we would advise that the task force considered including the following information for each district. the population from the demographic information, a list of communities of interest, any finding that, regarding compactness. the recommendation would be that the final report reflect some of the task force's reasoning, to the extent that there are questions about how the phrase things, we are always available. and if you write of summaries or paragraphs for each district, hill 3 contract -- and feel free to contact john or i. i want to revive the members of the taskforce as you're working

on your final report that the rule permitting you to go to 5% is to preserve recognized neighborhoods, not communities of interest. be mindful of that. as you are starting to work with documents and share documents with each other, it is important that any members of the task force are available to the public, if is available to the public and not to take to come to meetings and hand out documents without making copies available to the public. finally, you can't delegate work to more than one member of the task force. as you were thinking of different pieces that you might delegate, delegate to one person and the person can request help from other individuals so long as it is not a quorum.

and finally i just want to remind you, the agendas have to be posted 72 hours in advance. is the best practice to include all information that will be discussed. it is probably not going to be possible given some of the tight deadlines. anything you have that you know will be discussed in the meeting has to be included in the agenda packet. materials that are not -- the first time you have something, give it to the clerk. >> can i ask you to repeat the items you set for each district? >> population and a variation, a relevant and demographic information, a list of recognized neighborhoods, i think that is really key.

communities of interest as applicable. any specific findings regarding continuity. the san diego redistricting taskforce has a really good model about how to do that. it urges us to review it and i consent to the length. >> can i follow up on that? he said if we make specific findings, so we got necessarily have to -- >> you don't have to make those findings, but when we started this process, people said, district 5, house and possibly contiguous or compact? if there is something that you feel needs explanation. >> can you repeat the 5% rule?

>> be task force can only have population variations of up to 5% to preserve recognized and neighborhoods. separately, the task force should be mindful of community's interest in drawing district boundaries that reflect that, but you don't get to go to 5% because of the community of interest, only because you're preserving a recognized neighborhood. >> is the commission a community of interest or recognized neighborhood? >> recognized neighborhoods, i would urge you to think about the maps that you received from the planning department at the elections department. you are not bound to those boundaries. you could say, we think he recognized neighborhood is

different based on public testimony. there is an argument for the mission being a recognized neighborhood in one sense and community of interest in another sense. >> be have any additions for this discussion, specifically around the summary of things like input and what we continue to include related to the state commission and their approach? >> i sent a link to the final report. you can take a look at it, and to see that the riding has been divvied the, you see that kind of changes a little bit from district to district.

in general, they had the summary reports that they attached, essentially. it is basically just general population. that is something you may want to add as an appendix. we can talk to the city attorney about what would be the most appropriate in this particular context. aside from that, i don't have anything can add at this moment. >> we have a couple of proposals that have been raised by taskforce members. i want to work through those. he won was raised, having a draft for the report and the different pieces done by april

5. we also want to be mindful of what it might mean for the ministration procedures, while we would need to get that to the public. >> can i make a comment about that? i would propose that we plan to take the approach in distributing copies of that type of document at the meeting. if we are intending to discuss the of april 4, we state explicitly that we plan to distribute copies at that meeting. otherwise, if it is to be included in the agenda packet, it would be needed done by tomorrow, right?

i don't think that is feasible. if it is by the fifth, it would need to be monday. >> for clarification, -- >> the important thing is that it is available to the public the same time it is available to the task force. send it to the clerk in advance of the meeting, and she can make copies for the public and for members of the task force, so everyone looks of the document at the same time. >> if it is for the fourth, and e-mail it to me by 330 of 4:00. and i can make copies and get it ready. >> we have a proposal, then?

>> the proposal is about our draft, all of our pieces. they are available for the meeting on the fifth. they need to be sent to the clerk but the fourth. the way she can put the pieces together and make documents available to the public. that will be our draft to begin to edit. >> that as a draft of the entire report, not just a summary of the public comment? >> the entire report. >> id is a friendly amendment, my suggestion is that we have

is -- i guess it doesn't meteatr either way. >> we're all sort of working through this. i envisioned the agenda for the next five meetings to be somewhat similar. at a minimum, i think, for the next meeting, we should include the outline that we had last time, that wasn't in the package tonight. and there are extra copies for the public. and anything else anyone has created by tomorrow. it can be put in the packet. if there is anything further to hand out at a meeting wednesday, we will hand it out

at that time. i want to encourage us all to do some writing in the next few days. >> my motion is that we all get our pieces in. our draft pieces, not the finals, but the fourth, to the clerk, so she can put it together as a document to be seen by all of us and the public as our first draft of the fifth. that way we can take that document, turn it around and be able to give in the back to you by the ninth. that way you are able to read the draft. ok? that is what i am proposing.

>> i will second of that. -- second that. >> i think that's fine. >> i'm just wondering if it makes sense to move the deadline to tuesday so that we can get copies of whatever is that the meeting -- is at the meeting. >> i'm fine with that. >> as it is proposed 0--- >> i'm serious. even if you submit on a tuesday, you cannot have it on the agenda wednesday. >> you cannot get something wednesday afternoon. it is unreasonable to expect her

to copy the stuff tonight. i am interested in being here wednesday night holding a copy of the various pieces. >> you are talking about sending something on wednesday? >> i am saying tuesday, so if we have to submit something by tuesday so kaye has time. good >> do not change it. and we will go with the third to submit on tuesday. he is fine with a motion. g>> i am not coming to work that day.

