>> what's your vote? >> i've stated my point of view. i would include it except for the last snefpblets that's it. -- sentence. that's it. >> mr. schreiber? >> yes, on balance, yes. >> 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 letter or if they remain as individual insertions. ms. lam: full body. ms. melara: no, because i think it is included in the body. mr. mcdonnell: thank you. mr. leigh: yes. mr. alonso: no. ms. tidwell: yes. >> i was going to make the same observation. parts of this are already there. it is augmenting it a little bit to get what is not there included. mr. pilpel: if we are not able to edit, i would not include it in this way. mr. mcdonnell: ok. thank you. ms. mondejar: included in the body of the report.

maybe at the last sentence. -- edit the last sentence. mr. mcdonnell: your response but the break for editing. ok. thank you. on mr. pilpel's? everyone take a moment to read this suggestion.

>> the question you're going to call is all or nothing? mr. mcdonnell: that is correct. mr. pilpel: -- mr. schreiber: no. ms. mondejar: the question is to

include it all or not? um -- yes. ms. lam: no. ms. melara: no, because most of it is already included in the report and some of the things that were not, i think we did not vote on them. mr. leigh: i am going to say yes. on the whole, i think it is fine. i appreciate member pilpel's attempts to respond to the issues we had. ms. tidwell: no. mr. mcdonnell: ok. it will remain in the individual section. ok. at the break on this section, mrs. mondejar will edit and give

to ms. tidwell. the addition will be at tit -- added to lessons learned and recommendations. ms. tidwell: clarification. where do we want -- we want to include this at the end of the current submissions so we have lessons learned from the task force as part 6 and 7 as individual recommendations? ok. >> i was motioning to her that i have this in a separate document. i can do cutting and pasting for suggestions as to how we can blend the two. mr. mcdonnell: ok. very good. was there anything else that you needed for --

the district considerations? ms. tidwell: just a district 7. mr. mcdonnell: ok. all right. that takes us to section 5. and the -- yes? >> can i propose some introductory language for the very beginning, to make clear what the findings are? i would propose something along the lines of, seven districts-1, 3, 5, 8, 9, and 11. mr. mcdonnell: ok. >> have population deviations between 1% and 5% of the

statistical mean. these deviations were necessary to keep recognize neighborhoods intact in those districts and surrounding areas. >> [inaudible] [laughter] >> i can believe -- delete. mr. mcdonnell: ok. mr. alonso: we did miss one

thing for section 4. on district 9, we did put it north of the park in district 9. mr. mcdonnell: that is a point of fact. >> you're talking about district considerations. >> it is in the 11 write-up. are we putting them in twice? >> across all of them, we had -- >> my point is there is a bunch of redundancy. everything should show up in five. if it is stated once, the point

is captured. are you satisfied -- >> it even says mclaren park south. it would make sense for the reader that mclaren park north would be included in the section. mr. mcdonnell: ok. sure. >> the web would resolve that is to put the text in the district where it ended up. that is just the way i would do it. mr. mcdonnell: thank you. we are resolved. ok. with that intro the city attorney just offered, what follows is -- how would you say it in court?

>> exhibit a. mr. mcdonnell: recognized neighborhoods. that goes tehre as -- there as a replacement. the intro to those sections is correct. district 1 and the deviation. district to come a deviation. that is probably a break. >> you're suggesting that? the neighbors are listed on exhibit a? mr. mcdonnell: i was being facetious, but thank you for being literal in your interpretation. now, where district 1 and the

deviation, the bullets then get replaced with -- >> can we do a recap of where we are? then we can go back and fix the neighborhoods. >> you lost me. >> the percentages for each district. mr. mcdonnell: ok. >> 3 digits? >> i will clean up while we wait. mr. mcdonnell: hold on one second. we are being corrected. >> a want to make sure we're all on the same page. we will replace this list with what is prepared by the consultant and the task force will review those neighborhoods. mr. mcdonnell: that is correct. >> thank you.

>> can i clarify something very quickly? mr. mcdonnell: there is no such thing as very quickly in this process. go ahead. >> west of twin peaks submission here, what we submitted was the planning neighborhood. it was not the council neighborhood boundaries. what is on here is actually correct. mr. mcdonnell: thank you. do you have an electronic document? ms. tidwell: it is a subset of what i included. maybe just for purposes of, we can move district by district.

mr. mcdonnell: ok. we will get that information and insert that. can we move to section 6? anything else in section 5? we are going to insert -- we are going to insert the neighborhoods into this section of section 5 under each district with the deviation. comment? discussion?

