into that. sonic avenue has a project that will improve safety for people and people like myself who would love to sit in front room and your car crashes and rory trafford. if we're dividing our communities on these really horrible sewers will live on, it would not require two supervisors to approve the committee. i am urging you to include all the north of panhandle area. use a line that would be not usable. if you say, district 5 goes all the way to golden gate park and into the border, that -- i would rather see masonic itself with support from district 1 and district 2. i want to make sure we are not

letting these horrible scars throughout their neighborhood. let's use that to build better streets and better communities and bring people together rather than divide them. thank you for your time. >> good evening. i am here to speak for my professor. he is a man who lives in district 1. he sent me here today because he does not want them handling the -- district 1. the asian population is not going to have their voice in district 1. that is it. >> thank you. >> you're welcome. chairman mcdonnell: the last two

named trade is there anyone else to offer public comment tonight? >> the evening. -- good evening. i am resident of district 5 and i am here to echo the comments previously with respect to keeping the area in district 5. is the committee's interest and i think this last-minute change was televised. thank you. chairman mcdonnell: thank you very much. >> good evening. i am a candidate for district 5 supervisor. i hear that the current lines of moving -- i should be here thinking of for that but instead, i am looking at the bigger picture. the north has worked really hard

to make changes in the neighborhood. we have experienced a huge drop in crime and quality of life that has brought a lot of people together. we have great restaurants, we have a great community, we have a number of people who are actively involved and making a difference. i notice that one of the things in the list of factors to take into consideration are recognizing geographical boundaries, keeping distinct neighborhoods is one of the things tree that is one of the goals of this task force. spot in this neighborhood, it does not take that into consideration. i am here to ask that that be taken into consideration and especially with one more meeting left to go. i know there is a number of changes back and forth but the reality is district 5 is like no other. we have so many different kinds of people, so many great places,

and will want to stay together. i understand changes need to be made but please, keep in mind that we have neighborhoods that should not be torn apart. thank you. chairman mcdonnell: thank you. is there anyone else who did not have the opportunity to sign up and wish to share public comment tonight? ok. thank you so much. we will close public comment at this time and began deliberations among task force members to consider potential changes to the current draft maps. i will say thank you to everyone who is in the room tonight. everyone who has submitted oral and written testimony. we do value all and put an want to -- we want to consider.

task force members, as we engage in this discussion tonight, and how both comments for context where we should directionally try to go. first that we will break from the discussion of -- [inaudible] the rest are population related proposals. i will go through a short list of some we identified in our last meeting as well as those who have come out at several meetings of public comment and e-mail submissions for it the second point of the map, discussing will put this on other proposals and we will do that. with all that, i would like it to be the goal tonight to land on as final and a draft as possible. the only reason i say as possible because it is not final

until april 14 when we are done. i would like us to land tonight on a map that if our filing -- final offer is subject to public comment and put on a 14. with that, let me share just a few, a short list of potential population related discussions to be held and certainly again, walking -- welcoming proposals. they are russian hill and that discussion of the border, and discussion of -- we had the last meeting related to the northern border and i am not advocating.

i am higher with a special wisconsin. that includes the scheurer us -- short list. are there other items for consideration to be added to the list? actually if we're going to talk about the -- would have to find another community at similar size. hence the domino go straight to the russian hill line. they're all interconnected. if we could -- if we have to do we have to do it in that order. nopa, anda vista, russian hill. chairman mcdonnell: are you done? we will come back to you.

