commissioner leigh: i would be open to hearing the rationale. i am fine either way. commissioner alonso: no. >> we will not hear that set of proposals. ok, that concludes our list. let's take a moment and zoom back out. if you could get population deviations 1-11. >> deviation for district two is that - 5%. deviation for district 3 it is 3.84%. district 4 is -5.6%.

deviation for district 5 is 9.6%. deviation for district 6 is 0.96%. deviation for district 8 is 3.47%. deviation for district 9 is 4.8%. deviation for district tennis is -0.87%. deviation for district 11 is 4.94%. >> thank you.

giving you a pause for consideration. any final population tweaks? mr. alonso. any final population tweaks ? commissioner alonso: no. commissioner leigh: no. commissioner melara: no. commissioner mondejar: no more. commissioner pilpel: i tried and tried and tried. >> did we want to hear about this? you said you would fight until the end.

thank you, that was helpful. commissioner schreiber: we are good with where we are right now. >> with respect for deviation? >> and it may be helpful that that will not be kept under 5. >> 4.998%. >> thank you. >> the only thing i was looking at was that other we're border. >> close your eyes. just kidding. >> you go west of that. and there is a hill at the top about. >> give them direction, please. just to the left of the block.

>> that is a population of 36 people. the deviation for district 7 would be -0.64%. the deviation for district 9 would be 9.4%. commissioner pilpel: no. commissioner mondejar: what is the rationale? >> you go on up and you cannot really go, it is more 7 in my geographic world.

commissioner m-- commissioner mondejar: you are not affecting -- >> if anything, you are bringing more of clarendon heights into 7. >> no. >> yes. commissioner leigh: no. commissioner alonso: yes. >> please make this change. >> i was going to clarify for all the districts that we should have the three dust will points. -- decimal points. >> can i ask a clarifying

question? it is not exactly a street. and is another one i am not crazy about because it is not a street. even though it is a census block, how descry bubble is something like this? -- describable is this? >> would you like a description? >> i do think that while we unifiy, it was something that we wanted to do and i agree with it. in this 100th hour of our

deliberations, it is a wish i would have had to throw out. that is my only sad part of the process. >> are there any non-population related proposals? if they turn out to be population related by default, they are disallowed. i am only kidding. i do not want to be, but i am. commissioner tidwell: no. commissioner schreiber: no. vice chair lam: none. commissioner melara: did we give up on the mission bay campus issue to bring it to the 16th?

>> yes, we did. we addressed it and determined not to. commissioner leigh: no. commissioner alonso: no. commissioner pilpel: i don't think i have any. >> we need their attention. other than the 64-person thing we talked about earlier, we have absolutely correlated and minimize the number of ballot types. >> as much as we could come we could just put them off to you. >> after this draft is complete,

i would go back inn the areas that there were changes to make sure that there were not other issues. >> ok. i was hoping to take a recess again soon. >> thank you for that proposal. could you name the others that were non-population related. >> hopefully, these are all still properly. there was a change made between districts two and 3. the alliance with the bart district line. the next one was between three

and 6. it moved from 6 to 3. between districts 9 and 10, there was an alignment with the bart line. between 6 and 10 there was an alignment with the bart line. this one moved from 10 to 6. there was an alignment between 10 and 6 once again. then there was an alignment between district 10 and 11.

thie line move from the easternmost lane of 280 to the westernmost. the line moved from district 11 to district 7. >> could we zoom in at the top of 9? >> i do not think there is a bart alignment issue. i want to see if it is 101 or streets. >> can we see it? >> certainly. do we have a bart issue?

>> i will put the bart layer up. the bart layer is up, so no. this is 13th. still follwing 13th. this is still13th here and here. this is us highway 101. i can highlight and see if there is interest in moving this line north to the 13th street. this is between harrison and bryant. >> that is what i was interested in.

>> that is a zero population change. >> that would have a consistent line all the way across. there are in of lines there. >> and it would continue onto division south of bryant. commissioner tidwell: yes. commissioner schreiber: yes. commissioner mondejar: yes. vice chair lam: yes. commissioner melara: i am not sure. yes, of course. commissioner leigh: yes.

>> please make this change. >> all i feel so much better. >> is there anything else for consideration with regard to this iteration of the map which becomes our final map? i want to see if there are any other proposals of any kind. i entertain a motion to adopt this as our final map. >> so moved. >> seconded. >> miss tidwell . commissioner tidwell: yes.

commissioner pilpel: yes. commissioner mondejar: yes. >> i have never seen council glare. >> i am thinking. >> i am going to come back to him. >> i wanted to do this after a break. >> ok, can i rescind the vote and take it after the break and have the vote with alonso back in the room. >> without objection. >> they do so much. we will take this vote up after

the break. before the break, let me point to the fact that we will go to the next item which is map and final report. we will hear first from our final at the turn of the current draft. walk us through that. we will welcome in any additions or edits. we have had two members working on the report. we will trust fund that had a gain work. any questions? a cat we will wait until 2:30 by that clock. it is a 20-minin

>> so in order to ensure that we can cast what becomes a final vote on what is in fact a final map, we're going to allow the consultants to complete, in the room right now while we move to another item -- to complete their review in light of the changes that we made today. so that we -- when we return to this item, we can, in fact, take a final vote on a final map. any objection to moving in that direction? hearing none, item five. task force map and report. we will discuss and take action on the time report. we will first here from member leigh, who did the final round of editing unto the draft. we will hear proposals for edits

and revisions. again, in the general spirit, not in the, in the grammatical end or maynor or major sense, that we don't want to group edit because that would be to laborious. with that, member leigh. >> thank you, mr. chair. and i believe everyone has a copy of a couple of different documents that we will be using for a reference for this item. so the main was is the latest draft of the report itself. there's a separate document that is entitled, sf redistrict and task force, neighborhoods intact 4/11/2012 draft and a third document which says lessons learned and recommendations from individual task force members.

