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 objection to adding central waterfront? >> i thought it was

chairman mcdonnell: mrs. melara? >> no. chairman mcdonnell: ms. lam. >> i used to live at monterrey and juice, and i have for -- for several years, and i think i did have a closer -- the bordering neighborhood, but i am in in support of moving that border to monterrey. chairman mcdonnell: that was a yes? >> yes. chairman mcdonnell: and mrs. mondejar? >> no, wipet support this. chairman mcdonnell: all right. so we would not make that change. >> did we look at russian hill? can we get the count there? the 2-3 border and see. chairman mcdonnell: let's go for a moment -- i am going to come back to this area in a moment. let's go to another area. >> i am not sure how the legal description works here to go from mansell to bayshore because they don't connect. there is a freeway in between. my intent was to go m mansell, up san brunoo and east on paul. it end up selecting one block with some population, probably a couple of zdeno people and some freeway parcel. i also was interested in going to -- you wanted to do zero population stuff after. so i will ho

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 not

mcdonnell: one second? : i'm sang continue what you have done. -- could use which to this map for a second? mr. mcdonnell: i am saying continued as you have done. >> it is a nice way of showing that. >> we actually did a prototype. if one of you would like to look at that later. >> ok, it looks pretty. >> with the old maps/new map comparisons, with this be included in the appendix? >> and pictures? mr. mcdonnell: yes. our photos should be each of our respective districts, as a pop out. >> perfect. [laughter] we will work on that. mr. mcdonnell: okay, in terms of the final report, we are now entering the information, is there anything else that we need to consider? with respect to the final report? we're going to insert our final vote, retroactively, obviously. sorry, let me interrupt for just 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 app

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.

chairman mcdonnell: sure. ms. mcdonald. >> we look at this question early on and determined the task force is not legally prohibited from removing treasure island to district 3. their arguments is water contiguous. it is an option on the table from the contiguity perspective but you want to have some explanation for why you would do it as contiguous, for you to make that change. >> just to -- based on that, not solely based on that but it is helpful to have that. i sort of agree with member melara with for we are in the process given that -- where we are in the process. it is not in do not think it is an issue for us to have considered more seriously but hindsight is 20-20 and i think at this point, it is awkward for us to make a proposal to move treasure island into district 3. i do think that in the future, our successors 10 years from now, this does represent to me an intriguing possibility for a future task force to consider as one possibility for moving population to balance out the imbalance that may exist a

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 devia

mcdonnell: ok. go ahead. mr. pilpel: ok. what are you proposing it is in? mr. mcdonnell: propose what you want, it does not matter. mr. pilpel: silver terrace, candlestick, the central waterfront/dog patch, showplace square. mr. mcdonnell: any objection? it ms. tidwell: yes. i was attempting to be helpful by adding neighborhoods. with 16th street, i don't think we have included potrero, and the ones we have highlighted with issues. mr. mcdonnell: okay, that is what objection. ok, list them off. one more time. >> silver terrace, a little hollywood, candlestick. ms. tidwell: isn't candlestick -- isn't that an institution? >> i think there is a candlestick neighborhood. ms. tidwell: you think, or there is? >> ok, we will exclude candlestick. bayview hunters point, potrero hill, and showplace square. ms. tidwell: i don't think -- sorry, what ever. ms. lam: i think there are concerns including potrero hill as an interactive neighborhood. could we show you the map? mr. pilpel: i suggest we just excluded.

