a meeting in the tenderloin on on january 28th northern station february 11th and jones methodist church and most recently last week bayview southeast facility commission and i've shared my notes. these were all meetings we were all jointly at with the controller's office to give them a starting point. so we're going to hear from the controller about what i believe and what they believe are the starting points some of the ideas that came from community members have evolved through the conversation and so i think we'll hear about that too. a community member suggested going to polk and maybe look at going all the way to van ness and polk and larkin are big

areas for some types of illegal activities so we'll hear now from the controller of what we believe the proposed changes are and this is an opportunity for all of us to go back through your notes check to see if there's anything missing here and an opportunity to consider the data when we look at what final map we're going to adopt because now we have the community perspective and want to integrate that and make sure we take the community ideas, understand what the data is and come up with something that makes the most sense so feel free to add anything you feel might be missing so i'll go to the controller's office. >> thank you president loftus once again good evening and members of the public my name is randy maclure e. we have a

third party expert consultant based out of massachusetts who has been along for the ride along the way public safety strategies group and we want to have them come back at the final stage to address some of these data issues and questions that you that you may have before making final decisions and it tonight wanted to to go briefly through where we are as president loftus said and the objective is to try to come to some agreement to take it back to our consultant in terms of what the line changes that the commission would like to see us run the data for keep in mind every individual line change on its own in a vacuum

is not difficult to make but once you start making multiple line changes in unison around the city it gets increasingly complex and the data becomes more difficult because there's more iterations and options to consider and that will be something we continue to ask with every additional question and sort of request it may require more time and analysis on the consultant's side. >> and so just briefly, again, for the folks who may not have been at the previous meetings, we took a year-long look at the current lines and we're required every 10 years by the board of supervisors to do a redistricting analysis and ask a working group of command staff at the pd to consider the following objectives in their analysis which which is achieving greater workload.

>> we've mentioned at previous meetings a great number of data points and the working group certainly considered many, if not all of them throughout the process they spent many hours in the rooms together and worked with our consultant and there are five data points however that ultimately ended up in the data cube cad for 5 years and cable which are incident data for 5 years and population from 20 ten consensus. through the various

public meetings over the the last 90 days we tried our best to track what some of some of the community members had put forth as idea for line changes based on the proposal presented in december and came up with 7 different options for the commission to consider and certainly this is l proposed. it can be talked about and discussed here today in addition to finalized before we take to our consultant but again, keeping in a sense of time and cost with our consultant we definitely want to make sure we give them one specific ask in terms of the data request. what . what you see in front of you here on this slide is the blue lines on this map are the proposed district boundaries presented in december and the red lines

the current district boundaries and shaded those 7 areas i mentioned previously where the community or others have provided input along the way during the 90-day public comment period in terms of changes they were interested in seeing and so we're going to drill down into that a little bit on the next slide where you can see the tenderloin northern and central meet on this map and if you take a look at the at the left side of the screen, there's an orange area and kind of underneath that is a bluish area the bluish area represents a move in in the current proposed line excuse me to include a section between larkin and polk and so you see on the map there it cuts over from geary on the north side goes down polk and can you cuts back just where civic is

at mcallister and a second involved geary street itself and you can see on the map the red northern boundary of the tenderloin district. this proposal was to include both sides of geary in the tenderloin district and the third one is the orange shaded area again dealing with the west side of the tenderloin district and further to van ness all the way south which would include city hall and all the way down to where van ness meets market street is the third option that we've heard. >> i think the chief wants to say something and i do too. >> i don't recall there was ever an option where city center got taken and i thought the blue area underneath underneath there that blue area

would just go to van ness with mcallister being the southern border i don't think the tenderloin residents ever wanted civic center. >> correct. >> civic center is in the orange area. >> do you see where the arrow is now? that arrow would just go to van ness and the dividing line -- >> i have including the arteries to polk and eddie and farrell street larkin up to polk. >> yeah that is correct. this is why we do this but that's too broad of an area. it would go to mcallister -- that was the request. >> absolutely. >> i want to stop there. we had a really robust meeting in

the tenderloin and the thrust behind it there was a concern about the border on larkin street and the activity there and certain gangs and people benefitting from that being a border street and you are going to talk about the mall now? west field mall. >> correct. the green shaded area represents market street between market street and third to fifth street between market and mission, which is the location of the west field mall and obviously there was discussion as president loftus mentions quite a bit particularly at the tenderloin meeting we had in january about what resources and allocation on that one. one thing we should note there's a little red dot to the left of that green area we noted that. it doesn't come up as much but it was noted as a potential issue with the new shopping center being located there. >> so the request was that the

west field shopping mall not be in the tenderloin and community driven concerns where they felt we were expanding but not beyond the ability of those officers to respond. >> the yellow line market street at the southern border, that's the tenderloin correct? >> right here? >> there that yellow line. go to your right. yeah right there that line right there. that's tenderloin, right? >> the proposed tenderloin. >> to van ness right? >> this is the proposed. that's currently proposed. >> that represents sort of the 4 public feedback options that

we heard and really the conscious the the concentration of many of the requests. moving to the next slide two other options came up through public feedback the first is the yellow area which represents a move south of the southern district to to mariposa a couple of blocks south we heard a lot of feedback on that option and and related to the homeless encampments underneath the 101 and whether that particular area especially where the the 101 and the spur meet at the north end whether that would stay with the mission district or whether it would go to the southern or the bayview.

