that is the this is the area between cesar chavez and south of randall, between mission and san jose avenue. that is just according to the planning. mr. mcdonnell: ok. so we have one neighborhood list aed. anyone else. all right, moving into district

10. again, the note on the consultants listing gets eliminated, but and the reference to san francisco general hospital eliminated, therefore we have silver terrace, this the valley, the or hollywood, bay view heights, bayview, hunters point, the central waterfront, dog patch. jamie, of those, which should be eliminated because we do not have recognized neighborhoods or public submission? >> we did not have visitation, i believe the same is true of bayview hunters point. mr. pilpel: i would still include them. i think we should recognize them. and i think we should still candlestick properly -- we

should spell candlestick properly. >> i don't know if they gave specific boundaries, and is that why it is not recognized? i believe we have kept that as a whole. >> sorry, i believe bayview, hunters point, i was incorrect about that. it should be listed. mr. pilpel: and i think potrero is potrero. mr. mcdonnell: bayview, hunters point is fine. >> it is split according to the the department of elections, the planning neighborhood, as submitted. mr. mcdonnell: it is not included? i'm sorry, let's go back, silver

terrace days in. visitation valley? >> no. mr. mcdonnell: does not stay in. little hollywood? ms. lee? so there is still confusion. be conservative, air on the side of exclusion, which is where i thought the land? >> yes, to all of the above. it is your call to make. it is fine if it is the basis of public testimony, but i would encourage you to err on the side of being conservative. this is not supposed to represent all neighborhoods, it is suppose to be ones where you have to recognize the neighborhoods intact in their entirety. mr. mcdonnell: thank you. mr. pilpel: to that end, i think all of candlestick is in

10, and i would add showplace square. mr. mcdonnell: again, we don't need an exhaustive list. it is actually even under 1%. all of that said, any objection to candlestick? silver terrace, a little hollywood, candlestick, spelled correctly -- mr. pilpel: out include civista valley. sorry. -- i would include at vista valid. sorry. mr. mcdonnell: any objection to the list as presented here? mr. pilpel: yes. mr. mcdonnell: ok. go ahead. mr. pilpel: ok. what are you proposing it is in? mr. mcdonnell: propose what you

want, it does not matter. mr. pilpel: silver terrace, candlestick, the central waterfront/dog patch, showplace square. mr. mcdonnell: any objection? it ms. tidwell: yes. i was attempting to be helpful by adding neighborhoods. with 16th street, i don't think we have included potrero, and the ones we have highlighted with issues. mr. mcdonnell: okay, that is what objection. ok, list them off. one more time. >> silver terrace, a little hollywood, candlestick. ms. tidwell: isn't candlestick -- isn't that an institution? >> i think there is a candlestick neighborhood. ms. tidwell: you think, or there

is? >> ok, we will exclude candlestick. bayview hunters point, potrero hill, and showplace square. ms. tidwell: i don't think -- sorry, what ever. ms. lam: i think there are concerns including potrero hill as an interactive neighborhood. could we show you the map? mr. pilpel: i suggest we just excluded. i will live with that. i have to go at about 45 minutes. >> i had to go about an hour and half ago. i will go another 45 minutes. mr. mcdonnell: ok.

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.

>> and then 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