ms. tidwell? >> i apologize for -- >> sorry, the question are we looking at the individual member submissions and whether there's consensus around them sufficient to include them in the body or keep them as individual submissions and the first one we're visiting is member leigh's. >> i apologize member leevement i will go with the group. >> so it will be included in the body. >> safety concerns in the neighborhood and whether it should be made wholeok. i just wanted to make sure. mr. mcdonnell: it will be included in its entirety. you don't have to do it now. >> going back to district 7 -- mr. mcdonnell: when can you work? during the break. he will get that to you. mr. schreiber: yes. mr. pilpel: pass. ms. lam: the outreach section? mr. mcdonnell: these are lessons learned and recommendations. this is if they go into the body or remain as an individual. ms. lam: can we included in the full body? mr. mcdonnell: all of these are being determined -- considered to determine if they go into the fall le

ms. tidwell: i would ask that we separate the questions. mr. mcdonnell: first question, to remove the parenthetical statements that are included in the consultants description of the neighborhoods. mr. alonso: yes. mr. leigh: yes. ms. melara: yes. ms. lam: yes. ms. mondejar: yes. mr. pilpel: yes. mr. schreiber: yes. ms. tidwell: yes. mr. mcdonnell: thank you. on the second question, using the consultant descriptions as submitted by consultants. mr. alonso: yes. mr. leigh: yes. i have a question. should i ask my question? the question had to do with the description between neighborhoods and institutions. i think this refers to the lead. however the lead-in is phrased, as long as it is consistent with the content with what is indicated for each district. right now, it looks like it is a reference to neighborhoods. i think we need to reconcile that of it to include institutions. >> i encourage you to stick with the recognized neighborhoods language. the purpose of having the findings is to justify going above 1%, which you can only do for recognize

ms. tidwell? >> uh-huh. >> ok, section a, charter provisions. section b, composition of task force? >> i would retitle this task force composition officers and staff and i would re-order the first three sentences in the order that the appointments were made, the elections commission appointed the three named members and i think we can also get those dates. otherwise the rest of -- >> no, no. it has nothing -- >> hold on. >> i'll be the one to lead the debates, please. we could either include the dates or not but i was trying to -- >> two ideas, re-order and add dates. mr. alonso? in or out? >> out. mr. leigh? >> no. >> mr. manned harr? >> no. >> ms. tidwell. >> no. >> ok, next. >> on the recaptioning of the section, i would like toe change the caption because i think it is important to refer to the staff. >> ok, so the proposal is? >> task force composition officers and staff. >> you get that, ms. tidwell? >> uh-huh. >> any snokse moving then. anything else in section b? >> what i took from the la

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

ms. tidwell? >> no. >> ok, next? >> i would add an sentence, the task force received various coverage, including neighborhood blogs and ethnic media. that's not anywhere in here. i think it should be. >> ok, one more time. hold on. ms. tidwell? >> aapologize -- -- apologies. >> that's ok. get ready. >> where am i putting it? >> where are you suggest something >> ok, page 5 just before the task force was initially allocated. >> so the top of the page? >> ok. >> ok? go. >> the task force received considerable media coverage -- >> hold on. >> i'm a lawyer. i'm not good at this. i have it. >> the task force received considerable media coverage in various outlets, including mainstream media, newspapers and blogs and ethnic media. yep. that's it. thank you. >> ok? thank you very much. hold on. ms. tidwell? >> i just had a question. the q.r. facebook and twitter media. what q.r. stands for? >> quick response. >> is it ok if i spell that out or is it just? >> yes, you could do a parens. >> is it two words

ms. tidwell's list. mission bay, south beach, rincon hill, treasure island, filipino community, and the tenderloin just added by ms. melara. >> are we keeping it together in district 6? >> we did not fully achieve that for the mission, either. mr. mcdonnell: we will not include the tenderloin. >> there is a planning department-recognized neighborhood. correct the spelling. replace "n" with "p." mr. pilpel: could i suggest combining those and saying south of market? that seems to be more of a neighborhood that we could recognize. >> they are separate, though. mr. mcdonnell: hold on. we have heard one proposal. i will confirm the spelling. >> no. that is not right. >> no what? >> we are not voting. >> could you repeat the question? mr. mcdonnell: silma -- recognized neighborhood? >> that was a public submission boundary. mr. mcdonnell: what is the first letter? >> p. mr. mcdonnell: ok. it is a p. >> excuse my spelling error. >> that is why we are editing. mr. mcdonnell: ok. again, we have selma, treasure i