>> other questions about that? again, this is the time to discuss and get it all -- >> did portrero want the purple part or not? >> so the yellow part seemed to be there was a lot of consensus and the purple part wasn't gag to to be that big so we'll have to go back and ask them i believe they just wanted it to be part of the bayview. so that one we'll have to talk to -- i can't -- i could figure it out but i just can't see it. >> they didn't want it to go all the way to potrero i thought they wanted it to go to utah. >> these are the members from

the potrero hill area and that's why we're here again to make sure that we're all on the same page. to keep that section in the bayview as opposed to being at mission station. >> i think it was a very very small area like just mariposa -- it's it's really only like a couple of blocks. the very bottom right-hand corner of that map -- utah and mariposa which would adjoin the bayview district. >> putting a cross on mariposa okay. >> just taking it to utah. >> only as far west as utah? >> yes, it's literally only 1 block. >> i guessed right. that's

what i heard at the last community meeting. >> i'm just going to read the letter we did get a letter to confirm from jr, eppler the area boundeded by highway 101, potrero and 16th street. as evidence by several commentators at the meeting -- i think the issue in this letter which i know you used -- the discussion is pretty broad around 16th and 18th and potrero and that's a good catch we want to to make sure we get that right. this area is part

of the hill it says except for its policing so they really want to be part of bayview station which, i think is a testament. chief is going off script now and he's approached the television. >> so you need to come back to your microphone because i think you probably shared some pearls of wisdom that could not be heard. >> per the letter the yellow line would just continue straight across that's what they are talking about. i don't know how you would make that part of the bayview so we'll leave that to the consultant. >> any other questions on this data request? it seems that there's some narrowing that we have to do there and maybe follow up with the president and captain o'sullivan go ahead. >> and so moving to the last

area that we heard come up, would impact the park and the richmond districts and as you can see the blue line again this was the proposed cuts across on geary to the north and south on masonic and one of the ideas that we heard was to move in a yellow -- excuse me, the gray box into the park district as well and so it would continue further west on geary and then south on stanyon. the gray box to the left would be added to park. >> and so this was an e-mail that we received from tim hickey rather who is the north of pan handle neighborhood board president and the desire

is to keep the neighborhood together and keep it in the park station and not be divided so that was the desire of the park station, the folks that represent that neighborhood at the sea pab. >> any questions about this one? this is an i think a community initiated request that i think the department then also is thinking about given that what makes the most sense and so you see that change. and again, this is just so that we can get the data on what that change would be. yeah. >> go ahead. >> and so that takes us through the maps. in terms of the

continuing timeline obviously we have reached the 90-day term limits of the public comment period but we would then want to take back very specific requests to our consultant who could then run the numbers on the data points and in addition to that if there's any particular other data point we may not have it we may have it and be able to get it but it would be something that we would need to make the request of them now so they could start working on it. >> so what i think i hear you saying is requesting of all of us to really reach out to our community members look into our e-mails and pass along now because we're in the position to make the best decision and i'll make a note i see here the special meeting no redistricting discussion i imagine there there will be redistricting discussion and i think our shared goal is to

have a process that allows us to move forward and get decisions made but i'm sure there will be some feedback there and we're certainly not in a position to prohibit that so we will not have a meeting on april fool's day which i think is advisable and we'll come back and hear from the consultant who will be flying in from boston is the data and what the data tells us about the potential the potential impact on calls for service and the main points and we'll be able to have a discussion of maybe one or two maps that we could look at at that time. is that right? >> correct and again just wanted to stress the more line changes that there are the more complexity and possibilities that there are. >> and that's why we're front-ending this conversation but want to make sure everybody is clear and aware of the process.