>> in response to some of the speakers'testimony, i do not know if it is possible. if we could look at the filipino population in two areas, in the ting lee cayuga which removed on monday evening and the other is the no. mission. it is hard for me to read the map because the shading on this version that one of the speaker is distributed is pretty subtle but if it is possible to clarify the concentration of the filipino community in those areas. one is the blocks north of northeast of ting lee and the northern part of cayuga that we move from -- moved from d 11 to

d 8. and from 14th street -- one of the speaker said 15th street. up to the freeway. commissioner leigmilar: in connection with -- if possible looking at the panhandle issue that has been presented is to look at california lake, that area to move some of those blocks from district two to district 1 to balance that out and that was put us into district two to look at the russian hill issue. if we're looking at the populations of the areas that member lee has mentioned, you

have to look at all the -- the other populations, not just the filipino community. >> when you say all of them, i know what the word all means. commissioner melara: a problem numbers. -- >> this is related to changes we have just made. could we look at all populations, like even the filipino community. is your request about relative to what changed? >> we were not supposed to be looking at these issues from an ethnic, racial perspective but communities of interest and there are other communities of interest in those two areas.

and in order for us to look at this community, we need to look at other communities as well to make sure we do not dilute other communities if we were going to make any changes. >> your request for information or assessment of that is what? in a specific way that we can ask commercial as this data? he said show was all -- show us all. quex in those two areas -- >> in those two areas so we have a comparison. chairman mcdonnell: thank you. >commissioner leighlam: i am interested -- as well as the

last move to the ting lee andre. commissioner pilpel: i have a couple of tiny box that do have some population and applications, one of which -- couple of tiny blocks that do have some population areas. at the edge of portola. the more significant areas, south of st. luke's. i would like to look south including the block that was referenced tonight near 27th and duncan. we made be back to the border --

we may be back to the border along silver. if you rotate, you rotate. chairman mcdonnell: restate the last one for me. tbhe 0-19-11 border. i am concerned three is unpopulated. i could consider moving treasure island from 6 to three. chairman mcdonnell: you can have a reaction. it has to be silence -- silent reaction. commissioner schreiber: thank you. the other would be the 49 people

in sea cliff we could consider looking at. commissioner tidwell: the other question i had and this was the district issue was the line between six and 10 on 16th street. i thought that was due to the map, right? >> that was due to the map, we cannot move anything. >> there is the line between six and 10 and the corner of 16th street. >> ok. >> can i ask a clarification question? chairman mcdonnell: it may ask a question with regard to a break. -- you may ask a question with regard to a break. i will hold you hostage to your own question traded depends on,

this just in, paetec at 8 -- pizza at eight. we will break as close to 8:00 p.m. as possible. there is a natural moment there. thank you, madam clerk. we have a full list and complement. i should ask in that federation of proposals. in the categories of non- population areas to visit, the only one i have listed is golden gate park. are there others? commissioner pilpel: i was hoping at some point, time permitting today or saturday that we would walk through the lines quickly and see if there are things on the border of the

consultant has identified, have issues. i do not think that would take too long. there will be a couple of things that come up. the things that jump to mind are the line between nine and 10, 101 bayshore. there are a couple of those little thingies, not significant population issues at all. chairman mcdonnell: they might have some implications. any other non-population considerations? ok, thank you. let me then take us to the most

significant of the list from my perspective. that is treasure island. commissioner pilpel: by concern i am looking some more at the populations and what is off is that eight is too big but we're relatively constrained so that is relatively locked down. three, however, there are three areas that we can still catch, two of which were already referenced which are russian hill and the tenderloin area and the third that occurred to me today, looking at all this carefully is the possibility of treasure island from 6 to 3. it occurred to me the development projects in six are rather significant in terms of workload. with the sea wall locked in 37,

the proposal that came out last week that that will take a considerable amount of time, the transbay terminal, other issues in south beach, mission bay, there is a lot of development there, at least taking the treasure island project and moving that to three might better balance development projects on the east side. i'm wondering if the consultant can identify the population on treasure island and the resulting deviation in three and six and let me think about what that means. >> that is the population of 2880 people. moving it would bring the population of district 3 up 2.74% in the population for district 6, and -3.07%.

chairman mcdonnell: i want to give people time to think about that knowing that will have other implications. it also would allow some further tweaking in russian hill and the tenderloin that other members have expressed great interest in. it was not my preference to do this. i know it is another last-minute thing. is it a proposal? i will so proposed. any discussion before a call the question? >> this is something i would have proposed if we were contemplating large changes we

talked about the portola. this would be one of the things that i would have proposed we would have done to change the portola. at this point it would cost all kinds of major domino effect. i do not know if i am ready to do that. i would rather concentrate on this small tweaking peaces -- pieces. >> this is about contiguity. i understand the concept of water contiguity is possible for us to consider. could we just hear a short recap on the issues of contiguity with respect to treasure island, noting that it is not contiguous with district 3, i imagine it is water contiguous so if we could get a refresher on that quickly.

