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? >> no. >> anything else in criteria section? page three. the continuance of the criteria section. make sure you didn't overlook anything. ok, thank you. moving into page four, section 3. description of redistricting task force process. ms. lam? >> i just wanted to be able to add that the task force had received more than 1,000 written and oral testimony? >> where? >> i'm sorry, second paragraph. page 4. >> sorry, i have the task force of over 1,000 written in oral testimony or public comment. >> i'm sorry, and 300 what? >> [inaudible] >> can you include that in? ok. madam clerk state what you just said. >> to add in over 300 public comments submitted at meetings and member lam with 1,000 emails via the email public comment. >> so do we want to just change it from 1,000 1,300? >> yes. >> good. >> i want you to know that you've been working hard. >> thank you. >> just for clarification, the 00 hours of meeting time that member leigh had raised? >> my suggestion was at the end of the fir

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? >> it's two words, yes. >> i'm not young anymore. >> so ms. tidwell? in the paragraph that begins "the task force was initially allocated -- the middle of the paragraph where it says granted additional funds through the board of supervisors, strike county. it should be city clerk's office. >> take out the whole city clerk's office? >> it wasn't board of supervisors so what's actually correct? >> the city county clerk's office. the money came from the board of supervisors. >> i have a way to streamline that >> that's ok. that's fine. just strike it. you good, ms. tidwell? >> yeah, the only other question i had was on the newspapers. i thought at one point we'd added the african-american numerous. but -- >> ok. anything else from this section? mr. pilpel? >> the printed version that we ha

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 is

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? >> 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, and we will res chairman mcdonnell: we will resume now our mapping discussion. ms. tidwell, are you prepared to make a proposal relative to st. luke area? >> yes, if we could look at that area on the map. it is currently in district nine. if you could help me remember -- the one block? >> not the one block. i did not have a recollection as to having st. luke's in nine . i am not interested in it always having been in nine. i am interested in the public testimony and the reason for it being in nine. >> it is part of the community of interest. it is what was in the boundaries of the recognized neighborhood of the mission district. >> chairman mcdonnell: there wasn't a lot of compelling reasons for or against it. it is one of those institutions that has always been there, and so there wasn't ever a question of moving it. therefore, not a pot of public comment one way or the other -- a lot of public comment one way or the other about moving it or not. >> and if we could also overlay the liberty hill district of the public testimony that has been given. that is further do

ms. tidwell. >> in the board of supervisors convene the redistricting task force. that's where he wants it? >> yes. >> dear lord. >> after that, closed parenthesis by legislation adopted by july blank 2011 go back to where it was to carry out required redistricting. no other changes. >> you good 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 --

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'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%.

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.

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.

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

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 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

. >> 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'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. 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.

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

. >> 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?