block that is highlighted. let's call the question. glen park, the population here is 135. resulting deviation is 3.8 to 2%. >> yes. commissioner schreiber: so, we're just doing this in the abstract? >> it may be abstract for you. it was a proposal put on the table of this particular block. commissioner schreiber: doing this block along doesn't appeal to me because it cuts into an

established neighborhood. rather than uniting glen park. ok, yes. convinced me. >> no. >> i have a concern about moving population to district 8. -0.4 in 7. can i make a -- come back to me. commissioner laml: did we look at the glen park lions already? >> the assumption is that once

we do this, we do glen park. >> yes. commissioner mondejar: yes. >> thank you, please make this change. >> is in the same area of that battle blocked of the things that we just moved. it looks like a trapezoid right above. it is mirrored in the exhaust stream boundaries. -- mirroring the existing boundaries. >> the deviation for district 7 to -7.3%. >> i would propose that we make that change to allow glen park to be unified. >> thank you very much. >> yes.

>> yes. vice chair lam: yes. commissioner mondejar: yes. >> no. commissioner schreiber: yes. >> please make that change. one moment please. talk amongst yourselves. just kidding. did we do the northern border of d6? done. satisfied? correct? there was one proposal with a

trade-off and then there was an alternate proposal. >> my proposal is doing what we have done today. >> we did hers. >> perfect. we are done there. and that is all i am looking for. to check it off. what is the proposal? >> to move the heights into summit. >> i think public testimony would make sense. can you look at where it is. i really don't know where it is .

>> there is one block between clarendon and belgrade. on the block is a public submission for the boundaries. >> that is the campus. >> if i might. i am not in favor of this change. but meese the if i can describe it. it is in the southern corner of the map that i'm describing now. it is between clarendon and johnstone.

right around there. it is a 35-person block. >> it goes beyond that point. >> i was looking at clarendon. that is somethign different. i would look at what is inside. >> is the block immediately to the west. not the second. i think that is the block. >> that is a population of 35 people. >> the proposal or purpose of this proposal?

>> i know the direction. the purpose as in why. >> geographically, they are connected to 7. >> i would counter by saying the block to the west and the east also face clarendon. i am ok with brit is. >> the population and resulting deviations? >> the population is 35 people. the deviation for district 5 would be 1.96%. >> i would like to see the west of twin peaks labor quit later.

>> -- neighborhood layer. >> i think we had heard testimony from the twin peaks improvement association with that. they saw twin peaks boulevard as being a strong border. >> the purple is the west of twin peaks council submission. >> thank you. any other questions? deviation, -0.69%. commissioner tidwell: could you

say it again? yes. >> thank you. commissioner schreiber: yes. >> no. commissioner mondejar: yes. vice chair lam: yes. commissioner melara: yes. commissioner leigh: yes. >> please make this change. the last thing on our list is the hill.

>> melissa, do you want to make that proposal? highlighting the block of th e post of van ness and franklin which would put the cathedral hill development in 25. >> that is a population of one person. >> who lives there? >> the guards. >> the deviation for district 2 would be -5%. we will be checking on that. >> it is still ok.

it is still ok. >> would you like us to check on the deviation? we can take a look at it. >> it becomes 6.9944. >> i have some good news for you. the deviation is 4.998%. >> ok. please highlight it.

4.998%. commissioner tidwell: yes. commissioner schreiber: there are fewer people who live on the median strip on 19th avenue. yes. commissioner pilpel: no. commissioner mondejar: yes. vice chair lam: yes. commissioner leigh: yes. commissioner alonso: yes. >> please make this change. yes, mr. schreiber. commissioner schreiber: i had this on my list as something that you mentioned. commissioner pilpel: the tingly

trade that i describe the other day and we did not come to consensus on doingis to take the area south of 280, north of tingly, i don't have the numbers here. move that back to 11. take the aread south of st. luke's, all the way down to randall. 723 is what is nets out. move that down to 8. below 280, there were three or

four blocks that would go from 11 to 9. >> this is the proposal we have down before. >> it is the same proposal, correct? >> interested in revisiting? commissioner tidwell: i am not quite understanding. commissioner schreiber: no. commissioner mondejar: no. vice chair lam: no. commissioner leigh: i would be open to hearing the rationale.

