d of how we would respond to this request, so i will go with a majority if we do not want to read drop tonight -- to redraw tonight. i think we need to have a thoughtful discussion about these issues that have been raised by the community of. >> we have agonized what to do for a long time. that is why we made this decision to respect the eastern side of town to make it a priority. district 9 was the logical

point. to do such a large change without the other members here would be to rewind everything we have done for the last couple months, so we have already made a decision. we have already seen what it looks like, and it affects every other district and neighborhood attached, so unless we want to rewind or except the fact what we have united mucha portland -- much of portolla and make small changes here and there, i am cote -- i am ok with that, but in a large change, i would like to hold off.

i do agree, let's write small changes. if the intent is to do a large cut away, i am going to say no. >> i appreciate your comments, but i want to say, we did make some issues, but we should also be listening to the community. we have a large contingent to talk about mr. tan, an -- about district 10, and i would like to reconsider, because we did not have this kind of feedback from the community, and i know this is the last day for

recommending changes, but i want to put it on the table but the decision we make is going to affect the community, so i want this to be more thoughtful, and they think out our decisions. i do not want us to be tied to our decisions. i want us to be open and flexible as we near the deadline. i just wanted to comment on what we earlier stated. >> today is the last date for decisions. we are still open to public commentary did you have perspective?

>> one is in terms of where we are in the process, i agree with a couple of my colleagues who have said we should be open- minded but we should take the possibility seriously. i agree we have been on a track that depends on the placement of the neighborhood, but i do not think we have run out of time to consider another option, so i think we should think that through, and the last meeting may be coming on the last opportunity to entertain proposals like that and all the dominoes that would fall, but i do want to say what i heard was

quite makeixed. i did not hear a preponderance of feedback that clearly signals support for placement in district 10 or in district 9. i know there were several comments made, and i appreciate that, but i also appreciate other comments as well. that was my interpretation of the comments we heard tonight on the placement. i think i agree with most of the comments that have been made that if we are going to draw it into a large degree, we are better signaling our thoughts and saving that for our next

meeting, and if we want to do that for all sorts of changes, i think that might be useful. i do think anticipating the next couple meetings, we should expect to have fairly lengthy mapping sessions. we do not have much time left. we agreed we should have an interim deadline to settle before the 14th so we can concentrate on finishing the report. >> given the comments from task force members, i would propose that we hold off this evening, but discussing areas for consideration, and we will focus on on the drawing for next week.

since our deliberations, we have not had discussions or conversations, so this may be the opportunity to begin with the road map is going to look like in the final weeks as far as consideration as well as some of the difficult decisions but will have to be made in the coming weeks, so if i do not hear any objections, i will open it up to task force members to raise where our particular areas they want to discuss or inquiries for our consultants. >> i have a couple. one would be splitting the parks.

that should be on our agenda. comments about cutting off particular portions, because we have a number of issues. the third one i have was moving to 101. we have started looking at the tenderloin district last time, and we maybe have some suggestions. i share the concerns of trying to balance the city a little bit

more, so looking assett d1 and 2 and seeing what we can do over there. go>> one concern is that one through five are way over and that six, nine, 10, and 11 are way over, and have seemed to back words. half -- that seems backwards. i am still interested in ways to move populations. we have not come to consensus on

ways to do abouthat, but that cn be a priority. the area, that is not the way i would approach it, but that seems to be a way of the world. i think the map and we have now is mostly done, and we will have a further conversation on our final report and how we allow minority opinions to be expressed, but i think the decision is to keep the poor vulnerable region -- to keep the

portal whole. to undo the out icing causes major issues on the east side -- to run do that, i think causes major issues on the east side, and i'm supportive of making that change. i am interested in the proposal on the line between 8 and 5. also a thing there was some consensus between the realtors month to move some of buckner -- some of the ashbery heights area from 8 to 5. i think that helps.