ms. tidwell? the general motion. we will get to specifics in a moment. >> i would like to say no, but i would like to consider st. luke's separately. chairman mcdonnell: mr. schreiber? >> i am not ready for this, or maybe ever. chairman mcdonnell: in the interest of moving our decision-making forward, the not-yets don't actually help us. if not-yet if there is a subset of the proposal i would like to consider or if the not-yet means i would like to consider something else, state what the something else. let me start over one more time. ms. tidwell? >> no. chairman mcdonnell: and what you would like to look at? >> st. luke's. chairman mcdonnell: mr. schreiber? >> my answer is still no, but if other task force members present compelling ropes, my vote is no right now. chairman mcdonnell: thank you so much. i am going to marry you off to someone before these are over. ms. mondejar. >> no. chairman mcdonnell: no, never? >> no to this proposal. chairman mcdonnell: thank you. ms. lam, for clarification, the stoney ford for

just before we adjourn, ms tidwell? ms. tidwell: sorry, yes. just on behalf of the task force, i think we were all very grateful that kay decided to come out of retirement to help us. [appluse] we all think she has been very instrumental in the insured its posted, getting us public, as quickly as possible, posting the draft maps, and we really would not have been able to do it, stayingwe appreciate all the hef the people who have supported us, but i think you were really a crucial member to our team. we just want to say thank you. >> i will not be back in ten years. >> one last word then if i may. last kind of prerogative of the chair. again, it's been really a plesh working with each of you as i commented a moment ago there were many who expected this to turn into some kind of political fight of progressives and moderates and everybody in between on opposite sides and it did not materialize because we didn't allow it to materialize. so i really appreciate each of you for that. and again, to kay and -- who was everywhere all the time which was

ms. tidwell? and compare where we land with where we started. commissioner tidwell: i would be supportive. the only change we made was adding one block behind st. luke's yesterday. commissioner schreiber: that would be fine. ms. montaro, ms. lamb. ms. malara. commissioner melara: yes. chairman mcdonnell: ok? all right. we began this part of the discussion with the notion that there were three pieces to be considered, north pantonal and russian hill, north panhandle we decided to make the move and we decided not to make the move. let's go to russian hill, please. >> that is where we wanted to end. chairman mcdonnell: i am restating restarted. the three pieces we needed to start with. we have considered no. panhandle and the third piece of that was russian hill. a different point of view. >> when does the lake st. part [inaudible] >> after russian hill and cathedral hill. is their proposal in that question or just curious where it fits? >> the proposal is to follow-up on questions on adjusting lake st. to balance the district. chairman mcdonnell:

ms. tidwell. i know it is late but we have to get this done. we can labor through it or we can not get it done. the report is the least required of all our work. we do not have to kill ourselves over the report. especially this section. >> the one thing in the report is the findings you make, regarding the justified by% deviation. i urge you to make sure that those get in the report. chair mcdonnell: ok. member tidwell: i am sensing we may not get agreement on what we think the record -- recommendations are. to the extent task members have suggestions, not responding to public comment, the charter amendment, there is can be included under youru! -- so ano suggest. if you have nine, that is a potential way to move forward. i would propose that. chair mcdonnell: mr. schreiber. member schreiber: ok. member lam: yes. member melara: yes, i am fine wiht that. -- with that. chair mcdonnell: the only thing i would ask is that he would title this section appropriately. that these are the recommendations of individuals. as opposed to minority opinions.

. >> miss tidwell, ms. mondejar, and members? >> i do not think is splitting apart in three different districts -- >> i have less concern. this is more of an impact in connection. and the need for the involvement of the supervisor. >> i am not opposed to having its supervisors. i think it makes this very neighborly. >> ms. melara? >> no. after hearing public testimony, i am against it. >> mr. leigh? >> also know. what i remember from public testimony is one or more of the individuals that we heard from that represent parks or that are involved with institutions that are in some ways community shepherds of the park, i believe they expressed support for the eastern part of the parked being shared with district 5, but i do not recall any similar testimony regarding the southern and western part with district four, so as other folks have said come on and going to say no. >> mr. alonso? >> i am going to say no, because even though i live right there, i am going to say that i think two supervisors is more than adequate for the park. th

