district 11. we have parker amazon, excelsior. any additions? >> mission terrace, there it is. mr. mcdonnell: any other additions? >> i want to ask the consultants, it is the filipino community corridor and recognize that could? -- is that a recognized neighborhood? >> could you repeat that? >> my question is, is the filipino community corridor on mission street recognized

neighborhood? i think there was a map submitted that was called the filipino corridor. >> i don't think we have that on our list of recognized -- of our list of submitted neighborhoods. >> yes, we did, it was submitted. ms. tidwell: i guess it was not clear to us at that time. >> i am trying to get to the member proposal. >> i'm sorry, what did you say? >> it was not clear to us that was a neighborhood a proposal, so we did not digitize it. >> so, how are we -- how can we

resolve that? >> is it a neighborhood or more properly a committee of interest? >> i thought it was a neighborhood, the way the map was submitted, but i realize that was not digitized. >> so, yeah, do you have the map with you? >> i do. give me a few minutes, though. mr. mcdonnell: we can't want to hurry up and slow down at the same time. it does not work that way. for the purposes of ms. tidwell

and the edits that need to be made, there is the adding of the individual member submissions as agreed upon in to the lessons and recommendations section. there is one area of editing. there is also the editing that member pilpel has to do with respect to district 7 that has to happen during the break, as well as -- sorry, there was a third piece to handle during the break. yes? >> we do have numbers on the dates the task force was convened. it was checked, the population variation numbers. we could make this at its during the break. mr. mcdonnell: okay, excellent. is there anything else to add during the break? >> just on the website.

>> perhaps any edits that are made could be made in red so that can be easily seen. mr. mcdonnell: ok. by that clock, 20 after, thank you. public comment was the proposal that we adopted, and contract with public entities was a member mon dejar's section. member pilpel's was just cut and paste, and then we still have the appendices, which i don't think we have really gotten to. mr. mcdonnell: stay there for just a moment. so we have indicated we will have the final map.

the district descriptions, the individual district maps. there was something else. >> the final map, district descriptions, district statistics. mr. mcdonnell: yeah, that word, statistics. >> caskey timing question? mr. mcdonnell: yes. >> some of these pieces will take some time to prepare, but i assume the task force will want

to publish immediately. would it be possible to add a note saying, "to be added"? mr. mcdonnell: yes. >> and then we will replace it. mr. pilpel: or along those lines, could we allow the publication of an executive summary when all of these pieces exist, so the map itself is available immediately, and as these pieces are assembled in the next couple days, then the final report will then exist? mr. mcdonnell: i don't think she was referring to the final map. but the final map will take time. mr. pilpel: all right. mr. mcdonnell: ok. with respect to the report -- >> yes, on the list of appendices, we're going to include the statistics and the

community newspaper advertisements? mr. mcdonnell: yes. >> ok. >> man asked the question considering the district descriptions? mr. mcdonnell: what we were referring to, i believe they were separate, but the description to have done as we have completed each of the draft maps. >> i see, thank you. mr. mcdonnell: okay, any other additions to the appendices? >> i asked if that is duplicative? >> needs and bounce our defense from the district descriptions. they will take about eight, 10 hours. little description as a rough

summer rates so that people can follow along. we have the district descriptions, and those are already on the website. i'm not sure if you wanted us to do district descriptions before those are completed. there are more formal. -- they are mor formal. >> when i spoke with john, he indicated before the actual final map, he would have to work with the consultant. since they are waiting for precincts and such, he was indicating a final product would not be available for about a month or more. maybe just the final draft map, where we are doing it now with descriptions? like, monday? >> i think he might be talking

about something different. they're starting to precinct monday, based on our lines, and then they're making allies available five years. they're getting a final map. >> right, he was indicating by the time -- it would take a month, but i could talk to him about that. >> will have a final map for taskforce purposes at the end of this meeting. but elections will not publish its map with the new district until -- >> right, and we will also have it on the web. mr. mcdonnell: sure, thank you. >> clarification of statistics? what will that cover again? mr. pilpel: i think i raised the question in this meeting. i'm not sure what is possible, but what i was referring to was

