have stepped through the public submission. then we have gone to planning or elections. so most of your neighborhoods are probably in line with the public submissions if you overlay the same neighborhoods by the department of elections it will not matter because they are there for different purposes. you may see their pieces outside of your lines even though they've conform to the submissions. >> for the purpose of this discussion, if that is true, and nothing is true, because depending on what you overlay, it is inconsistent with something. so how we choose a standard, a guide post that is accepted? otherwise, everything is debatable. >> maybe it helps to think about it is making two findings. one are making a finding of what is a recognized neighborhood and the second that you are preserving their recognized

neighborhood. so the recognized neighborhood is for this purpose whatever you say it is. that could be based on public testimony or based on the department of elections or planning a you are making a finding in saying that this is a recognized neighborhood and we have preserved it. >> and so what i was trying to get to was enlisting the aid of a consultant to can take a look at what we have done and at least come up with a preliminary listing, i'm afraid to use recognized neighborhoods note -- but a list of recognize neighborhoods that we can then review and determine whether they get included or not. >> but that is why i was saying that perhaps what we only need to say is why we did what we did. in some cases, it is very clear why some things got where they did. you know, we decided to reunite the northern mission because the mission is a recognized neighborhood. but if we start, what i am saying is that a lot of what we

did was not necessarily for every neighborhood. we did it for specific neighborhoods and for specific reasons. and so if we just did that, that would be, i think -- because you are explaining why we did what we did. russian hill is a neighborhood, the tenderloin is the neighborhood. that is something that we did and debated over, and we don't necessarily have to talk about union square. do you know what i'm saying? >> i do. and i was trying to get us to having a list to review and decide what is in or not. >> can i make a suggestion? do you have the public, and later of neighborhoods, a public submissions. so it is probably worth them generating a list of of, within the current context of our draft map, whether what recognized

neighborhoods based on public submissions are found within the current draft map. >> is that doable? >> by when? >> saturday. >> 6 a.m.? by end of day friday? >> yeah. >> ok. >> mr. pilpel and mr. alonso. >> i would not want to limit it to public submissions because i do not think we got to missions for the entire city. and there may be instances where there are disputes between different organizations and difference of metals. i would say in general if the consultant believes, and this is a judgment call. i do not think this section of the report is as objective as

one might want it to be carried i think it actually comes back to us and our subjective judgment as to what is a recognized neighborhood. i think we would probably find as a group that we brought the portila together and put it in 9. i'm not sure if the entire area tracks 100% to a public submission, the department of elections or city planning, but i think we can still make the finding reasonably that we brought the portila together and put it in 9. what i'm hoping for is that the consulting can look at what was done and say these, we feel very comfortable and recommending that you find and these are some ones where you may need to vote and make that judgment call. because i think all of these are judgments for us to make.

does that make any sense at 12:30 in the morning? >> no. apologies. >> all right. i tried. >> mr. alonso. >> i'm sorry, but somehow i cannot help but feel that we are making this a lot more complicated than it has to be. the bottom line is we were the ones that defined these neighborhoods. and we did based on public testimony, especially after we realized that a lot of the planning maps, a lot of the electoral maps were insufficient. so eventually the neighborhoods are as we did find them. and if we just keep it simple and call what the neighborhood is, what it is by its needs and bounds, i think we would make a

lot more simple for us and for whoever reads at the end of this process. i just really have a hard time believing that we are going to keep going around in circles and circles in circles until we catch our tail. we are not. bottom line is we are making this a lot more complicated than it is. so, however it is the most simplest, let's just. try just >> thank you. council, again, given that there are varied definitions, is there therefore a need to -- let me start over. me. leigh said a moment ago,

part of the challenges -- he gave one random example and said it was nopa. whole or preserved or not. is the idea is that we need to find those that pass the test or that by our definition it is a recognized, and we have preserved it. >> it is the latter. >> ok, therefore, would you please create the list, based upon member tidwelll's public submissions? we recognize that there may be some omissions. we can add. this is a starter list that populates each one. we will have the opportunity to review and add and finalize. >> let me add to this. we know which neighborhoods you use. so if there is a gap between the public submission and whatever you used, we can fill that in and tell you. thank you. >> excellent. ok.