chairman mcdonnell: sure. ms. mcdonald. >> we look at this question early on and determined the task force is not legally prohibited from removing treasure island to district 3. their arguments is water contiguous. it is an option on the table from the contiguity perspective but you want to have some explanation for why you would do it as contiguous, for you to make that change. >> just to -- based on that, not solely based on that but it is helpful to have that. i sort of agree with member melara with for we are in the process given that -- where we are in the process. it is not in do not think it is

an issue for us to have considered more seriously but hindsight is 20-20 and i think at this point, it is awkward for us to make a proposal to move treasure island into district 3. i do think that in the future, our successors 10 years from now, this does represent to me an intriguing possibility for a future task force to consider as one possibility for moving population to balance out the imbalance that may exist at that time between the southern part of the city and the northern part of the city. i am comfortable leaving it at that and therefore would not support the proposal at this time. commissioner schreiber: thank you. my point of view is starting off with a significant change solely

for the purpose of population -- unless there is an overriding reason to who make the change which donohue -- based on comments. the only testimony we have had consistent with respect to treasure island is the community that shares of with six rather than three. we have heard that from the supervisor and other community organizations. i would not supported at this time if it becomes necessary to change to achieve some overriding goal with respect to neighborhoods we're trying to keep together. i might put it on the table at this point. chairman mcdonnell: thank you very much.

>> i do not think i would entertain moving treasure island to district 3. i seem to recall testimony that treasure island residents to share services with district 6 and right now, i do not think there is a relationship with treasure island residents with district 3. i would have entertained this if we were going to seriously discuss a move of portola to district 10, that would have been a possibility. i thought we agreed last week or last monday, whenever the last meeting was, that we were going to focus on the tweaks and the smaller moves. this is i think a major move. i would not support it. chairman mcdonnell: thank you. anyone else? as we have done with each proposal -- are we done with each proposal? commissioner tidwell: no.

mr. schreiber, no. ms. mondejar, no. ms. melara, no, mr. leigh, no. mr. alonso, no. chairman mcdonnell: are you prepared to have us look at some population data information? >> yes. chairman mcdonnell: but go to the population data on north mission and 14th street, what ever is easier for you to get to. >> we do not have filipino population. what we do have is the major population groups that are reported in the senses. we have latino and asians but not sub groups such as the appeals -- filipinos or koreans or chinese within this group. >> we can look at the latino or asian trade we have surname

matched -- we can look at the latino or asian. we have surname matched filipino. which one would like to see first? which population group? chairman mcdonnell: latino. >> as you can see this as percent latino population. the darker the color, the higher the population. this is the area around cayuga. cayuga is right here and you

see the district boundary in black. chairman mcdonnell: i will start with you with any questions related to the data she sharing. >> this is the present latino population. the black line is that andrea. the darker the red, the higher the latino published -- personages by block. this street here in the center is cayuga and to have the 280 freeway -- you have the 280 freeway right here. chairman mcdonnell: any questions relevant to this data? >> what is the darkest blocke? >> it is 50% to 75% latino.

chairman mcdonnell: any other questions related to this data? ok. >> what is the total population [inaudible] >> just one second. >> sure. that is the population of 838 people. would you like to hear the deviation? >> yes, please. >> this would be the deviation in their work to go back into 11. -- if it were to go back into 11. the deviation of district 11 would be 6.08% and a deviation

for district 8 would be 2.3%. >> one more time? >> d8, 2.3%. chairman mcdonnell: any other questions related to this data? can we go to the asian data? >> this is percent asian population. the darker the area is shaded, the higher the asian population. this particular area that jamie is pointing over is between 50% and 75%.