that the statistics that were shown in the 2000 redrawing, that describes some of it. for each district, the population, the deviation from the mean, expressed in numbers as well as percentage, statistics around out race and ethnicity, voting age population, and the like. those were included in the last redistricting task force report. anything along those lines would be helpful, to the extent possible, to include and summarize the analysis from what we have done. at mr. mcdonnell: okay. any other questions? and that is doable? >> no problem at all. we do have one question. we will create some maps that show the old and new boundaries, and we're also going

to make some and brutalized -- some individualized district maps, and we want to know what you would like to see on those maps. this goes directly to what kinds of data you would like to present or you think is useful. for example, total population deviation, maybe a couple of other things on there. if you like to give feedback on what you like to see in the bos 6xoxes, basically. mr. mcdonnell: when you say this? >> voting age population, race and ethnicity, the other data that we could draw from. we have not done that so far, so i'm assuming you probably do not want that at this point.

it could make it crowd, but we just want to ask. mr. pilpel: if i may? for my purposes, again, just the format that was used in the 2000 report as a baseline would be great. for the maps, it was just the maps themselves for each district, sort of a zoom-in that showed each district, and then the tables with the statistics were separate. if that much could be done, i think that would be sufficient. >> ok, so we did not put the data up on, we just put the district, and the data is in the appendix. >> what about population? district 1, this is the population? >> i think all of that information would be in the tables. i will share this with you.

>> do we want to clarify what should be included in the table? i don't know if anyone wants me to clarify what should be in that table or if i should just leave that? mr. mcdonnell: i would just mirror the 2000 report, and for purposes of the individual districts, continuation have done. -- continue as you have done. >> could you switch to this map mr. mcdonnell: one second? : i'm sang continue what you have done. -- could use which to this map for a second? mr. mcdonnell: i am saying continued as you have done. >> it is a nice way of showing that. >> we actually did a prototype.

if one of you would like to look at that later. >> ok, it looks pretty. >> with the old maps/new map comparisons, with this be included in the appendix? >> and pictures? mr. mcdonnell: yes. our photos should be each of our respective districts, as a pop out. >> perfect. [laughter] we will work on that. mr. mcdonnell: okay, in terms of the final report, we are now entering the information, is there anything else that we need to consider? with respect to the final report? we're going to insert our final vote, retroactively, obviously.

sorry, let me interrupt for just a second. ms. tidwell: mr. mcdonnell: i mcdonnell: no, i know that you are pulling district 7. what else do you need? >> other than the vote, no. mr. mcdonnell: okay, excellent. ms. leigh? is there, for purposes of approving the final report, should we now go back to item 4, approve the map, come back and insert date, then approve the final report? ms. leigh: that would be my recommendation. mr. mcdonnell: thank you very

much. >> the park is reminding you that you should take a final comment before we do this. mr. mcdonnell: yes. >> and i believe before you vote on the final map, you have any proposals that you did? just for meeting purposes -- mr. mcdonnell: we're going to go back in just a moment to item 4. but i want to both have member leigh -- to make sure we have answered everything we need to come up with regard to the final report.

ok, ms. tidwell? ms. tidwell: yes, sir, i need to make one more slight change, but you can proceed. i'm listening. mr. mcdonnell: actually, i'm going to invite you back up here. ms. tidwell: okay, i'm sorry. >> can i ask a question, meantime? since i had to write during the break, what about any changes? it mr. mcdonnell: i'm not sure. what do you propose? to make non substantive changes in their discretion mr. mcdonnell: okay, any

discussion? done. >> thank you. >> were we going to put a logo on it with the names and cover letter. mr. mcdonnell: what do you propose? >> i would propose a short-term letter from the mayor to the board -- from the board to the mayor, either sing this is the report, or have that being the intruder -- not the intro, but something that looks relatively official, we are doing a thing here. mr. mcdonnell: done. ms. tidwell?

