pilpel has proposed it. mr. pilpel: i would probably be ok with it as is. mr. mcdonnell: any objection to the insertion? ok. that includes district 6. only five more to go. >> this is long. mr. mcdonnell: district 7. so -- ms. tidwell: this gets to the consultants point that i listed out all of the neighborhoods and they just included them as listed in the [mumbling] boundaries. mr. mcdonnell: i am not sure what your point was. ms. tidwell: just explaining the difference. mr. mcdonnell: thank you. beginning with the consultants. let's go the other way around. any deletions? jamie? are there any of these that we should not list? >> i do not believe so. i think this is a great list. mr. mcdonnell: you think this is a great list? all in favor? all: aye. >> if they have submitted their boundaries, also a list of neighborhoods that are included in the central council, then i think this is representative of those neighborhoods. mr. mcdonnell: ok. any objection to leading the list as is? -- leaving the list as is? mr. pilpel: do we need to add san francisco state univ

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.

pilpel? >> the printed version that we have, the top of page 5 and the third -- well, the second paragraph that begins on 5, the beginning and october 2011, it's redundant about the four community meetings. >> i'm sorry, what are you suggesting get stricken? >> one of the references. perhaps the second? well, it doesn't read well. that's my point. >> that's fine. is it factually incorrect? >> knost -- no, it's redoesn't ant and reperspective -- repit active. >> mr. alonso? >> no. >> mr. leigh? >> i'm fine with striking the second one. >> miss melara? >> yes. >> ms. lam? >> yes. >> mr. schreiber? >> yes. >> so what is stricken is the second reference to the four meetings. mr. pilpel? >> to be clear, the second reference being however the task force conducted and just delete the entire sentence? >> but we're not going to rewrite it. >> well, i can't answer that question. >> ok, leave it as it is. that's fine. next. >> i have grammatical changes here. what do you want me to do with them? >> we a

pilpel? >> no. miss lam? >> over the last two weeks we had taken numerous considerations and votes for this very section and i had at that point wanted to keep the border at 15th from some of our public testimonies and history of that area, but at this time and where we're at in the process, i for today will vote no for this proposal. >> thank you. miss melara? >> no. >> mr. leigh? >> for the same reasons that -- and chronology that vice-chair lam described, i will also vote no. >> mr. alanso? >> this is too many people too late. i'm sorry, no. >> thank you. >> ok. moving then down our list. mission bay, someone place mission bay. >> decided not to. >> thank you. don't worry about it.let's go 1. >> could you describe that? >> i could not. >> what we heard is that we are ready to kick between san jose, cabrera, and coconut and moved that into 8. the request is to keep that as is. i will keep some of the other blocks east of tiffany. it is bounded by guerrero, san jose and duncan. if there was an interest in th

pilpel: if i may? for my purposes, again, just the format that was used in the 2000 report as a baseline would be great. for the maps, it was just the maps themselves for each district, sort of a zoom-in that showed each district, and then the tables with the statistics were separate. if that much could be done, i think that would be sufficient. >> ok, so we did not put the data up on, we just put the district, and the data is in the appendix. >> what about population? district 1, this is the population? >> i think all of that information would be in the tables. i will share this with you. >> do we want to clarify what should be included in the table? i don't know if anyone wants me to clarify what should be in that table or if i should just leave that? mr. mcdonnell: i would just mirror the 2000 report, and for purposes of the individual districts, continuation have done. -- continue as you have done. >> could you switch to this map mr. mcdonnell: one second? : i'm sang continue what you have done. --

commissioner pilpel: no. commissioner mondejar: what is the rationale? >> you go on up and you cannot really go, it is more 7 in my geographic world. commissioner m-- commissioner mondejar: you are not affecting -- >> if anything, you are bringing more of clarendon heights into 7. >> no. >> yes. commissioner leigh: no. commissioner alonso: yes. >> please make this change. >> i was going to clarify for all the districts that we should have the three dust will points. -- decimal points. >> can i ask a clarifying question? it is not exactly a street. and is another one i am not crazy about because it is not a street. even though it is a census block, how descry bubble is something like this? -- describable is this? >> would you like a description? >> i do think that while we unifiy, it was something that we wanted to do and i agree with it. in this 100th hour of our deliberations, it is a wish i would have had to throw out. that is my only sad part of the process. >> are there any non-population related proposals? if they turn out to be population related b

commissioner pilpel: yes. commissioner mondejar: yes. >> i have never seen council glare. >> i am thinking. >> i am going to come back to him. >> i wanted to do this after a break. >> ok, can i rescind the vote and take it after the break and have the vote with alonso back in the room. >> without objection. >> they do so much. we will take this vote up after the break. before the break, let me point to the fact that we will go to the next item which is map and final report. we will hear first from our final at the turn of the current draft. walk us through that. we will welcome in any additions or edits. we have had two members working on the report. we will trust fund that had a gain work. any questions? a cat we will wait until 2:30 by that clock. it is a 20-min >> so in order to ensure that we can cast what becomes a final vote on what is in fact a final map, we're going to allow the consultants to complete, in the room right now while we move to another item -- to complete their review in light of the chan