>> by tuesday we will submit everything that has been assigned, and she will put it into whatever format she is able to and turn around and give us what ever you have a the fourth or fifth. is that humanly possible? >> i am not human. it is possible, but i am going to gather the information and make packets for each of you to look through, and maybe if we have a specific time for tuesday, you would get it to mea. >> how about noon? >> april 3.

>> if she says 3:00, it is 3:00. >> sure. >> april 3 by 3:00. >> the first draft. >> i believe the caller is not planning to compile this into one document, so if that is what the task force is looking for, it might make sense to have one member of the task force to that compilation. it is up to you when that happens. >> it would be nice if it at least emerge. >> at minimum to get a paper version and would be fantastic.

do we want to take public comment? >> my desire would be that we get a document that has emerged sections, so it is not necessarily perfect but put together so it slows in some way, and i am looking at who has assignments and who does not. if you want to sign that to somebody. >> i am travelling. >> didn't we settle this of the last meeting that you were supposed to e-mail it to me? >> i do not think we did.

>> i will make myself available if it is helpful. you want to clarify what this work item is? >> we will find a way. >> i will volunteer to be the collector for the pieces. >> should we have everyone e- mail documents? >> still the same time? or noon to her and 3 to her? five we would probably want it earlier. -- >> we would probably want it earlier.

>> i am assuming if this passes you will inform the member shriver to. >> we did take a formal motion. good >> i did hear a motion. we did not yet. we need to take public comment to submit by noon, and we will turn it around by wednesday it somehow. >> it is time to take public comment. >> we are on item #4. >> task force work plan. >> one comment on the deputy city attorney where she was talking about a community

interest, the other reason you would go up 5% is to prevent minority voting power, so that speaks to what he was talking about in his community. i think it is important if you look at the charter language to find out basically why were you brought together in the first place. you were brought together on the basis of the districts are out of whack population-wise, so i think you need to address somewhere in your document why you were convened and what were the issues and how you were able to address them, so of population equalization is the primary issue. talk about how you made the

districts closer. if divided issues reaching divided neighborhoods is an issue, talk about neighborhoods you have unified, but the problem is the illusion of minority voting power. talk about communities you have enhanced voting power or prevented solution, -- dilution, but all of those in need to be addressed. but should be somewhere in your summary. we have a 15-page summary, and the actual document was 150 pages. >> thank you.

>> to answer the question about the neighborhood, living there, i would say, it is, but it is a neighborhood by everybody's definition. thank you for putting your time into this. when this is over, my big question and concern is where are the files going to be stored. when we turn something in to the board of supervisors, they get stamped and turned into a file. however, we do not know where it is now. after the task force finishes its charge and is suspended,

where will the files go? also, what will be in the file? how extensive and will it be? will it have 50 pieces? i am trying to understand if someone six months, five years down the line wants to look at the file of this commission where they are going to find it and what they are not going to find inside of it. i believe by lot you can region -- by law you can draw the lines until the bitter end, until you are disbanded. i am not sure when the next meeting is if you are the

standard, so thank you very much. >> i am going to respond to your question. goo>> all of the files will be given to the department. including will be everything that was submitted via e-mail. any documents will be in the file and segregated through classification. >> thank you so much. >> sepp this time and we can have an -- at this time we can have the current proposal on the table. fax all in favor? -- >> all in favor? >> you want to do a roll call? >> we will do a roll-call.

[calling votes] that is seven ayes. the motion passes. >> moving on to mr. alonzo cost proposals. >> i propose that we settle on the finalization states region -- finalization date. i would say april 5. if that does not fare well, we will amend it. >> is there a second? >> i will second it.

>> public comment? >> chris bowman, a member of the task force in 1995. if you go back to the 2002 line drawing, they were actually tweaking the map on the final date. it had to do with district 11. funny how things remain the same. the problem is you have not done any line drawing. you will be doing line drawing on the fourth. if it is on the fifth, that gives the public 24 hours, assuming the map you draft is on

line at a time before the reading, and there is only a 24- hour turnaround, so i strongly recommend against approving th at. if they are not available for review, you violate i believe. >> i would like to reiterate. i urge you to vote no in this motion. you are the most important people in the city of this point, and i realize you are dead tired of this and wanted to be over, but i urge you to take your charge very seriously.

this is a big deal, and you are getting information down to the last minute, so even though it is a tough job, i urge you to not thimake a deadline that is l too soon, because you cannot tell what is going to happen to president chiu-- happen to port. there is some moving around that can be done without moving other districts to the west. i have a map, but i did not

bring them tonight. i will get them in before midnight. thank you so much. >> on the subject of a deadline, i agree it is hard to have a definite date at this point, but if you leave it until the last minute, you run the risk of letting the comments you hear last let you forget the ones you heard earlier. whether the fifth is the right date, i would encourage you to look for some closure by a fairly early date, so the public starts to feel there is some closure. goothank you.

>> commissioners, the greatest task force oveever. i come from a coalition with a lengthy name. i come from a neighborhood with severe problem, and what i am offering is a way out of fashion -- of that, and i do not have the answers, but i have an algorithm. i think of is little early. >> i want to urge the task force to be clear about expectations s