ms. tidwell? >> i just had a question on holiday plaza. if you could read the boundaries of that. the holiday plaza and cable car turnaround. >> there are 50 people on that? >> i would support putting that in three? >> the deviation is -- >> thank you. mr. schreiber? ms. mondejar? >> can i ask why you are doing this? >> that is the neighborhood. >> there is population there, so note. >> ms. lam? >> however we can add population, so, yes. >> ms. melara, mr. alonso? please make this change. >> point of order, we keep on doing what we are not supposed to do, and we have other items on the agenda, and i would love to do those, because i would like to get it tomorrow and not be tired. if we could move because we are not doing any significant pieces, this is based on the fact that we were told that we were not going to do anything that involved population. i have not proposed anything. and we are following those voters. so i would like as a point of order to either do it or not do it and move on. >> ok, so let's open a population with exchanges, just some people are not tripping over an

ms. tidwell? >> if we want to do the nopa one next. can we did the one block to be consistent? >> that block has a population of 176 people. >> she is just thinking, processing. >> deviation would be 2%. the deviation for district 1 would be -5.23%. >> i would prefer this. >> thank you. again, population of 176. aviation the district 5, 2.0. deviation of district 1, -5.23%. appreciate that there is another move for the late corridor. >> yes. >> yes. >>yes. >> yes. >> yes. >> no. >> yes. >> thank you. please make this change. lake st.. >> if we could start with the block between 25th and 26. >> that block has a population of 331 people bringing the deviation for district 12 - 4.78%, and the deviation of district two two -5.08%. >> can we look at the other side of lake st.? >> can i make one observation? i believe if we reversed our decision about the median strip, i think that what allowed us to stay within 5% and move the 64 people back to d2. we would be finished, i think. >> so proposed. >> i think this is actually two changes together the i am proposing. that we move this bl

ms. tidwell? >> no. chairman mcdonnell: thank you. let's go then back up to doctor sorry, give me one moment, please. let's go back up to north panhandle. mr. alonso? >> yes, let's get the population for the portion that is currently in 2:00-1, south of fulton and east of stan on-- -- stanion. >> that is a population of 2,855 people, to bring the deviation for district five for 3.89% and the deviation for district one to negative 8.01%. >> d-5 one more time? >> 2:00 p 5, 3.8%. chairman mcdonnell: thank you. >> and i would like to see the population of ansa -- vista. >> would you like me to put the neighborhood layer up and just select those census blocks, or would you like the whole chunk here? >> we will start with the neighborhood layer. >> ok. >> i think it is not the northerly blocks. chairman mcdonnell: he is trying to suggest to you what to consider. finish what you are thinking, and then we will give him a chance to offer a counter thought. >> this population is 1,051 people. it would bring the deviation for district one to neg

ms. tidwell's outline of how she wanted us to look at whether we should list all of the district's based on the deviation or not. that is something we still need to talk about. >> we concluded we would do both. >> that is not a point. the point is that, this is something i mentioned earlier today

ms. tidwell's outline of how she wanted us to look at whether we should list all of the district's based on the deviation or not. that is something we still need to talk about. >> we concluded we would do both. >> that is not a point. the point is that, this is something i mentioned earlier today, her question was whether we wanted to include, within that section, remember the sample -- the question is, i think we should concentrate on those that are a deviation larger or less than 1%. we would need to explain. >> we have not finished the outreach section. one element is or should the description of what we did rest in the report and the other is does this document -- >> that is for recommendation. >> this was in response. i wanted to say. >> call don. you will review this and incorporate it into the recommendations. >> i also submitted last week part of the process the outreach we did. i just wanted to say it was sent last week. >> i do not remember. >> it was still about ethnic media outreach where a said i listed the publications that we selected, i indicated the circulation to give a

ms. tidwell put together, most of the neighborhoods were not in question when we made those changes with in those districts. the districts that really came up as part of that change that remade, i'm looking and district 7. we have debated very little except for those neighborhoods around the edges. >> my response would be that the criteria is that we can go to 5% for preserving recognized neighborhoods. i think what it shows is that the goal of our task force to the extent possible. for the sake of moving forward, maybe we wanted to warn them. >> i wanted to add we should not stay communities of interest. >> i am looking at the report from the 2002 redistricting task force. on this point, i thought the way they handled it worked really well. it was elegant. they had two different approaches. they focused on the district that exceeded the 1% between the 1 and 5%. they had two different techniques. one was to identify neighborhoods within the district but they kept intact and which caused a deviation greater than 1%. another approach was to identify neighborhoods in surrounding districts t

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 l

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 pres