pilpel? >> several thoughts based on that if i might. in terms of the appendsies, we're not doing public comment? >> that is correct. >> i'm not sure -- i agree with not including the visualizations. i'm not sure including the draft maps is actually that helpful. there are some who believe that that shows some evolution in the thinking. i think it in some ways distracts from the final map that was adopted because that's the only map that mattered. so i'm inclined to not ininclude either the draft working map that's we evolved or the map submitted by the public. i think the report is really what we ultimately do and we can reference that maybe the discussion, and then i have a couple other points. >> i want to check them out so we don't have to redo them. first one, task force draft reports. miss tidwell? >> i kind of agree with member pilpel. >> mr. schreiber? >> yes, i agree. >> you agree. ok. mr. mondejar? >> i agree. >> miss lam? >> yes. >> miss melara? mr. leigh? >> to make sure i understand, this is to not include any of our draft m

pilpel: yes. mr. schreiber: yes. ms. tidwell: yes. mr. mcdonnell: thank you so much. we will move forward with planning and event of some sort, less than a quorum, to be determined how and when. any public comment on the press conference item? thank you so much. item number 7, task force budget. ms. lam: there are no additional reporting, just a recap from the last budget. we are anticipating a net balance of " approximately $8800 related to the outreach and consultants. at minimum, we would have that balance if not more. mr. mcdonnell: any questions? mr. pilpel: consistent with the comment a while back, some funds existing, and consistent with the admen codes, could we arrange to. a small number of reports, in addition to having a pdf available on the website for download and printing? mr. mcdonnell: yes, thank you. ok, any other questions? any public comment on budget? thank you so much. moving to item number eight, general public comment. on non-agenda items. ok. excellent. just before we adjourn, ms tidwell? ms. tidwell: sorry, yes. just on behalf of the task forc

pilpel, you had a public comment? >> david pilpel, just to comment on wages, benefits, and working conditions. i think something in the 255 to 275 range would be something for the new general manager and benefits in terms to a department head 5 and the related provisions in the agreement i think makes sense, and looking very much forward to him as general manager, and thank you all for your diligence today and continuing diligence on the commission. president moran: thanks. secretary hood: did you already speak, or did you have a card? >> in the bay area, there has been a big population, and we have been out there, too, so when you do the consideration, please throw us in, and we have got a high unemployment rate. we are about almost 70%, so if you can keep that in mind, i would appreciate it. president moran: thank you very much. item 12, can i have a motion on whether to assert the attorney- client privilege on matters during the closed session? moved to assert? any comments? all of those in favor? opposed? the moti

. >> pilpel? >> present. >> member schreiber. >> present. >> member tidwell. >> there's your core mr. chairman. >> to welcome public comments on the minutes before we approve them. without objection with the usual gruff dra matt cal, minutes so approved. moving to item number three, reprufle of the remaining task force minutes. as you all know we have been meeting fever issuely, there are a number of minutes from a number of meetings that our clerk has not had a report to for approval. and so i entertain a motion to that end that we would delegate again final review and approval authority to the chair for the april 4, april 5, april 9, april 11 and april 14th meetings entertain the motion. >> so moved. >> is there a second? >> second. >> public comment on this item? hearing none. >> is this something that we can do? i'm not familiar with bodies doing this like this. >> we've determined this would be an appropriate process for the task force to approve its final minutes. >> without objection, thank

pilpel? >> i'm in favor of fewer so i think i'm no on the question. >> mr. schreiber? >> yes. >> miss tidwell? >> yes. >> please make this change. as you're doing that can you give the new deviation or temporary deviation. >> for district 3 the temporary >> for district 3 the temporary deviation is negative 3.5%.

. >> david pilpel. speaking as an individual, and although i am a member the task force. but speaking as an individual. i would recommend with mr. nee's comment, though it's 64.20 in the ordinance. and with respect to item "p" referral. i think this can be tighten a bit, and reads initial document from the task force initiating a complaint. and perhaps tracking better to the language a referral from the task force alleging a violation of the sunshine ordinance. there could be any number of other documents from the task force that might initiate a complaint. but not necessarily a referral in the manner specified. thank you. >> i am not exactly responding to decision points. so 1-a or 1-b or whatever they are. i want to make a statement. this draft reverts to much of what the task force found problematic in staff's public draft. in the public hearing on task force referrals and the omission of enforcement of supervisor records of orders. many of the changes reflected in the submitted draft a year ago june, have been ignored with no explanation. i assume that the task force