the little section between six and eight continues to bother me, and i think there's a little play there. i was going to ask if you have some other stocks -- fthoughts on that particular thing. i am not an especially comfortable with the district for section, but that thoughts t this time. >> other members? >> ok, i had a couple of things. i thought it would be a good idea to look at the possibility of moving two blocks north of

district five of the cathedral hill neighborhood association. i continue to wonder about, again, being reinstated and one of the comments received this time around. it has to do with more uncommon district two. i want to please ask you to really think about district 9. people in the community thought that the meeting that we had at

the horsemen was the meeting that we were holding for the mission and as when they gave their input to bring the community together up to the freeway. i'm one of the people that said no and i continue to feel that it doesn't belong there. those people are divided by the freeway and don't want to be connected to the mission. i am really concerned about that. i am not going to give up on that until the end. >> this is really helpful, but the way, to hear what is on everyone's mind. one thing that a sort of a new thought, and to some extent, maybe a little bit of a reversal of some work we did last week. i am the sinbad and our current

working draft, the jimmy that is going -- i am noticing that in our current working draft, the chimney that is going is a slight overpopulation because we moved about during -- or the boundary, that is one thought. in the general area, i believe we move a meeting we had a while ago to the southern border of district 5. if we reestablished that boundary, which could add more

population. we could be potentially six blocks a still remain the full group. if those blocks were moved into district 1, that is about 1300 people. it could be cascaded throughout one, too, and three.

i appreciate that some of the members of the public sought some feedback from other community members. i share the concerns that it is a small block of geography -- the blocks that are in the northeast section of district 8, this is right across from the freeway. the blocks that are sort of southwest of the 101, south of market, you can see a cut out into the area that is west of valencia street. ok, yes. i think that's the park. that area, i wonder if it could

be moved into district 8. that is a possibility i am wondering about. in terms of district 6, limit a couple of adjustments, one of which was to move of boundary. i did not support that at the time. we don't want to upset the apple cart. we have the mission bay area that we think is divided. and i think it would be worth it, i would like to examine that again. of course we of the portable question.

i was interested in the supervisor's comments about the existing boundaries verses the boundaries and the draft back. we have reduced the population from 11 to 7. we have added population. i think he is correct to point that out. we need to resolve that.

>> there are areas for consideration. if we can look at how drilling down on district 11, i wanted to see the population if we were to bring it up, what that section. i don't have the actual borders. >> 1886 people, and it would bring the deviation of district 11 to 7.04%. >> if i can point out, with respect to the district 7 population, if we move the

northern boundary back up, it would offset the quite a bit, i believe. >> can we see between them? >> maybe you can overlay the current air to. >> the blue light is the current boundaries. the red highlighted area is 2265 people. that will bring the deviation of district 7 to 1.01%. >> you were also reference in 17

rather than 15. >> wasn't moving? ahead of the current lines are all across. that is currently inside of what your highlighting. >> in the draft. >> kenya of highlight that for a second? -- can you unhighlight that for a second? >> additional population inquiries? >> can look south of vase worth? if we were to take that section of northeast sunnyside, south of

was worth that is now in? what does that do? >> that brings the deviation to district 7 to 0.29% a the deviation of district 8 t 10 - 1.1. -- district 8 to -1.14%. canw we look at the line? i think it's way too high, but --

>> and giggled. i'm getting old. an unhear>> is probably close e. >> i want to make sure that we did this really closely. for population purposes, the population in the highlighted area is 1991 people, bringing

the deviation to district 96.58%, and the deviation for district 1010 -0.67%. >> and somebody was right collecting input in the portal at over 2000 people. i guess with the obvious trade- offs -- >> the thing is, if you put that in there and you put north of mission all the way to the freeway, then they have those people.

>> i am thinking of district 10 that would be over populated. i just want to see the numbers. >> i would like to point out that if you want to try some of these things out, it is very quick to underlit again. don't be shy to ask us to draw one. >> are we shy? >> we are a number of things, but shy? >> you want the entire perkin there? -- park in there?

>> 23, 26 -- >> who obviously. obviously. >> 16,058 people. district nine, 18.08%. >> cn wan we look at patrero asn alternative? and see -- it's not even enough to cover that, is my understanding.

>> [inaudible]

>> would you like the entire hill area, or just the area currently in district 10? dr. helen be moved to 6, yes. >> 2008 hundred and 54 people. that would bring the deviation -- >> 2804 people. >> it's not just it, to david's point, the population depth is between 280 and district 9 line. that is what you're talking about moving. no, ev