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

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. thank you so much. item number 7, task force

chairman mcdonnell: no, never? >> no to this proposal. chairman mcdonnell: thank you. ms. lam, for clarification, the stoney ford for stony brook move for the 9-11 border would go into -- >> from nine -- >> from 11 to nine. >> right. >> and then bringing the tingley out of eight into 11. we need to see the population variance for those two moves. i am not interested in the st. luke's move. i don't know if that would get us close enough. >> what he identified in the rotation were three, relatively-speaking approximately 800 populations. that is the puzzle move. >> no. chairman mcdonnell: thank you. mrs. mondejar. -- m's melara. i am not interested in changing our decision we made last time, primarily we made it very deliberately. when the community comes tonight and says you took away this piece, they were not taking into consideration what it would cost elsewhere in their district. we moved something in their district, and next week the people will come back saying you shouldn't have done that. so let's leave it where it is. so no, no, no. chairman mcdonnell: thank you. th

chairman mcdonnell: sure. let's ask another question. >> we had significant testimony, i think, and i can remember now up on the russian hill. it seems like we go back and forth on this. chairman mcdonnell: you are making a case, but it is being promised, and with all proposals, we consider them. >> if anybody could just refresh my memory on what the testimony was. chairman mcdonnell: your memory is accurate. this is a reversal of where we were. >> and that is where we get in trouble. chairman mcdonnell: yes. >> and i totally agreed. it is easy to remember what my vote was, that we really had difficulty in trying to make decisions. we are on our second to the last meeting. i know we are trying to resolve some things, but i think we should find some options versus reversing what we voted on. >> i think we are allowed to reverse what we voted on. to chair mcdonnell's point, we need to make a decision and move forward. for me personally, that does not require that we are not allowed to consider any past decisions

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. pil

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.

mcdonnell: ok. so we have one neighborhood list aed. anyone else. all right, moving into district 10. again, the note on the consultants listing gets eliminated, but and the reference to san francisco general hospital eliminated, therefore we have silver terrace, this the valley, the or hollywood, bay view heights, bayview, hunters point, the central waterfront, dog patch. jamie, of those, which should be eliminated because we do not have recognized neighborhoods or public submission? >> we did not have visitation, i believe the same is true of bayview hunters point. mr. pilpel: i would still include them. i think we should recognize them. and i think we should still candlestick properly -- we should spell candlestick properly. >> i don't know if they gave specific boundaries, and is that why it is not recognized? i believe we have kept that as a whole. >> sorry, i believe bayview, hunters point, i was incorrect about that. it should be listed. mr. pilpel: and i think potrero is potrero. mr. mcdonne

chairman mcdonnell: thank you. is there anyone else who did not have the opportunity to sign up and wish to share public comment tonight? ok. thank you so much. we will close public comment at this time and began deliberations among task force members to consider potential changes to the current draft maps. i will say thank you to everyone who is in the room tonight. everyone who has submitted oral and written testimony. we do value all and put an want to -- we want to consider. task force members, as we engage in this discussion tonight, and how both comments for context where we should directionally try to go. first that we will break from the discussion of -- [inaudible] the rest are population related proposals. i will go through a short list of some we identified in our last meeting as well as those who have come out at several meetings of public comment and e-mail submissions for it the second point of the map, discussing will put this on other proposals and we will do that. with all that, i would

chairman mcdonnell: thank you so much. mr. leigh? >> no. chairman 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. >> th

chairman mcdonnell: thank you. >> could you repeat district for? >> -4.90. chairman mcdonnell: going back up to russian hill. can you give us the population of that highlighted area and deviation? >> that is a population of 202 people, bringing the deviation for district 3 to -3.70% and the deviation for destitute to - 0.519%. commissioner alonso: no. commissioner melara: come back to me. yes. commissioner melara: could you tell me what the boundaries are? >> lombard, greenwich, and leavenworth. chairman mcdomelara: did we have testimony around us? >> we've received from don -- predominantly on monday. commissioner melara: yes. commissioner pilpel: yes. commissioner schreiber: yes. commissioner tidwell: no. commissioner melara: yes, because of the school. i am concerned about the other things that need to be done. chairman mcdonnell: thank you. please make this change and let's move to the other part of lake. if we could see the population for the block between 25th and 26. lake and california. >> that block? it ha

