golden gate park? >> correct. >> if we could look at those three blocks. this is the -- sorry, the other side. yes. that population. >> that is a population of 361. >> my point being if we were if we were to prioritize and leaving those blocks in one which they are and they have been for the last 10 years, i think the testimony that we're hearing tonight is more in response although ideally we had testimony about restoring those three blocks, the priority is interest in not moving those other blocks. that we moved on monday evening. from d5 to d1. if that rectangle -- that would

be a smaller delta. 2494 for information posey said. the delta between 2855 and 361. 2494. >> let's go to the panhandle. if you could deselect that and select the remaining. >> the population is 294 people. the deviation would be 3.4% in the deviation for district 1 would be -7.52%.

commissioner leigh: this is in the lake street area. chairman mcdonnell: is this an exploration that becomes a potential -- commissioner leigh: yes. it is an exploration of possible ways if we were to move the north of panhandle to district 1, to five, back to five, one partial solution, not sufficient by itself but in combination with other moves possibly that could balance the population in

one. this is -- if we could see the current boundaries. we have the current boundary at 11th avenue and right now in the draft is park presidio. if we could have the population of that perforated cut out. >> that is 553 people. the deviation for district 1 would be -3.36%. the deviation for district 2 would be -0.9 for a -- 0.95 -- - 0.95%. >> maybe deselect that last block. >> the highlighted area has 770 people in it.

deviation would be -3.06%. deviation for district 2 would be zero 5.24%. >> that would take us to ninth avenue. >> 10th ave. if we could see it at ninth? >> adding that bloch, 1006 people. the deviation would be 2.74%. the deviation for district 2 would be -5.56%. >> ok. one observation. i am not proposing this necessarily. but just as one possible combination that would allow us to remain within the 5%.

this would reflect an emphasis on the current boundaries, notwithstanding those two blocks that would depart from the current boundaries, but if we maintained the boundary with respect to cathedral hill, where it stands, which i know we have since several weeks back, we have moved that border up north to solder -- sutter. if we moved from o'farrell street and moved that border to ninth avenue, we would be able to stay within 5% for district one. i might have a problem with two.

i might not have thought that went through. -- that one through. >> i am following you, i do not want to give up the cathedral hill peace. they were here letting us know they want to stay in district 5. this pace that you just highlighted in district two going into district 1 would be something i would be willing to support. there is another piece on the other side as well between 28 and 25th, between lake and california that could go into district 1. it could go into district 1 because it is a neighborhood

that is similar. in between those areas, you should be able to get enough to balance one and we could go to russian hill. and that that to bring it into district 2. kraska i just add one -- >> could i just add one, the cathedral hill is at o'farrell. not in the draft but in the current boundaries. that area is in district 2. just an observation. >> there are six proposals on the table. commissioner tidwell: going with

your similar last point, let's start with the panhandle. >> we can go back to the panhandle, please. we will have to find offsetting population but that is the next phase. the first phase is this phase. can we overlay current boundaries again just so everyone can see? >> they are overlaid. >> what are those street boundaries? >> stanyon, hayes, grove, fulton and [inaudible] >> thank you. commissioner tidwell: yes. mr. alonzo, yes. mr. schreiber, yes. mr. leigh, yes,

ms. melara, yes. ms. mondejar, yes. mr. pilpel, yes. -- not at this time. >> could i ask a process question? at the appropriate time. please make this change. commissioner leigh: the process question or suggestion that i would offer is, is it possible for us to use where we were prior to this move as a starting

point or launching point that we could possibly revisit if we wanted to? our process we have made one move at a time and that is -- has worked very well but given the delicate place where we find ourselves, not having a lot of time in all these dominance. i am wondering if we could remember where we were prior to making this move. explore and continue and finish the remaining -- deliberations about the dominos we need to consider within our permitted variances. and see how we each field boulware week and up and perhaps consider whether we prefer that place or that the outcome where we were prior to

the vote we just took. i do not want to overly complicate things. i am concerned that we are going to end up with another proposal that nobody is happy with that does not reflect a good solution or a better solution than where we just work. i do not know. >> what is our capacity to hold frozen the current draft somewhere and play with a copy of it and with the potential of returning to that person copy? >> we just snapshotted the current line. we could do an overlay of that later and reestablish [inaudible] we would have to switch back to that snapshot.

we could go back to that at any point and that would not necessarily entail losing work that was already done when we create a snapshot. we can make the snapshot and refer back to previous iterations at any time. >> we can also go -- >> if i said switchback to the draft that we walked into the room with, could you do that? >> we froze the line. >> in effect we could do that. we could at any point foot back to april 9 -- flip back to the april 9 draft and we could overlay that, correct? wherever we are at the moment? thank you. your thoughts about that proposal to ms.-=-- the

proposal, ms. tidwell? and compare where we land with where we started. commissioner tidwell: i would be supportive. the only change we made was adding one block behind st. luke's yesterday. commissioner schreiber: that would be fine. ms. montaro, ms. lamb. ms. malara. commissioner melara: yes. chairman mcdonnell: ok? all right. we began this part of the discussion with the notion that

there were three pieces to be considered, north pantonal and russian hill, north panhandle we decided to make the move and we decided not to make the move. let's go to russian hill, please. >> that is where we wanted to end. chairman mcdonnell: i am restating restarted. the three pieces we needed to start with. we have considered no. panhandle and the third piece of that was russian hill. a different point of view. >> when does the lake st. part [inaudible] >> after russian hill and cathedral hill. is their proposal in that question or just curious where it fits? >> the proposal is to follow-up on questions on adjusting lake

st. to balance the district. chairman mcdonnell: let's go to lake street. >> i am happy to make a proposal. in order. i would propose that we move the boundary to ninth avenue. >> that is the population of 1006 people. the deviation is to -6.51% and the division for district 3. >> that is between lake and california? >> yes. >> district 1 deviation would be - six. wife -- would be -6.51%.

