>> i'm comfortable. >> thank you. thanks for that exercise. let's visit now the less again attempting to move fairly swiftly through each of these considerations. let's go to the question of d-60 border, at the same time we will secondarly visit the maria manner. >> i don't know where they are continue may affect it. if you can tell us where they are. >> sure. give us the other two. so we will look out -- so the next -- the next one is between districts 10 and 9. bart line we would align to. this is an area that has three people so the line would move west from bayshore to the freeway, between 280 and depaul to confirm to the bike district. we're going to highlight this right now. >> i'm going to put the bart district layer up as well so i'm sure to highlight the correct area. so the highlighted area represents three people and this population is moving from nine to ten. the deviation of district 10 would become negative 0.78 pirs% and district 9, 4.8%. >> district 9 becomes 4.8, is that correct? >> yes. >> from the current 4.81. ok. d-10 would become with this change negative .87. d-9 would become 4.80 by moving this population of three. any questions? mr. alanso? >> sure. >> mr. leigh? >> yes. >> miss melara? >> yes. >> miss lam? >> yes. >> miss mondejar? >> yes. >> miss pilpel? >> yes. >> mr. schreiber? >> yes. miss tidwell? >> yes. >> please make the change. >> we have one more population move that we wanted to bring to you. this one is between the district seven and district four. this is a congressional line you would align to. it's 19th after median. it would move from 7 to 9. total population -- >> 7 to 4 you mean? >> yes. how can it move from 7 to 9? >> yes, 7 to 4. not 7 to 9. >> what's the population? >> nine. >> resulting deviation? >> the resulting deviation would be for district four, negative.96% and four district seven, negative .3%. >> ok. any questions? >> i guess i would like to know, i drive there a lot. i don't see anyone living on the medium. can you tell me a little bit more about that? >> the census apparently have more responses from that median. >> the median speaks. [laughter] >> well then maybe they're very small. thank you. >> mr. alanso? >> yes. >> mr. leigh? >> yes. >> miss melara? >> yes. >> miss lam? >> yes. >> miss mondejar? >> yes. >> mr. pilpel? >> i just need to know which direction it's going. >> from seven to four. >> yes. >> mr. schreiber? >> yes. >> miss tidwell? >> yes. >> please make this change. >> would you like to see the zero population move that were made per task force direction since the last meeting, or should we go to those later? >> i would rather focus on population at this time. >> ok, then that would conclude this particular item. >> yes. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> now we can go d-6, d-3. mr. leigh, i said two and you said what about the other? oh, no, sorry. you took us back to ensuring we weren't satisfying -- ok. these are -- >> these are blocks between mason and powell, south of o'farrell street. so if we can look at the population of those three blocks. >> are those the blocks? >> yes. >> that is a population of 365 people. it would bring the deviation for district 6 to 1.13%. i'm sorry. and the deviation for district 3 to negative 4%. >> negative 4? >> negative 4%, correct. >> i will propose that we make that change. question? >> yes. >> so there was the issue raised of first the hotel. this will address that but am i correct this is larger than that? >> it does. it goes two blocks up to the northernmost of those three blocks to include the maria manor property we heard testimony about. >> is that another borough? >> yes, i believe so. >> i ask we take those in turn. >> let's separate please. the bristol hotel. so that population. >> that is the population of 116 people. it would bring the deviation for district 6 to -- >> 0.79% and deviation for district 3 to negative 3.66%. >> my apologies. the room has gotten cool now. >> yeah. >> that's a good problem. >> population 116, 6.78, d-3 and f-66. miss tidwell? >> yes. >> mr. schreiber? >> yes. >> mr. pilpel? >> further depopulating three, no. >> miss mondejar? >> yes. miss lam? >> yes. >> miss melara? >> yes. >> mr. alanso? >> yes. >> please make this change. >> mr. leigh? >> then just the second part of it to move then the other two blocks into three. >> and -- >> i'm sorry, into six. >> question, the manors in both blocks? >> no, the northern block. we could just take that one, the northern block and that would be fine with me. as far as my proposal is concerned. >> ok. >> so desubmit the southern of those two