>> and then finally? >> i'm not taking questions yet. >> and then finally the the april 15th the third wednesday which we would not normally be in session but we will be here on april 15th and vote on the final -- it will take 30 to 45 days to actually redraw the lines and make them effective and given what we're learning about southern station being online and the move to the new public safety building i think that's a timeline we want to stick to. i'm sorry i think you have a question? i would ask now from my colleagues if there's any feedback or additional issues or data points that you have not heard about tonight? >> do we need a vote to change the dates of the meeting? >> i don't believe we do. no? okay. questions, colleagues?

no? commissioner hwang? >> let me ask you this -- is the 15th in stone? i'm just saying that what happens to the third wednesday and those planned things. >> let me do a quorum check. >> i'm just wondering if it's possible to -- >> let me just see -- malumed >> do you have anything. >> so noted for the record. >> vice president turman ? >> i i can't be here. >> you you can't be here on the 15th. .

>> dejes u.s. >> i i can be here. >> commissioner hwang. >> i can. >> it looks like we would have a quorum on that night and we can take the conversation offline. oh, commissioner hwang. >> i think that these under the slide for potential line change areas i think this does reflect all the changes that we've heard from the community i don't remember the discussion on park and richmond i don't know if it came in the form of a letter. >> it came through e-mail. >> i'm just trying to gauge -- how many folks the one concern i had -- i do recall, i know the west field mall is a hot potato and nobody wants this and they were very strongly

against having it there and southern came and said we don't want it but we'll take it if we have to take it and i remember walking away feeling that they were very accommodating of the west field mall but i don't recall discussing putting it into central and they probably would have -- we didn't go to them i think because we didn't think the line changes would impact central that much. >> so i will note that we sent out specific communications to all the stations and all the captains about this process and do not fool yourself the captains are paying very close attention and we did send out that communication and i think there's a natural border of west field mall right there in in central and chief i don't know if you want to speak on that. >> the central was going to be impacted because they were going to get market street west

of third street and that was going to happen regardless and there's been some discussion, we had a big meeting that day because retail theft is up quite a bit and a lot of the conversations that west field mall was present at was that that's one group, their camera and security issues are the same west field has many of the retailers that associate themselves in the same conversation with powell street and union square and if the commission decides this is a better fit and certainly bumping out the tender er loin west to van ness maybe you give up a little a little something on the south to make it fit and it would flow better for the policing they would still get

those beat officers and they would then have more of the entire retail community. >> i don't know if i disagree with the ultimate solution but given this is such a big football and heard a lot from tenderloin and southern about it i'm a little concerned that potential plan you know maybe wasn't put out to the central folks so that they might have turned out in force to speak out against it as well. >> the other big issue the reasons nobody wants this place is because they think it eats a lot of resources so the question is is there any discussion about the businesses taking more responsibility for the cost of the policing? >> well, again, short of in

annexing the west field mall much like vatican city -- [laughter] as i said central folks were welcome at either the southern meeting or tenderloin meeting. again, there there will be still be discussions this is going to be still on television and there's going to be ongoing discussions and there's largely no residential there it's pretty much all commercial that we're talking about so i can't make them do something privately i mean we still have to police the west field mall right now it has police officers and again, as we said in all of our meetings this is just a question of who the officers report to.

>> do you know if captain lazar has had a conversation of west field become part of central station? >> i don't. >> so maybe -- we have gotten feedback from other stations where a meeting wasn't held in their district and we can talk about some potential solutions there because i think in all of these conversations around procedural justice it's part of the process you go through and it is worthwhile to make sure we sit down and be sure we understand this and folks are welcome to e-mail us. >> i actually was going to bring that up that's one of the big changes that's proposed. >> okay colleagues? any other last thoughts questions? now

we have time we've got sometime before we're talking about this again, so we'll be back on on the 8th with more data and really appreciate all the hard work of of the controller's office. appreciate your time and attention. >> thank you. >> thank you so much. >> commissioner hwang would like to give you deputy commissioner badges i'm not sure that's lawful. >> [laughter] thank you so much and for your commitment to getting this right. >> please call the next line item. >> commission announcements and scheduling of items identified for consideration at future commission meetings. pretty much covered the community meeting. . >> the chief is going to present the data he has on raise and policing and that

will be great the sooner the better. commissioner malara. >> yeah i was asked by beverly apton to follow up on the general orders and implementation. >> absolutely. >> she requested april i said i'd bring it up here and see. >> we will put that on the docket too and see what would be a good night for that. >> i have a question which may or may not be an agenda item can i talk? they are talking about sting ray on the knews to capture people's cell phones and the question i have do we have something like that? >> we have a non disclosure agreement there's a regional asset that we had access to.

>> past tense? >> yeah. via a search warrant or court order we could gain access to such a device but the department is in the process right now of insuring that we ourselves are not the proprietor of a sting ray. >> maybe we should agendize that and should thereby policy restraints that should be put on that etc. etc. >> yeah surveillance and civil liberty and we should agendize. >> okay. >> that's that's what i that's what i suggest. >> colleagues anything further? please call the next line item. >> public comment. >>