>> we can only take one at a time? could we do both? >> the other one -- side would be between 27 and 28. >> adding that would bring the total highlighted area to 1880 people. the deviation for district 1 would be -4.95% and the deviation for district 2 would be -6.76%. >> i would add just one more area at the end by the park, that little sliver that used to be in toward the west. >> that is in d1. >> move back to d1.

>> that is in d1. >> it is? it does not look like it. >> there are houses of there. >> we're not sure what area you are talking about. >> just -- delbamar. >> same block. >> you cannot see them because airlines follow the boundaries. the line on the other side of 32nd, there are houses. >> never mind. ok. chairman mcdonnell: current proposal, 1880. one deviation, [unintelligible] >> mr.s. lam, no. not all of it.

>> ms. tidwell, no. mr. schreiber, no. commissioner schreiber: i would go to 27. commissioner pilpel: yes. commissioner schreiber: no. commissioner pilpel: i would like goat -- would like to go back to russian hill. chairman mcdonnell: let's stay right here. the lake st. proposal. >> i will make a counterproposal. same thing but rather than going west of 25th i would consider east of ninth to get a population and see if that does it. probably to the seventh, 6,

fifth. >> that is seventh? would you like to go further? >> what is the population? >> 1514 people. deviation -- >> boeing -- keep going. >> 1926. this is fifth avenue. >> you have current lines already reflected, correct? >> that is correct. >> 1926. the deviation? >> the deviation for this area would be for district 1, -4.89% and for district two, -6.80%. the current boundary goes down 11th ave. >> i will throw that one out. i mean, propose it. commissioner tidwell: no.

commissioner schreiber: yes. commissioner mondejar: no. commissioner alonso: no. commissioner leigh: no. commissioner melara: yes. vice-chair lam: yes. chairman mcdonnell: ok. please make the change. ok. could we go to cathedral hill? >> we need to go to russian hill. chairman mcdonnell: i am open to either one. can i suggest on russian hill, i do not know, which do you want to do? >> russian hill. chairman mcdonnell: i would suggest we have several options, one is to leave as is, another is to add the three blocs in the southeast corner that we have added, subtracted, all of that.

an additional option is to look at the northeast corner and straight line that down leavenworth and another option is to go not as far as leavenworth, to go further east. there are a lot of options in this zone and that i think will help determine how we deal with the cathedral hill and how much play there is left. >> i will make one. the three blocks we previously headed lion last time. >> that is a population of 593 people. the deviation of [unintelligible] >> -4.01% for district 3.

district 2, the deviation is - 6.01%. chairman mcdonnell: current boundaries? can we zoom in one? commissioner schreiber: yes. commissioner pilpel: no. it takes more population out of three. commissioner mondejar: come back to me. vice-chair lam: no. commissioner melara: yes.

commissioner leigh: no. commissioner alonso: no. commissioner mondejar: no. chairman mcdonnell: what is the next move? we have not decided on this yet. i want to appreciate what is coming next. >> i was going to propose to deflect the northeast corner and straight line id on leavenworth -- it on leavenworth. >> in terms of if we have to, the current aviation in two -- a deviation in two, you have to go down to the cathedral hill and move from sutter to post.

chairman mcdonnell: go ahead and make the change, please. commissioner tidwell: so i look at the two blocks between sutter and post. that is goff and van ness. that is a population of 592 people. the deviation for district 2 is -5.2% and the division for district 5 to 2.59%. commissioner tidwell: so the option is also the 49 people at the end of seacrest? it would be to the left of 32nd

and el camino del mar. chairman mcdonnell: won't we have to make the first change first? >> would you happen to know which block it is? >> if you looked and cost to the left, it is sticking out on california. not that. can you add all three of those? >> we have. that is a tool move of 642 people. -- 641 people. it would bring the deviation for district 22 -5.41. the deviation for district 5 to

2.59% and the deviation for district 1 to 4.96% -- -4.96%. >> i would propose making those changes and looking for the 0.51%. >> you have those two proposals. >> can we divide the question? >> of course we can. cathedral hill first? that is the 592. commissioner alonso: yes. commissioner leigh: yes.

vice-chair lam: yes. commissioner melara: yes. commissioner mondejar: yes. commissioner schreiber: yes. commissioner tidwell: yes. chairman mcdonnell: please make this change. let's go to [unintelligible] please. population is 49. >> that is correct. a population of 49 trade it would bring the deviation from district to two 0.51%. -- 4.96%. commissioner tidwell: yes. commissioner schreiber: yes. commissioner pilpel: not a street, no. commissioner mondejar: yes.

vice-chair lam: no. commissioner melara: yes. commissioner leigh: yes. commissioner alonso: yes. chairman mcdonnell: please make this change. >> i have one final tweaking in russian hill. right now we have the boundary -- the southern boundary of that and goler at the top of union, correct? is that union? can we bring it down to green from venice to leavenworth -- van ness to leavenworth? >> that is a population of 1048 people. the deviation for district to up

to -2.7% and a deviation for district 32 -5.44%. chairman mcdonnell: discussion? >> i propose it. chairman mcdonnell: it depopulates 3 and we heard from public testimony from the russian hill community association it would split their organization. we have heard from them several times, we have received written testimony as well. commissioner alonso: no. commissioner leigh: no. vice-chair lam: no. commissioner mondejar: no. commissioner melara: no. commissioner pilpel: no. commissioner tidwell: no. chairman mcdonnell: we can