blocks? exactly. >> miss tidwell? >> i would like to comment that i think if we are considering putting portions of the tenderloin, continuing to add to the tenderloin, it raises the question of moving the line i think, well, in my mind again sort of revisiting the mission market digs continuation -- distinction that's been raised because i think pot point you're going to -- we heard a number of testimony about the bristol hotel, and i could see a distinction in making that line, we're still missing numerous blocks in the tenderloin sofment my suggestion would be to the extent we're going to consider this, we need to consider changes, sort of referring to one of the speakers for this central business district between market and mission, which we previously had changed back. >> ok, i'm asking you to hold two thoughts, if you will, in your minds at one time. remember that, let's highlight the central business district component, the potentially gets added. >> i think it was probably third. mission to market. >> 803 people. >> you would like that area to be highlighted on the map? >> yes, please. >> that is a population of 803 people, would bring the deviation for district three to negative 2.57%. and deviation for district six to negative .31%. >> and that southern border of that highlighted area, is that market street? >> mission. >> i'm sorry, mission sfleet >> that's mission from market to mission. >> correct. >> thank you. >> and that's third street. >> and that's third street. >> i'm opening the task force comment, that we're going to for instance add in the manner we had significant, sort of one person call out, we also had significant testimony about the remaining blocks between posting and so i would be looking at more of the completeness there. >> just for the population on that one block that is on the table? >> maria manor? >> right. >> one moment, please. >> the highlighted area has a population of 238. would you like to hear the resulting deviations? >> i think just gave them to us, but sure. >> for district six, .96%. for district 3, negative 3.84%. >> ok, you didn't give those two -- one more time, please. >> 128 people. >> 128. ok. thank you. ok, discussion. mr. schreiber? >> i have always been supportive of putting all of the post geary into six and moving the boundary from market to mission. but at this point it's getting into beyond minor tweak. that i hoped we would be addressing today. i'm satisfied where where we are with putting the bristol hotel back in the d-6 today. i would probably even be supportive of the maria manor block, but not in favor of reopening the discussion of market to mission and all of the post end geary. >> thank you. mr. leigh? >> it's sort of along the same lines that member schreiber just discussed. i agree with that. i also would be open to moving this block. it is a much smaller population move than any of the blocks that we have yet to move or that we didn't quite get to between post and geary. i think the block that was next between leavenworth and jones is 940 people and i agree with what member schreiber said, that's too much population at this point for us to consider moving and if that would require moving the boundary on the other side from market to mission, i would be reluctant to do that as well. the motivation behind this, it's the context of 100-some person move that would allow another s.r.o. to say. that's the spirit behind the proposal. >> in pilpel. >> this puts me in a difficult position. i want to put population in three if possible but i'm not crazy going south of market. i have gone back and forth on that. i think on balance, i would rather stay at market street for the 36 border east of third. and if that passes, so be it. and further imbalancing three and so i'm not with the hotel move. >> thank you. any other discussions? ok, proposal on the table is 128 population move. d-6 deviation becomes .96, d-3 is negative 3.84. >> is that correct? >> yes. >> miss tidwell? >> yes. >> mr. schreiber? >> yes. >> mr. pilpel? >> no. >> miss mondejar? >> yes. >> miss lam? >> yes. >> mr. leigh? >> yes. >> thank you. mr. alanso? >> yes. >> thank you. please make this change. ok. next question before us is -- we just dealt with central business district. d-9 border at 16th. >> i wanted to do that. >> ok, please. >> to revisit it. but that was something we had already visited. >> miss mondejar? >> that would be testimony we received this morning, a lot of communication, original communication. i would like the task force to reconsider moving the line to 15 and to extend it to valencia and harrison. >> is that