>> one second. the task force draft i have. the second document you referenced -- >> that was sent to us -- >> in my stack. >> too many papers. overloaded. it's here somewhere, i'm sure. >> there are copies, i believe, on the table as well. so some some respect it was not entirely clear to me how to incorporate some of the content. so if we can talk through that as needed. it seems like we have just one additional section of content that member tidwell submitted that we don't have in our hard copy. so if we can take that up as well. so just to begin with the mane report document itself, again, i want to thank everyone, all of my colleagues but especially

member melara for taking the first leg of the editing responsibility and she incorporated as much as she could by, i believe, thursday late in in the day on thursday and i made subsequent changes that are reflected in this draft. so if i understand your direction correctly, mr. chair, we don't want to go through line by line or -- >> that's correct. i will ask you to remind us of what is in place and in and highlight in particular from your point of view what's not. >> ok. the first section, first page, first page i believe an entirety has not changed. member schreiber drafted this and it was very helpful. it needed i. this whole section needed in our opinion, a little editing. so if anybody sees any comments

to make, please interrupt me. otherwise, we will just go on to the second page. again, there wasn't a whole lot in this most recent round of edits that member melara and i made to the second page either. we did cleanup the names as appropriate. and i don't think there was any change to page two, going on to page three, member melara, please help me if you notice changes i'm not -- that i'm not updating people on. >> to clarify was -- because both member land jahr and lam submitted quite a bit of information both on the -- on what happened for outreach and some of the issues confronted because in the outreach process

and because some of it overlapped itself, you know, i sort of took the license to sort of summarize what was being said so it's important for the two of you to look at it and see if we captured what you wanted in it because there was some repetitive information so we didn't want to just put the two pieces side by side. instead i took the liberty of combining everything. >> and that is a few -- more pages in. so i think it's more like page four and five and six and -- >> well, if it is, there is some -- i will tell you what, for example -- >> no. >> member melara, if you wouldn't mind, if i can just go through the earlier sections and we will comment on that momentarily. so one slide edit to the bottom of page three was the description of the caption for

the compactness criteria. there's a little bit of words missing there. i hope it seems appropriate to the task force. and going on to page four, the description of the task force process. there were some additional -- some additional language incorporated here in the second paragraph. we did -- we did name the number of meetings or identified the number of meetings that were held, meetings which ranged from two to five hours each. i did want to point out that we received additional information that did not make it into this draft. that's my fault. but we could choose to -- to include the fact that there were about 100 total hours of meetings, approximately. so if we want to include that, we can certainly do that. and the suggestion i would make is just in that first sentence of the third paragraph to add

comma after each comma, totaling approximately 100 hours. and if the cleric or chair mcdonnell, if either of you have additional statistics, i think i got what i have with this one change appended but i have missed something in all of the e-mails -- i might have missed something in all of the e-mails. then the language with respect to -- the elections department or the elections commission i think that was already cleaned up. moving on to page five. so this is where the -- this is where the discussion of the community outreach activities was incorporated and i believe as member melara said.

if you want to continue what you're describing before, member melara, this is the section in which she attempted to synthesize and summarize the multiple descriptions that a couple of task force members submitted. on this topic. any questions? ok. keep going. so the budget paragraph, first full paragraph on page 5, i believe vice chair lam drafted and also this incorporates language, i believe, from member mondejar about the community advertisements, community newspaper advertisements, and, again, i don't know if it's exactly the language that you submitted, member mondejar, but i believe it contains most of the important -- pertinent facts. then a couple paragraphs down,

the description of the advancement project, vice chair lam provided alternate language about that. compared to the draft we were looking at earlier this week. and then going on to page six, the language on the top half of that page was modified just to reflect what we did in our meetings at that took place this week, so i.e. or e.g. that we adopted, working draft maps through april 11th, we continued the process of reviewing, revising and publishing the working draft map through april 11, and the task force, i know this hasn't taken place yet, but anticipating the task force will adopt its final map today, april 14. >> may i make one suggestion at that point? it's just that the task course included language reflecting its final vote. >> yes.

continue? >> yes, please. >> next section four, final map and plan, this is where we incorporated all of the individual members lists of the neighborhoods or communities that were discussed in all of our meetings and i believe there are still -- i'm not sure that every list here incorporates a submission from each of us, but i'm not -- i wasn't aware of who was still outstanding or disruptions for which district were still outstanding. that might be something -- >> let's pause on that question. so who has not submitted their district? >> i september my twice. >> so district one and four? >> yeah. >> i have that. >> ok, anyone snells >> do you have it with you?

>> did not. did not. >> on the internet so i september it twice. >> one from member pilpel had -- was more like a narrative. >> may i speak to that? >> yes, please. >> so i wasn't clear after our last meeting what format to use so i wrote it in more of a narrative format and assumed it would get conformed to whatever we were doing. so sorry about the confusion there, member pilpel. so i did not attempt that, so we can do that. maybe we need to do that in realtime and i have that -- i think i can find that document you sent. >> if i may interject just briefly, so the agreed pong format was the member schreiber, actually had that conversation with regard because there were

multiple options all viable and we just termed for consistency sake we used one and it was member schreiber, which was d-2. so that was the agreed upon format for that section. mr. leigh? >> ok. so the next section was section five, section five deviations in excess of 1%. this is where i think i need a little bit of clarification. so i was not quite sure whether this format that appears in this main draft in that document is what we intended to include in our draft or whether it was meant to be substituted with this other document which is on a separate page in our handouts, s.f. redistricting task force, neighborhoods in fact for 2011