>> and it is not there right now? >> ok, thank you. ok. >> clarification. going back to the request to consider 15th to extend to valencia to harrison, is that a revisit, or are we going to discuss it? >> it is on the list right now, and we are getting ready to make a determination on whether we do consider it, opened it up. so we had a list here that we are going to go down, ok? we are going to determine whether or not we will reopen it, and then based on what is left with the list, we will reopen those items and not those that we determined not to hear it all right, beginning with the bristol hotel. >> my request was not to go one by one but to have a discussion about whether we are going to revisit anything at this point. >> there have been proposals to revisit, so by virtue of making proposals, clearly, there is a readiness to -- so i'm not sure what discussion you want to have. >> individuals made suggestions to reopen. i am still debating in my mind and would appreciate some discussion with the broader group as to whether we should reopen any of these things, notwithstanding that there is interest in various corners to do it. >> by show of hands, would like to discontinue making any changes to the map and conclude with where we are now? anyone? >> i am somewhat inclined to lock it down where it is now. >> i understand. anyone, please, raise your hand if you are interested in ending changes to the back right now -- to the map right now. >> ok. >> thank you. thank you very much. presuming that all the others made the list because there is a willingness to revisit them, let's begin to revisit them. >> ok. >> we are going to start first with the representation of the lines and borders, in particular, the 64-person . >> ok. this was a two-part project. we looked at the population alignments with existing districts, and we are talking about the assembly, the congressional, and the bart line because those were the lines that the department of elections gave us. what we did is we aligned your lines with the existing boundaries if there was a zero population involved. would you like to see those first? >> no. >> ok, then there are three areas that have population involved. one has nine people, one has three people, one has 64 people. would you like to start with the 64 people? this concerns the border. we are going to highlight it for you right now. this area in question actually has a medium that has the 64 people in it. it is this middle area right here. essentially, if we were to align our lines with the bart boundary, then that would require moving 64 people into district 3, which would bring the deviation of district two to -5% even. >> ok, again, population of 64. it would raise the deviation in district two to 5.0 -- >> -. >> -5.0. >> in district 3, the deviation would be -4.2%. >> excellent. the question before us is do we make this shift with the implications of deviation just noted, or not? if we do not, the implications -- i am not weighing in positively or negatively, just as a point of fact, it means that -- >> it means that the registered voters would basically have to create a new ballot group here. for 64 people, that is a little easier to do than for one person. >> excellent. >> i had a question for the city attorney. that is whether a deviation of exactly 5% meets the requirements. >> i was just looking in the charter, and the charter language says population variations between districts should be limited to 1% from a statistical mean and less additional variations limited to 5% of the statistical means are necessary, so i think you can go to exactly five. >> ok, thank you. >> thank you. >> also, clarifying question. site, on the math, if that takes 64 people are the two and moves to 3, am i going in the right direction? i had district two at 69606, - 64, is 65042, which is less than the 5%. it is 1 percent pure, so unless there's some other -- >> we do not debate that point. whether one does math bug come down, or around, i did not think that will physically changed our decision one way or another. >> my point is that i think it would require us to make some other corresponding change to bring it back into balance. >> not we have just been told by counsel that we can go to 5.0. >> i am telling you it would be greater than -- >> you are saying it is more than 510? >> yes. >> can we get clarity of that? >> it is going up two decimal places, so it might be 4.00 or - 5.006 or something like that, and then rounding down. >> we need to look at it. >> we need to look at it and take it out to further decimal places. >> let me be clear. the way i have this figured -- >> hold on, hold on. >> clearly there is a calculation question. if, however, task force determined not to make the change, it is not a relative question. let's first take the question up on whether to make the change, and then we can determine in making the change that we have to account for it or compensate for it in some other shift. the question before us now is whether or not to make this change. >> yes, and i had a proposal. >> great, thank you. >> yes. >> yes. >> yes. >> yes. >> yes. >> no. >> no. >> thank you. please make this change. >> just a second. we are going to make the changes. >> we put three decimal points on. -5.001%. >> please. >> i suggest that the task force errs on the side of caution and keeps it at or under 5% to as many decimal points as you can. >> there is a proposal? >> the thinking with sort of overall be this is in relation to the swap that was proposed. i am not in favor of it because it think it also breaks of the neighborhood boundaries that were suggested. my thinking was if we drew straight lines, in the district 5 two lines, i think it is worth reconsidering, since we were doing it four straight line purposes as opposed to neighborhoods and communities of interest that we look at putting some of those blocks in. if we move to the outer richmond side, i think people have previously suggested a 27-block, and that way, you would then add one block into district 5 going that way. i think that way, you end up with in the variants. >> ok. let's highlight the first. if you could give the consultants direction. >> they are looking -- sorry, let me pull them up. i would say it would have been blocked between -- it looks like bush and setter, peers and scott. i just want to verify that is consistent. >> would you like me to put the japantown later up? >> yes, thank you. i would first suggest the block. >> deviation would become -4.5% for district two, and for district 5, -2.8%. >> i would then move down one block. >> the highlighted area -- the deviation would become -4.8%. deviation of district 5 would become 1.61%. >> can i ask for clarity on the block to the right as opposed to the bottom going down? >> yes. >> cell -- so deselct this and select this? the highlighted area has a population of 270. the deviation of district two -- 5 would become 1.76%. >> i'm not quite sure on the numbers that we need. if we can look at california and links between 25 and 27 -- one moment please. >> could i just offer an observation? i understand the logic, i think, of trying to get it moving between one and two, but just an observation that the 25th avenue boundary is as it stands now, but we have moved blocks on the eastern side that are now in district two over to district 1, and that is another way that we could accomplish -- >> i would suggest that the 25 to 27 is more consistent with the outer richmond compared to the lake street corridor. supervisor farrell testified last time that that lower half of lake is more consistent with district 2. the bottom line is everyone -- with this move, the highlighted area is between 25th and 27th avenue. the population is 649. >> i think going across with the 270 people, between two and five. >> stayed there just a moment. >> this is a population of 270, and again, the deviation of district two would be -4.63%. the deviation of district 5 would be 1.76%. >> can also get the racial population for this two blocks. and i can you read just down the list? >> this is from the redistricting data from the census from 1994. this is total population usage, not percentages. three american indians and asian population, and that is pretty much it. voting age population for that block is 30 people. latino population on this block is 27 people. 163 people that were identified as white. seven as black. two as american indian. 25 as a nation. there is one in the other population, and one in the multiple minority group. sorry, that was 3 in the multiple minority group. >> thank you. >> i was checking on cooling the room. >> the proposal is to make this change, which would require 270 or 278? 270. deviation would be -4.63%. d5, -1 ft. 76%. >> yes. >> yes. >> yes. >> yes. >> no. >> thank you. please make this change. ms. tidwell? >> if we want to do the nopa one next. can we did the one block to be consistent? >> that block has a population of 176 people. >> she is just thinking, processing. >> deviation would be 2%. the deviation for district 1 would be -5.23%. >> i would prefer this. >> thank you. again, population of 176. aviation the district 5, 2.0. deviation of district 1, -5.23%. appreciate that there is another move for the late corridor. >> yes. >> yes. >>yes. >> yes. >> yes. >> no. >> yes. >> thank you. please make this change. lake st.. >> if we could start with the block between 25th and 26. >> that block has a population of 331 people bringing the deviation for district 12 - 4.78%, and the deviation of district two two -5.08%. >> can we look at the other side of lake st.? >> can i make one observation? i believe if we reversed our decision about the median strip, i think that what allowed us to stay within 5% and move the 64 people back to d2. we would be finished, i think. >> so proposed. >> i think this is actually two changes together the i am proposing. that we move this block, and then as the second accompany an adjustment, to move the three blocks, the median strip -- strips, i guess -- >> yes. >> with 64 people back from d3 to d2. >> ok, anyone have any questions? the proposal is -- one second, let me just take it one more time and come back to you. the proposal is to reverse -- we will take them in this order. i will just reverse the order. reverse the decision we just made around a median strip. 