the highlighted area? >> i think. >> the population for the highlighted area? >> one moment. one moment. i want to make sure you highlighted the area. ok. population and deviation. >> population for the highlighted areas, 2,205 people. deviation for district 6 would be 3.98% and the deviation for district 9, 1.79%. >> thank you. mr. schreiber. i thought you had your hand -- >> i did. >> this is the question whether we reunite the mission or not. that's what we're visiting or revisiting right now. so i don't -- i have a point of view. should i express that now or later? i guess my point of view is that i think that while we received a lot of testimony very recently proposing to put that into d-6 overall, we also received a lot of positive feedback at reuniting the mission as we have in the current map. that is where i would keep the line. >> thank you. miss mondejar, you want to say more about this before we consider it? >> well, the consideration was the tenderloin area. let me ask, could you give us the breakdown on asian population. >> in the highlighted area? >> in the highlighted area. >> just one second. >> we're going to take the shaded area off. if you would just keep an eye on that so you can see it a little better. this is percent asian population . and this is 15th street right here. the little bit darker shaded blocks are 25% to 40% asian. >> i think that's 10% to 25%. >> oh, yes, i'm sorry 10% to 25%. it's kind of hard to see. and the really light shades areas are zero to 10%. >> so the highest is 25% and it goes down from there, correct? >> that's correct. >> what about the latino population in that area? >> just one second. >> this is the -- no population for this area again. this is 15th street right here. the very dark shaded area has a latino percentage of 75% to 100%. the next lower shaded area in orange there is 50% to 75%. and the next color is 30% to 250%. -- 30% to 50%. >> thank you. >> the testimony is that this is part of the tenderloin area that the latino community has been, to the south of market, have been working to -- serve the population for many years. so i would like us to consider, reconsider and at their request. >> ok, thank you. let's highlight the area. population again is 2,205, deviation of 3.6 becomes 2.98, deviation of d-9 becomes 1.79. miss tidwell? >> no. >> mr. schreiber? >> no. >> mr. pilpel? >> no. miss lam? >> over the last two weeks we had taken numerous considerations and votes for this very section and i had at that point wanted to keep the border at 15th from some of our public testimonies and history of that area, but at this time and where we're at in the process, i for today will vote no for this proposal. >> thank you. miss melara? >> no. >> mr. leigh? >> for the same reasons that -- and chronology that vice-chair lam described, i will also vote no. >> mr. alanso? >> this is too many people too late. i'm sorry, no. >> thank you. >> ok. moving then down our list. mission bay, someone place mission bay. >> decided not to. >> thank you. don't worry about it.let's go 1. >> could you describe that? >> i could not. >> what we heard is that we are ready to kick between san jose, cabrera, and coconut and moved that into 8. the request is to keep that as is. i will keep some of the other blocks east of tiffany. it is bounded by guerrero, san jose and duncan. if there was an interest in the broader move of that area into 8, it would be the broader rotation that i saw the other day. this is already in 8. >> we are good on 3919. moving down to the potential block of sunnyside, the overlapping block of sunnyside and glen park. >> what are the streets that this block is bounded by? >> mangel and congo. >> that is correct. >> is that the correct block? it is a population of 135 people. it would bring the population of district 8 to 3.22%. deviation for district 8 would be 3.22%. deviation for district 7 would be -0.48%. population, 135. >> i would like to see the current boundaries. thank you. >> may i point out that the map the sunnyside neighbors association provided us is very helpful. the neighbors association and the sunnyside neighbors association. if you look at that map, the ones north orf naples is not part of the sunnyside neighborhood. this is between the congo. i would look at the population and nancy if we could maintain the glen park boundaries. >> and the discussion on this block? >> it is arguable how it affects glen park. to the extent this moves population from 8 to 7. 7 to 8, then it is going the wrong direction. i am not with this. >> any other discussion? mr. shriver. commissioner schreiber: