discussion. our challenges reaching agreement on each of these. more the discussion. disagreement on the recommendations around the process where we seem to be differing on the level of specificity. there is an insurance contract in with consultants and with outreach efforts. there is also the issue of one of the task force is comprised. there are viewpoints on both sides of that. >> i think that is a way to characterize this. those issues ought to be considered by the city family so

that you do not just and up -- end up not having a choice. we have seen in our process and some of the reports we saw from san diego, others have made different choices about it. different ways to structure it. if we say something along the lines that you have just said, that those issues should be thought about earlier on and by appropriate people. >> i make a distinction between recommendations, hiring sooner, whatever it be, and different from a catalog of things to consider as you embark upon the

path of redistricting. i'm saying those are different. all of that said, it sounds like there is a statement to be made in terms of a recommendation. i'm going to go to 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. there may be some constituents. so it is clear what folks are reviewing. member leigh: i think i am ok with this. i'm trying to imagine what it might look like and what it might contain. chair mcdonnell: in general, a volume and two sentences. member leigh: that is part of what i'm grappling with. if it ends up being completely open to whoever wants to contribute what ever thought, it

could end up looking different than our own opinions. if we are all comfortable with that, that is fine. i'm willing to go with it. bring it back and see what it looks like. member alonso: i will see you back here in 2022. chair mcdonnell: 4 lessons learned on recommendation, what we have agreed to do is move forward with each member representing his or her points of view around the lessons learned and recommendations. the section will be subtitled. individual lessons learned and recommendations. they will not be edited other than grammatical. >> even then, they can do their thing. there are some things that we

agree on. whether we want to include those, especially around outreach. there were two things. whether we want to recommend that departments provide data and information to the task force and whether additional time and resources are needed for a plan to do -- to be developed because when they came on, we did not have enough money and then we did not have enough time hiring of consultants we needed. chair mcdonnell: one is around data from city departments. member tidwell: my suggestion would be to the extent there are recommendations, we can do that on saturday.

combine those to what the general recommendation would be. member schreiber: i am ok with ms. melara's suggestion. member pilpel: by it -- i think i am with a member melara but i am also open to do it individually. chair mcdonnell: from her point of view, there are two areas we have agreement on. two ideas -- one around city departments and data, the other more time around the outreach plan. member schreiber: yes, i am with that.

>> i also submitted something. chair mcdonnell: we are not on community outreach. we are on city departments. we're going to come to outreach. member lam: i think it is important to have a reflection recommendation on how departments can be considered or incorporated for the task force. member leigh: yes. member alonso: yes. chair mcdonnell: she will craft a recommendation. the second one is around time to plan, time and resources, to plan for outreach. it is not properly stated? >> that is very prompt --

broad. member tidwell: i would suggest note to additional time but it should be considered earlier on in the process. chair mcdonnell: ok. member schreiber: yes. it should be considered for the task force -- before the task forces established. member pilpel: yes. member lam: yes. member leigh: yes. member alonso: yes. chair mcdonnell: those two. ms. melara will craft. >> for the process, i know that i will be the first draft tomorrow -- i will have the first draft mark. when we are still getting

together, this will be the last time we're going to meet. we should still have a computer available to make changes. i do not know what you're going to do with that. chair mcdonnell: think about that for a moment. i will last a few of any recommendations in that regard. hold that for a moment. the other piece of the report we need to consider, thank you for an initial draft. >> are we going past community outreach or are we leaving that out? chair mcdonnell: everything else, we will do individually.

>> i would make section 5 of the report with their reasons for increasing deviation. chair mcdonnell: did you have a point of view on where? ok. what you have is an initial first pass on the justification for the deviation. the requirement, and get ready because this may or may not be read correct, this is the requirement is that we offer this for plus or minus 1%. not necessarily for all of them. yes or no? >> yes.

>> that would be great. if you could send me a revised version. >> who is sending it to me? >chair mcdonnell: we can list them all. we are only required those better over plus or minus 1%. >> can i give more background on how i drafted this? chair mcdonnell: in a moment. to the first question, all or that which is above or below 1%? >> the requirement is you have to explain, identified the neighborhoods that explain the deviations. those might be inside or outside of the district in which there is a deviation.

>> does that change whether we list them all or not? >> it could. my impression was based on a feedback we needed to do that. instead of suggesting, because there is a ripple effect, instead of saying district 1 espies - 1, and here are the neighborhoods that we have preserved and we have preserved x. r. cotter was more beneficial to preserve -- if you are in district 1 and you do to -- tan other neighborhoods, that would be the implication as opposed to saying, so it was a more clear picture, recognizing neighborhoods.