chairman mcdonnell: we can

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 w

chairman mcdonnell: thank you. >> hi, i am matt duffy, i am a 12 year district one resident. the current antics of district one will harm both neighborhoods -- antics of district one will harm both neighborhoods. -- annex of district one will harm both neighborhoods. it will take areas -- all these neighborhoods share community of interest with the -- the make up the bulk of the district. throughout this process, the lines of district 1 were acceptable to the general public. it is, that's at the last -- it is odd that the last meeting, this change would have been acceptable. we're asking you to correct the most recent change and i want to thank you very much for your service. chairman mcdonnell: thank you. following, our next speakers. >> i am a resident in the portola district and i wanted to support your changes that you have made to make portola hold and to keep this in district 9. thank you very much. chairman mcdonnell: thank you, sir. hold on one second. it is ms. gamez's turn. ms. gamez followed by our next

chairman mcdonnell: thank you. >> i am richard ivanhoe, the president of the haight-ashbury neighborhood council. and i also want to thank each of you for all your time and your work. i am going to focus on the northwest panhandle and on golden gate park. you have heard from many residents in the northern panhandle area. the bylaws which were adopted in 1960 have our northern boundary as fulton street and the greater haight-ashbury may have a lot of neighborhoods with a net -- within it but nopa it should be made whole. there is a few institutions i am aware of that have a connection to the haight in the few blocks on hayes street, within that area. there is mr. natural's is a studio, new traditions school, and sacred ground coffee house which has the longest running open mike poetry in the city. so again, keep northwest panhandle in district 5. as to golden gate park, i have heard the district one supervisor said that golden gate park is too big for just one supervisor. you have spit mclaren park in two different

chairman mcdonnell: thank you. folloiwnwing supervisors chiu and avalos. president chiu: i want to know -- that you know that you have onrun a tremendous process in taking in the feedback and i know you look forward to april 15 coming. i do hope that all of you will continue to serve in other capacities in the city. there are a number of questions i have found -- been asked. whenever a set of decisions you come up with in the next few days i look forward to that and i think i speak on behalf all my colleagues that whatever decision you make we look forward to serving our constituents. there have been questions about where the russian hill line ought to sit. and you have heard a lot of testimony over the last couple of meetings from the russian hill neighborhood and neighbors that their preference is the line remain where it is. recently there have been some proposals to shift more russian hill from district 32 district 2 and if that is where the committee wants to go, that is where the committee goes but i think a

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

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

thank you bob mcdonnell for making it clear where the line is. he's now moved the line. going after rape and incest victims we thought was too far for the republican party this year. turns out it's not too far. governor mcdonnell after that piece was posted went on to the radio and said, no, his spokesedness man was mistaken. if you're raped by your father or by your uncle, bob mcdonnell does want the government to force you to bare the child that is the result of that rape. his whole giving rape and incest victims a break thing, that was totally a misunderstanding. he's not giving them break. >> i've said this for 20 years. as a pro-life catholic, my personal moral view is that abortion is wrong. that it should not be permitted, except in cases with the life of the mother is in jeopardy. >> period. he won't force you to give birth if doing so will kill you but other than that rape victims shut up. he's in charge. bob mcconnell is kind of a window into the broader republican party on this issue, it is not just him. in south carolina republicans are trying to pass a rule

chairman mcdonnell: please make this change. >> can you go back in for a moment? >> eight? >> yes, please. commissioner leigh: could i also ask and ne -- that needle that goes down, circular, is there population there? >> those are freeway parcels. >> 27 people. >> i take it back. >> we have got 27 people that are on a severe peninsula. >> it is not -- >> that may be 280. >> san jose becomes 280. >> we could do a satellite overly. -- overlay. >> 280. when we click on it, it comes back at i-280. >> the border between 7 and 11 ought to be to 80. and stuff that -- to render aid. stuff that is north of the freeway in that area ought to be in seven. i do not know where there are actual people in that zone, if there's a house there i missed or something. or homeless. the center line there really ought to be 280. [inaudible] in that area. >> i wish we had not made the move we just made but we just did it. i do not know what else to say. >> are you proposing the needle? >> where is it now? >> in eight. >> i would propose to move that to