i am fine either way. commissioner alonso: no. >> we will not hear that set of proposals. ok, that concludes our list. let's take a moment and zoom back out. if you could get population deviations 1-11. >> deviation for district two is that - 5%. deviation for district 3 it is 3.84%. district 4 is -5.6%. deviation for district 5 is 9.6%.

deviation for district 6 is 0.96%. deviation for district 8 is 3.47%. deviation for district 9 is 4.8%. deviation for district tennis is -0.87%. deviation for district 11 is 4.94%. >> thank you. giving you a pause for consideration. any final population tweaks?

mr. alonso. any final population tweaks ? commissioner alonso: no. commissioner leigh: no. commissioner melara: no. commissioner mondejar: no more. commissioner pilpel: i tried and tried and tried. >> did we want to hear about this? you said you would fight until the end. thank you, that was helpful. commissioner schreiber: we are good with where we are right

now. >> with respect for deviation? >> and it may be helpful that that will not be kept under 5. >> 4.998%. >> thank you. >> the only thing i was looking at was that other we're border. >> close your eyes. just kidding. >> you go west of that. and there is a hill at the top about. >> give them direction, please. just to the left of the block. >> that is a population of 36 people. the deviation for district 7 would be -0.64%.

the deviation for district 9 would be 9.4%. commissioner pilpel: no. commissioner mondejar: what is the rationale? >> you go on up and you cannot really go, it is more 7 in my geographic world. commissioner m-- commissioner mondejar: you are

not affecting -- >> if anything, you are bringing more of clarendon heights into 7. >> no. >> yes. commissioner leigh: no. commissioner alonso: yes. >> please make this change. >> i was going to clarify for all the districts that we should have the three dust will points. -- decimal points. >> can i ask a clarifying question? it is not exactly a street. and is another one i am not

crazy about because it is not a street. even though it is a census block, how descry bubble is something like this? -- describable is this? >> would you like a description? >> i do think that while we unifiy, it was something that we wanted to do and i agree with it. in this 100th hour of our deliberations, it is a wish i

would have had to throw out. that is my only sad part of the process. >> are there any non-population related proposals? if they turn out to be population related by default, they are disallowed. i am only kidding. i do not want to be, but i am. commissioner tidwell: no. commissioner schreiber: no. vice chair lam: none. commissioner melara: did we give up on the mission bay campus issue to bring it to the 16th? >> yes, we did.

we addressed it and determined not to. commissioner leigh: no. commissioner alonso: no. commissioner pilpel: i don't think i have any. >> we need their attention. other than the 64-person thing we talked about earlier, we have absolutely correlated and minimize the number of ballot types. >> as much as we could come we could just put them off to you. >> after this draft is complete, i would go back inn the areas

that there were changes to make sure that there were not other issues. >> ok. i was hoping to take a recess again soon. >> thank you for that proposal. could you name the others that were non-population related. >> hopefully, these are all still properly. there was a change made between districts two and 3. the alliance with the bart district line. the next one was between three and 6.

it moved from 6 to 3. between districts 9 and 10, there was an alignment with the bart line. between 6 and 10 there was an alignment with the bart line. this one moved from 10 to 6. there was an alignment between 10 and 6 once again. then there was an alignment between district 10 and 11. thie line move from the

easternmost lane of 280 to the westernmost. the line moved from district 11 to district 7. >> could we zoom in at the top of 9? >> i do not think there is a bart alignment issue. i want to see if it is 101 or streets. >> can we see it? >> certainly. do we have a bart issue? >> i will put the bart layer up. the bart layer is up, so no.

this is 13th. still follwing 13th. this is still13th here and here. this is us highway 101. i can highlight and see if there is interest in moving this line north to the 13th street. this is between harrison and bryant. >> that is what i was interested in.

>> that is a zero population change. >> that would have a consistent line all the way across. there are in of lines there. >> and it would continue onto division south of bryant. commissioner tidwell: yes. commissioner schreiber: yes. commissioner mondejar: yes. vice chair lam: yes. commissioner melara: i am not sure. yes, of course. commissioner leigh: yes. >> please make this change.

>> all i feel so much better. >> is there anything else for consideration with regard to this iteration of the map which becomes our final map? i want to see if there are any other proposals of any kind. i entertain a motion to adopt this as our final map. >> so moved. >> seconded. >> miss tidwell . commissioner tidwell: yes. commissioner pilpel: yes. commissioner mondejar: yes.