ms. tidwell: yeah, and good after i make this one on it. mr. mcdonnell: we will not include this item. all right, for purposes of the agenda, we're going back to item number 4, mapping, for purposes of a final review and approval

of the final map. if we could switched the view to the final map, that would be helpful. ms. tidwell: i think i hit save the can. >> i was going to say, did you hit safe? [laughter] >> that would be horrible. will be here until midnight. mr. mcdonnell: ok, there will be a time of statement. >> chair? may i point out that the boxes in the districts currently do not reflect the three digits we

talked about. we will do that in the pdf. mr. mcdonnell: perfect, thank you. questions. >> there was some question earlier about the island. we need to do anything formally about that? >> the consultant can tell you briefly the non-population changes they made. >> there are two issues. one is we have over laded the district's again. that resulted in a zero population change. but like to tell you what they are. the first is between district 7 and 4, this change was made to align the supervisor reallline,

specifically on the boulevard, we moved the median to 41st avenue from disparate 4 to district 7. the second change was on the border between districts 7 and 11. in this case, we aligned the supervisor district line, moving from the 280 eastern most lane to the 280 western most lane. we move that from district 11 to district 7, and we also included the whole median of the geneva underpass, from d 11 to d 7. and again, this was a zero population change.

we then ran various checks, including a continuity check on the planned area, verified the plans, and we had two results on the continuity check. when we had zero population non contiguous area, and that is the area over here. that is a 0 population, nine contiguous area, because it was initially connected to district 6, and we moved out to district 10, because there is a census block that was otherwise cut off from district 6. that was done. .

the other continuity check, we just wanted to verify that you wanted to parallel the islands in district 4. and that concludes our report. everything else came out beautifully, as designed. mr. mcdonnell: excellent, thank you. mr. pilpel: we did not address this earlier, and i'm not sure it bears much discussion, acceleration and deferral. i would note for record outhat anyone in an even number number district will have the effect of accelerating, so they will have voted in 2010 and again in 2012, where is anybody in an odd number district and now at an even number district will not be deferred. although a day of vote. last in 2008 and would have voted in 2012, will not vote again for supervisor until 2014.

i'm not sure it needs anything other than that, but i thought it was worth noting. thanks. mr. mcdonnell: thank you. any other questions? ok, i entertain a motion to approve ithis final draft of the met. >> so moved. mr. mcdonnell: is there a second? >> sure, i'll second. mr. mcdonnell: thank you. ok, just before requesting vote, i would invite as you vote if there is a statement, a brief statement, the top order of word being brief, as you vote. you are not required to, but you are welcome to do so. ms. tidwell: yeah. mr. schreiber: yeah. mr. pilpel: i have a brief

statement. i will keep it brief. this is a collective exercise. i thought a lot this afternoon as we went through this whether to support it. i am choosing to support it. i would not have made all of these choices, but we worked as a group, and we worked through a lot of disagreements among speech other, respectfully. i would note and want to continue to call attention to the disparity in voter registration that results from under populating 3 and overpopulating 8. it appears to me that there will be roughly 35,000 voters registered in three, compared with eight, so a vote in district 3 4 supervisor will matter more than an individual vote for supervisor in district

8. i understand that some disparity will exist. i am concerned we have increased the level of disparity from what it was under the prior plan. that concerns me. otherwise, i can live with the differences in the plan, and thus i cast my vote to support. thank you. ms. mondejar: my vote is yes. i just want to say this is a collective process. it was difficult, we had some disagreements. it is not perfect, but i want to thank my colleagues for working together and coming together for the map. mr. mcdonnell: thank you. mr. alonso: i am going to say yes, and real quick, it was a pleasure working with all of you, and hopefully i never have to work with you in this capacity again. [laughter] mr. alonso: but in the end, we

pretty much brought the best out of the city as we could. thank you. >> i vote in support of the map. i also really want to thank everybody for working together on this, and it has been a pleasure to work with everybody. i personally feel like i learned a great deal about the city, which is what i will take the most value from a personal level forever, really. i want to thank, in that regard, the staff, the consultants, the district attorneys that have worked with us. they have been a tremendous resource to us. i also think everybody in the community. i am amazed summon people have spent so much time, whether in our meetings or submitting it public comment or facebook, or what have you, it has been a very rich and critical source of information for all of us.

i admire the dedication of everyone who has committed the time. ms. melara: i also want to thank everyone who supported us in this process, and all disagreements and agreements that we had, it was a lot of fun. the long nights or not a lot of fun, but i want to say yes outo the map. in the interest of collaboration. i want to say again, in district 10, i will come back in 10 years just for that purpose. so hopefully i will be alive when i come back. but other than that, i think we did a great job. mr. mcdonnell: thank you. ms. lam: i am voting in support of our map, at what to think of the task force and the