>> in section 5, that will only include those seven districts that are -- >> we decided to do the mall. >> ok. the header will appropriately reflect where districts deviate more than 1%, but we will list all 11 of them in this section. is that what you're saying? mr. mcdonnell: that is. ms. lam: will -- mr. pilpel: will we edit this after the break? it is our findings as to what constitutes the neighborhood. mr. mcdonnell: you just agreed on something. i have no idea what you agreed upon. ms. tidwell: what the task force

lists are the task force's findings. mr. mcdonnell: what is there to correct? mr. pilpel: in district 1, we might continue to use the reference to the outer richmond, in a richmond, as opposed to the -- the doe'[s richmond district. i don't know that we need to make specific reference to doe in this section. ms. tidwell: can i make a suggestion that we clarify that i write down the deviations' currently in these districts, and then we can work on incorporating the other comments that we decided to do? we will come back with a final draft before we get to this. i will e-mail it and then i can

include it. give me some time to draft. >> as and give you time to make the draft? >> the rest of the needs 10 minutes to include and create a more final draft before we get to the question of what should go in each district. mr. mcdonnell: ok. let me suggest this as a weekend fully utilize the break for all the editing we need to do. there is another question that memberpilpel is raising. we will need to visit that. we have two sets of information. we have what is in the draft, and we have what is on the one- page that the consultants provided. member pilel is suggesting

-- pilpel is suggesting we go district by district. mr. pilpel: in general, i like the language that was proposed. outer richmond, in a richmond -- inener richmond. >> to preserve? mr. mcdonnell: in addition to or replacing -- mr. pilpel: i am generally not with the language they provided. i think it is less hopeful. i think this language is better. mr. mcdonnell: we will go district by district. the proposal is to utilize --

the district is described on the bottom of page 8. mr. alonso: yes. mr. leigh: yes. ms. melara: yes. ms. mondejar: yes. mr. schreiber: yes. ms. tidwell: yes. ms. lam: yes. mr. mcdonnell: thank you. all right. district 2. oh, -- mr. pilpel: oh, can we also have them not avoided --

voided -- mr. mcdonnell: please keep going. >> can we separate and jordan park from the village? mr. mcdonnell: the proposal is to keep -- i will refer to it as the consultant draft. >> i am sorry. no. mr. mcdonnell: hold on. the proposal is to use the consultant language of district 2. mr. alonso: yes. mr. leigh: yes. ms. melara: yes.

ms. mondejar: yes. ms. lam: yes. mr. pilpel: no. mr. schreiber: yes. ms. tidwell: yes. sure. do i leave it in the paris laugh -- paragraph form? mr. mcdonnell: be consistent and line it up. ok. moving into district 3. ms. tidwell: i am just cutting and pasting the consultants on the bottom. mr. mcdonnell: yes. in district 1, we did not use consultant. mr. pilpel: couple of things i am confused about now. if we are using the consultant language, i think this is two words. i do not know about keeping the parentheticals, and we receive

somewhat different testimony about russian hill. i'm not sure we are saying we kept it together in district 2. ms. tidwell: that was part of my note-jotting-down. i was quickly taking notes when i put neighborhoods into a district. russian hill came from a prior notes, which was rejected. mr. pilpel: ok. >> for district 3, that is the publicly-submitted boundary for the russian hill community association, not for the russian hill neighborhood as a whole.

>> so the task force is aware, there is a conservative approach, which would be only listing those neighborhoods where you have a specific public map where it matches the department of elections. there is a less conservative approach, which is if you're confident you have public testimony to tell you that central richmond is the neighborhood, you can list it. i wanted to have that out there. mr. mcdonnell: ok. we will go back to the consultants one more time so we can appreciate what we're looking at. what exactly are we looking at? >> when i compiled this list of neighborhoods, i looked at each district and looked through the list of publicly submitted neighborhood boundaries. i also looked at the planning neighborhood boundaries, and also looked at the department of elections boundaries. in any case where any of these neighborhoods were intact in the

district, then those names made it onto this list. >> can i add clarity around my list? mr. mcdonnell: you don't have to. >> at 11:30 at night, i drafted neighborhoods, glancing at the map and sort of generally guessing. for instance, central richmond, as somebody lives in that area, i suggested those. i do think there is a slight difference as opposed to the richmond. just want to clarify that. >> one last note on what i submitted. if there is no parentheses with a note at the end, it is just the neighborhood boundaries, unless otherwise noted. mr. mcdonnell: is everybody

clear on what we're looking at? mr. schreiber: i just had a suggestion that to the extent we use the consultants list rather than ms. tidwell's, that we remove the parent pedicles -- parentheticals for consistency. there will not be some in some districts but not others. mr. mcdonnell: a of the purpose of the parenthetical thoughts was for definition purposes. >> there are findings as to neighborhoods. mr. mcdonnell: jamie? the inclusion of the parentheticals were for what

purpose? >> for task force member reference. mr. mcdonnell: the proposal is to remove them and move forward in utilizing the consultants submission of the neighborhood descriptions. that is the question on the table. i am broadening the question so we do not necessarily need to go district by district, unless someone feels the need to go district by district. is there anyone who feels the need to go district by district? mr. pilpel: i don't feel the need except that i like the approach, which captures more areas more specifically than the consultant. that is why we generally go with her language. mr. mcdonnell: we will go district by district. district to we did. -- district 2 we did.

let's take that vote. here is the vote. whether to go all in with each of the districts as described by the consultants with the exclusion of the parentheses for the purposes of the task force. ms. lam: is your recommendation that only the consultants get highlighted, or just incorporated into the list before us? mr. schreiber: my proposal was that when we use the consultant list of a neighborhood, we do not include the parentheses when we do so. ms. lam: thank you. mr. mcdonnell: as everyone clear on the question before us?

we have submitted descriptions of the districts submitted by the consultants. the question before us, a, remove the parenthetical statements from the description, and b, utilize this list of neighborhood descriptions with the exception of district 1, which you already voted to do differently, as the information that will fill this section. 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