any objection? perfect. thank you very much. and to the last point that ms. melara made. ok, she reference to the conclusion of our meeting on saturday. we will have deliberated over this and other pieces of the final report. and there will be a moment at approximately 12:15 on saturday when we will declare ourselves done. how's that for optimism? but there is of point a which we say we are done and we are able to hand it to you. what what about that does not work in your mind? >> she was suggesting if changes needed to be made that we had a laptop available that we could make the changes. i can see of that can be done, and then a member can be making

changes up there. and i think we would have to check on the wi-fi situation. >> i will bring my laptop and i have a sprint card. >> is that member tidwell? >> that is. anything else, kate, you would need of us? >> i dno'on't think so. >> ok, thank you. mr. pilpel. >> will that be similar to the ballot simplification committee where we are working on line to finish things? >> that is how i am in addition it. >> if that can happen, that can be great. >> there would be a computer and a screen, and as the task force is making changes those that it would be projected on the screen. >> fantastic. >> ok. we have a plan forward. >> i have a question before

saturday. so once it is completed, who delivers it to the department of elections? >> so the line? >> so there are a few pieces. are you talking about the report or the map? the report. so the redistricting consultants will coordinate getting the map to the department of elections. >> great. >> so then the report i think would be you. we can email it to kay. as long as it is e-mail by a certain time, we are fine. >> you can also authorize kay to do final formatting. my contract is of. up. >> 12:15 p.m. on saturdday. 9 going back to the report,

there is the one section that we agreed that will be there that we are a portion. i didn't see it. from a couple of minutes ago, he said that we could take what was in the agenda. we voted on not releasing it. >> what is required, counselor? >> nothing is required. >> thank you. in or out? >> is that a proposal? is there something specific we can talk about. >> you think there is. ms. tidwell. >> i'm not particularly partial to having a sex. on the >> thank you. >> mr. schrieber. i think it is worth a sentence in the objective part of the

report describing what we have published in the manicured >> thank you. >> i think that is exactly what i was going to say, the one sentence of the minutes. >> i think we should have it because it is part of our process and we need to disclose that. >> thank you. mrs. lam. >> just the one sentence description. >> fantastic. mr. leigh. >> i'm fine with including a sentence. >> mr. alonso. >> no. >> on the agenda. so i will make sure a state and gets into the draft. thank you. so the draft that is being worked on between now and friday, will it be possible, assuming there is a draft by close of business friday for

that still to be posted and available for the public to review overnight friday prior to our meeting saturday? >> so, if i may, correct me if i am wrong -- posting as possible. we will post whatever version of the draft is ready to be posted. >> ok. can we, who knows what is going to happen saturday, but could we at least contemplate allowing the public sometime, maybe while we take a break so that if there are further tweaks made on saturday, either on the lines or on the report, that people have a chance to digest and comment? we're not making changes on the fly and that is that without an opportunity for public comment? that is kind of important. >> i will think about that. >> ok, thank. >> clarification. to go back to the districts, who

are right -- are we writing the two parts, the deviation and also the neighborhoods that we decided to include? i guess -- >> the first part of the assignment you have already done. the second part of the assignment we are going to complete with the aid of the consulting. >> ok. and by the way, several of the first assignments have not been completed. >> yes, that is what he stated. yes, yes, but i owe you five and 10 and 3 and 6. >> and i'll resend 1 and 4. >> 1, 6, 7, 5, 10. ok and 11 i have. >> anything else? everybody clear on the path toward?

ok, so again, on the individual assignments, please get them to member melara by end of day tomorrow. >> if i don't get it, i will be passing it on to. >> so whoever has the final, i am bringing a laptop. if your email it to me. >> i can bring it at 6:00. >> ok. public comment on this item? on the item of the final report? this is not general public, and. comment. uh-oh. we're off. th>> i'm a district 6 to president kerry in regards to the report, i wonder if it there was a way to apply data hopefully it is available

towards filling out to see what response there was in the district to the meetings like what participation basically if there was any kind of attendance record so that we could no and the meetings that were the nine districts what the turnout was relative and a different districts and then for the rest of the meetings, i am not sure on the number. it is confusing, but maybe an average of center city, said center turned out so that there is sort of a quantifiable feeling on how successful the participation was in the various super of restorvisorial distric. >> thank you, sir. >> chris bowen, members of the elections task force 1995. you guys is by an hour and 10 minutes. a long this meeting we had was 5.5 hours. so congratulations. you have more stamina than i do.

a couple of just general comments on timing. because the public financing for supervisors, the filing deadline for candidates will be earlier in the future. additionally, you worked backwards or forwards or whatever way you are going. and you go back to signatures of lieu. in many cases, you'll be probably needing, and i agree with member pilpel, you might have to get the report up by march 1 or 15th to provide adequate information because people do not know what district a live-in when they are running. the signatures will not be any good. so the problem is that we have a sense this. the census is not necessarily determine when they will release the information.

this year there were early, last year there were early. it was like early march. it could have been as late as april 1. so we were lucky in that regard. so there was a lot of, the planning department and also the department of elections had their own computerized systems. there were trying to you learn maps. it took them six weeks to recognize the data and a saw and aall 7800 blocks. now 29% are out of balance. there has to be a recommendation to the board and to the mayor and to the elections commission to make this as quick as are allowed under the legislative process you can start earlier. >> thank you, sir. >> commissioners.