64 as the population, and then additionally make the change that was just proposed a moment ago that would have brought the deviation to -5.08%. this moves and offsets the -- that an gets under 5%. is that correct? >> it is going to be a squeaker, but yes, that is the proposal. with this required two votes on two separate moves? >> yes. i would love to do them together, but i'm sure someone will disagree with that, so we will keep them separate. >> i just wanted to clarify, on lake st., the second block, what the number on that was. i presume that they are the same because it was roughly 600. >> that has a population of 318 people. >> ok, everyone clear on the question? >> for clarification right now, the southern border for two is where? and a street name? >> yes. on the east side order. >> it is at geary, then pine up octavia, over the california, down the canon, to pine again, to scott, back to bush, down to presidio, down to coast, broderick, and then it goes to church, masonic -- to turk, masonic -- >> so and that's geary, up to california to sixth avenue to lake street to 25th avenue, back to california, and then west of 32. >> just an observe. know we have been struggling with the deviation between one and two for many weeks now. i know we had many discussions around the cathedral hill border but the numbers are district five is over deviation by 2%. i'm not necessarily proposing anything. it's just an observation there may be population within 55.2 border if the task force members are continuing to think or struggle with the 1-2 deviations. >> the pros poll as, we will take them one at a time but the is to reverse the 64 population decision. the second would be to go to the 25th avenue block. everyone clear on the questions? >> yes. apologize. >> can i ask the implication of creating an assembly district for the purposes of 64 people on the median? >> it's just more administrative work. that doesn't mean there are more registered voters there. >> we are cleaning up a lot of the lines. there are zero populations ones which are really annoying for them and there's another couple of population ones you should take a look at. >> ok. >> on the first question, reversing the move and decision. mr. alanso? >> yes. >> thank you. >> mr. leigh? >> yes. >> miss melara? >> yes. >> i'm sorry, could you repeat the proposal? >> 64 reversinging it from d-3 back to d-2. sorry, other way. reversing it from -- thank you. >> yes. >> mr. mondejar? >> yes. >> mr. pilpel? >> i'm in favor of fewer so i think i'm no on the question. >> mr. schreiber? >> yes. >> miss tidwell? >> yes. >> please make this change. as you're doing that can you give the new deviation or temporary deviation. >> for district 3 the temporary deviation is negative 3.5%. for district two the temporary deviation is negative 4.54% and for district one negative 5.23%. >> thank you. >> and the population being 270 with deviation. >> population for this is 331. >> that's what i said. >> deviation for district one would be negative 4.78%. for district two, next to 5%. we're going to look at the decimals right now. look at the decimals after the change. can we make the change temporarily? >> yes, please. let's not presume there's agreement. sorry, even though we discussed it. miss tidwell? >> discussion? >> i'm sorry. >> two points i believe it would be in range, it would be 4.97. >> you said discussion? >> yes. that's not a question though. we -- >> can we look at the layer of sequences defined? >> what does that have to do with this question? >> got it. >> there's no public submission for the boundry but we can look at the planning neighborhoods. this is the planning neighborhoods of sea cliff. would you like to also see, it also goes and extend out. any other questions? all right. miss tidwell? >> yes. >> mr. schreiber? >> yes. >> mr. pilpel? >> yes. >> miss mondejar? >> yes. >> miss lam? >> yes. >> miss ma melara? >> yes. >> mr. league? >> yes. -- mr. leeg -- leigh. >> yes. >> no. >> i will look at the deviations. >> thank you. >> can i make a comment while at the look at the numbers? >> sure.

Related Keywords

United States , California , Sea Cliff , Valencia , Carabobo , Venezuela , Turkey , American , Turk , ,