>> does that satisfy? >> yes. >> her approach is similar to how the san diego commission reported their findings. that was my thinking that that is how it would be incorporated into our reports, in section 4. my question is, if we are to agree to this type of format for adoption, how does that differ -- defer into that final map? am i making any sense? member melara: you are right. it would seem redundant to if we are going to include both.

i would rather include the deviations. at the same time, i would point to one thing, what 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 that they wanted to keep intact and had an impact on the district in question. i can pass this down the table and see what people think but i thought that was a pretty effective way of identifying the motivation that would not be redundant with the other sections of our report. that is what i would suggest we do.

member schreiber: are was going to observe, there are two things going on. one is the deviations and the other thing was what we compared individually, reflecting more public comment. what was significant in terms of public comment we had to resolve in terms of disputed issues with communities. they are slightly different. whether we need them both, i do not now. member pilpel: i thought we have this discussion on the end. i thought we were going to do and. i think i am with member leigh and then having separate

description of those that are more devious? i do not know. i am already in trouble. if there is an elegant way to do that, i support that. i think describing each district with its significant neighborhoods amkemakes sense and having a short sentence for each district is between one and five satisfies the legal requirements. so i would do but elegantly. thank you. any other questions/ suggestions or proposals. >> we need to include a list of recognized neighborhoods for those districts. i am not wedded to this idea. to the extent we need to spell that out and it is best done

know. i literally jotted down notes from the last version of the draft amp. map. we need to decide on a position. i was not volunteering to do that i just wanted to start the conversation. >> in reviewing the 2000 work, the work of the 2000 task force, and as mr. lee pointed out their elegant presentation, what -- i can't get my brain around is this would suggest that they tracked the domino affect a particular decisions. so was that the action that

caused you to do something or was that the lake street action? rather than trying to frankly figure that out or retrace steps, i guess i am of the opinion in this moment that we actually stay consistent with the proposed format which is to do them all and represent the recognized neighborhoods that we have kept intact because we did not change them at all or because we did do some changes and the result was they are where they are in each district. that would be my recommendation. >> if i may. >> you may. >> the thought exercise that might be useful in considering whether it would be feasible to replicate the approach or adopt the approach that the 2000 task force took is to review our map and see whether we can identify,

not an exhaustive list necessarily, but for the purposes of justifying why the deviation exceeds 1% in each of those districts where that is true that we can identify to the reasonable standard what at least one or more o neighborhoods in that district or the neighboring district that we did keep intact which created the need for that deviation greater than 1%. and i think it is possible to do. >> how is that different than what they've done. there are recognized neighborhoods that she has identified. whether there are all of them or more to the attic is an open question. that is in my mind what she has done. how was that different than what you are proposing? >> one difference is that it is not duplicative of the other section that would be in our

report. >> i think the suggestion would be that it is not duplicative. cathedral hill in section 2 or 5, we discuss the public comment received. then the report would not reflect that we have the completed, recognized neighborhood of cathedral hill in either 2 or 5. that was not a recognized neighborhood that we ended up unifying. >> she went further than i would've gone because what in my mind what makes them not duplicative is my district 5 summary lifts up the recognize neighborhoods and/or communities of interest that were in question and identifies with the question was. japan town, in 2 or in 5 --

period. and 5 or 2 in one -- period. and so that's in my mind very different than here were the recognize the borders that resulted from that. >> i think i see that distinction. i still prefer the way it was handled 10 years ago. if we are taking this approach, it seems to me that some of the neighborhoods that are in the list -- thank you for doing this, it is very helpful -- but it seems that there are -- that it's debatable whether the neighborhoods that are listed have been kept intact. so, for example, for district 5 justice but to our earlier discussion today, you have nopa on the list. i think it's highly debatable

whether nopa in our working draft that we are going to post tonight has been kept intact. >> so i would suggest on nopa that there have been various different testimonies as to the turk -- east of masonic group -- and what i would call the greater hait north of panhandle group. went to fulton. the nopa, in my my impression, would be completed. i would also suggest that the greater haight would not. so, again, i think it is of for interpretation. if you have an alternative suggestion as to something else that should be done, i looked at what san diego did and i did not

find a compelling when i started looking at that. this is why i switched to this. >> can i suggest? no. >> you may >> why don't we go with our original idea that we keep both and we can always delete and sleep on it. >> what was in the content was literally for purposes of engaging in the conversation occurred >> what i do think somebody needs to do other than mr. did well is to go through this list and ensure that it is all inclusive or only highlights the terrible conversations we had about how we do this. otherwise, when you -- leave something out, you may run the

risk of having people complained that they have another neighborhood that we do not remember. >> ok. mr. pilpel. member pilpel: to molly, if we included a statement like district to deviate's by the statistical me by greater than 1% to keep the outer richmond, central richmond, in richmond areas together, wouuld thald tha statemtent that would do the trick for the deviation purpose? que>> yes. you can do it in a way that the task force did previously. either way is fine legally. >> i am still in favor of that kind of statement for the deviation. and a different statement for the descriptions that were larger and lists more

neighborhoods or however we would want to do color and flavor on that. >> pause for a second. >> therefore, if there is no objection, the specifics underneath these banners and notwithstanding the statement i am ready to make, what mayor tidwell has done to quote- unquote mirror the 2000 report would be the opening statement. district 1 deviates blah, blah, blah to protect these. to the point that was raised, we need to be clear that those listed are those that are in fact whoel. i think we also said we would take off communities of interest. so can we ask karan and team to review our current draft and to

pull from that, but identify within that the recognized neighborhoods, just as a catalog of listings that would then have district one, district two, district 3, it does to four through 11? is that doable? >> and then do you want this to say this is recognized by the department of elections. and then submit it? >> no. >> ok. >> then what layer do you want us oto work with? >> use department and of elections. >> the portila is different and what was public we submitted. >> but that will not change whether we are saying portila is -- >> it does.