as far as the timing and the calendar goes, what would have helped live comment at and my participation in this is if there was some kind of guidance as to whether you are considering a 1% district or a 5% district. all my earlier comments were based on 1% district. and a 5% district solution is a very different thing. my public, it would have been, if i had known you were considering that, it probably could a f unlessulsome. be less fullsume. as far as to is going to be here in 10 years from now, life is for learning. >> thank you, sir. >> tess wellborne. a somewhat tired person. a couple of things on the report.

the list that i see and hear includes a large number of institutions to are by definition nnot neighborhoods. i suggest you find a way to address that one way or another. second, i am curious about leaving out communities of interest. because there are many discussions related to that. i can see advantages and disadvantages to it. but i flag it as a possible sticky wicket, especially because some of them got pretty sensitive. thank you. >> thank you, ma'am. thank you, all, for public comment on i am number4. moving to 5. the number are there any member reports? hearing none, and public comment

on member records? moving to item number six, public comment on items not agenda. i wasn't going to be here tonight, but i decided i probably could not sleep if i did not know the changes you made. the two blocks on halliday plaza that you took out of 6 into 3, no objection to the second block on the eastern half of the western bloc that had over 100 people, that is because the an west sro. thre was an sro. it has organized and assistant tended to live in that building and they have been taken out of district 6. i realize you guys are trying to equalize the populations between district 3 and district 6. if that is your call, there are a lot worse things you could

have done tonight. that is my biggest complaint. if it is possible to put that one block back into district 6 on saturday that would be preferable. thank you. >> thank you, sir. >> i double that. both of those blocks. they are tenderloin blocks. the housing is nothing that too many people would angle for. it should be north of market. don't make the tenderloin part of the nobb hill coal ition. i thought it was within your discretion to keep it within district 6. as it went on, we thought maybe we could limit should the carane to 800 people.

as early as two weeks ago we thought that if you keep everything from leavenworth to van ness, the that would mean1740 residents would go to district 3. coming in here today asking if he could dip below 5%, i do not think that was bargaining in bad faith. >> thank you, sir. >> bradley, district 6. ditto on the previous 2 speakers on holiday plaza. i wanted to comment on the division of a very important neighborhood because it is primarily not a neighborhood of residence but the central business district. market street is not a division but it is an artery through the central business district which has intense residential towers on both sides, high rise and

also renovated. and these are similar on votes sidesanboth side. extending the line into center housing like the paramount, st. regis and four seasons makes sense matching it with the ritz carlton and other renovated housing in the central business district north, like the telephone building and other renovated buildings, the insurance, etc, so that it would extend south of market just in the central district -- is this distant markets between market and howard and excluding the house and along the waterfront keeping in thatsix. but making the central business district one contiguous neighborhood.

[horn] >> that's your 30 second. >> i am concerned too close to the existing districts alliance has underpopulated the western and northern district when districts that have explosive growth, six and 10, 11 are overpopulated for what they will be. we will have the growth there. in six, we had 130% over the other districts and we were very under representative for most of the decade. >> thank you, sir. >> chris bowman, members of the 1995 elections task force. i agree with the chairmen about future growth. many of you do not know that

between 1930 and 1940 during the great depression there was no growth whatsoever in san francisco. it just was dead. who knows? god love us, let's open never get into a 10 year recession or depression. that would happen again. i think the chairman was correct on that. i differ with the previous speakers. i do think that the holiday plaza on both sides is the gateway to the union square business improvement district. you cannot divide institution i f the parmkk is on both side, you unite it. i would ask that you put the hilton, which according to the census has four people, one city block, put it in so you can improve the business improvement district all together.

i agree with the statement about the financial district. the financial district in 1985, it was mr. macrhis did the downtown plan. so the new growth of the financial district of the south of market. market would be coming in 10 years nothing more than a mall. it has no traffic now. they divert traffic at 10th street. it would be a unifying factor not a dividing factor. and i believe if you have 8 those00 people you can reunite the tenderloin to a large extent. thank you. >> thank you, sir. that concludes item 6. moving to cut the number7, future agenda. items i'm sorry. we were required to post are

february 14 for care and post, that agenda is already prepared. so there are no future agenda items. any public comment on future agenda items? >> yes, yes. >> there is no future agenda, sir. but please, we welcome your public comment. >> he has a future agenda. >> that agenda is already created. for posting purposes, not because we did not want input on development. ok. we are item number 8, a chairman. thank you all so much for your time, attention and stamina. we do appreciate it. let's do it again on saturday. 10 a.m. much shorter, yes. thank you so much.

. . . welcome to all the visitors and congratulations to