mr. mcdonnell: is there a second? >> sure, i'll second. mr. mcdonnell: thank you. ok, just before requesting vote, i would invite as you vote if there is a statement, a brief statement, the top order of word being brief, as you vote. you are not required to, but you are welcome to do so. ms. tidwell: yeah. mr. schreiber: yeah. mr. pilpel: i have a brief statement. i will keep it brief. this is a collective exercise. i thought a lot this afternoon as we went through this whether to support it. i am choosing to support it. i would not have made all of these choices, but we worked as a group, and we worked through a lot of disagreements among speech other, respectfully. i would note and want to continue to call attention to the disparity in voter registration that results from under populating 3 and overpopulating 8. it appears to me that there will be roughly 35,000 voters registered in three, compared with eight, so a vote in district 3 4 supervisor will matter more than an individual vote for supervisor in district 8. i understand that some disparity will exist. i a

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 thos

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 island, mission bay -- >> i combined the list. i hate -- -- i have -- mr. mcdonnell: i thought we agreed, no institutions? >> yes. ok. mr. mcdonnell: south beach, rincon hill. any additions? >> there was a public submission about this was the reason for the line. >> there is no publicly- submitted neighborhood boundaries for yerba buena. there is not a boundary from planned neighborhoods. mr. pilpel: i think this is referring to treasure island and yerba buena island, not yerba buena center. >> they are recommending it as a neighborhood based on public testimony, as i recall. mr. mcdonnell: the proposal is to list yerba buena. >> maybe it was one of the colored maps. mr. mcdonnell: then we will not list it. any objection? mr. pilpel: i would separate them, but i don't care that strongly. mr. mcdonnell: any

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 th

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

mr. mcdonnell: okay, two pieces? >> combine them. mr. mcdonnell: all right, i entertained a motion to delegate the final edit responsibility to ms. tidwell and approval of the final report. >> so moved. >> second. mr. mcdonnell: alright, is there any objection? >> not objecting, but what we do a roll call on the final report. mr. alonso: yes. ms. melara: yes. ms. lam: yes. ms. mondejar: yes. mr. pilpel: yes. mr. schreiber: yes. ms. tidwell: yes. mr. mcdonnell: thank you so much. >> i just wanted to thank tidwell, melara, and leigh, and really, thank you for taking the time to pull all lavar reports together -- pull all of our reports together. mr. mcdonnell: thank you very much. it moving again, item number six. a press conference. based on lots of discussion and exploration with the city attorney around options, they are fairly limited in that while we do want to find a suitable, formal moment of issuing of the report, the problem is if we do it collectively, that it constitutes a meeting. once it constitutes a meeting, we are back where we started again. so our options are

mcdonnell: thank you. mr. schreiber? >> so this is both elements that we are talking about right now? chairman mcdonnell: we are taking them one at a time, but yes, the step will be panhandle. >> no. chairman mcdonnell: mr. pill -- bell? to a certain extent i am supportive, but i am not sure i want to do this until i know where we land on russian hill. for me, russian hill determines what is his west and in the one, two and five zones as opposed to two and three. chairman mcdonnell: have we conclude thad russian hill is the only off set? >> no, but i think that is where i am. >> i believe there is a second possible chance. i am willing to with draw my amendment. we take a look at russian hill and the second possibility. chairman mcdonnell: ok, let's go to russian hill. if my math is correct. we need somewhere around 1,300 to off set this. if we could look at the remainder of three blocks of jones street >> that is a population of 593 people for district people. that would bring the deviation to 3.38% and the deviation for district three to 4.01%. >> and then the second idea, move over to cathedral hill. and bring back -- i believe

a second. 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.

mcdonnell: mrs. melara? >> no. mrs. lam? >> yes. mrs. mondejar? >> no. >> mr. philip, >> no. >> mr. schreiber? >> no. chairman mcdonnell: thank you. so we will not make this challenge. mr. leigh? >> can i just make a point of information or add a point of information? the population of the north panhandle that i believe we were looking at in an effort to explore restoring was 2,855. chairman mcdonnell: that is correct. >> i believe that i cludes the three blocks in the northwest corner of that section that are currently in district one in the current lines, and i believe that the population -- i wrote down 361 or something in an earlier meeting. if we were to imagine those blocks remaining in district one, that would make the gap a bit smaller. chairman mcdonnell: ok. let's look at this. >> sorry, could you clarify that? >> in that same area, you see the stair steps just east of golden gate park? >> correct. >> if we could look at those three blocks. this is the -- sorry, the other side. yes. that population. >> that is a population of 361. >> my point being if we were if we were to prioritize and leaving those blocks in one which they are and they have been for the last 10 years, i think the test

mcdonnell: 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

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 ar

mr. mcdonnell: nice. we have one proposal on a press conference with less than a quorum, at a conference at event. mr. alonso: no. ms. lamms. leigh: yes. ms. mondejar: yes. mr. 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 pu