, but they do. >> sure. >> yes, you can. ms. lam? >> in reviewing it again, i would say no. >> ok, we will not make this change. any other non population? the last question notwithstanding. any other non population or related proposals?

>> i would like seeing this go to 13 with that little hanging thing there north of alameda. >> this, right here? >> so much better. thank you. a little things. >> is this the area you had envisioned? >> yes. this is the division. >> thank you. >> 6. >> i suppose. >> a population of six with the resulting deviation? >> the deviation would be -0.9%, and a deviation for the st. 6 whitby 0.86%.

>> [reading names] >> i just wanted to point out that there are six people there, so that is population. i just wanted to keep us on track, and i am going to vote yes. >> be highlighted area going into 10 or 6? >> going into 10. >> yes. >> please make this change. can you zoom in on that corner? the tip of what we just did, please? i just want to see that that is not straight. >> i knew you were.

[laughter] >> anyone other than mr. pilpel? any other non population-related proposals? put it on speaker. [laughter] someone watching just saw something they did not like. all right, mr. pilpel? so the other big move that is not -- it is all relative. to chaves and potrero for a moment. from potrero,