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 has a population of 333 people. >> i would propose we move that blocked. -- that block. >> the population -- the deviation for district one would-be -4.1% and a deviation for district 2 would be -5.64%. >> we're close to the zone. commissioner alonso: friendly amendment? we go back to cathedral hill and see if there is any population left in that sliver of what the

commissioner melara: yes. commissioner tidwell: yes to the swap. chairman mcdonnell: please make this change. we will go to the -- population deviation? >> 165 people. the deviation for district 1 would be -4.99% and a deviation for district 2 would be -4.91%. >> ok. commissioner alonso: no. commissioner melara: yes. vice-chair lam: yes. chairman mcdonnellcommissioner . commissioner schreiber: yes. chairman mcdonnell: thank you. please make this change. possible to move now? readiness to move? thank you. muffing then -- can we go back to the monterey and specifically look at the conservatory that is outside of d7 and get it into d7 without upsetting the entire applecart? >> is currently out in the world -- we propose to put it in seven. the concern was to maybe not. >> we're concerned about putting a sunny side institution at of sunnyside into district 8. >> i do not believe it is the spot. >> i believe is that block. >> this is the bloc that has the conservatory in it. ordered by monterey and -- bordered by m

commissioner melara: i am not sure. yes, of course. commissioner leigh: yes. >> please make this change. >> all i feel so much better. >> is there anything else for consideration with regard to this iteration of the map which becomes our final map? i want to see if there are any other proposals of any kind. i entertain a motion to adopt this as our final map. >> so moved. >> seconded. >> miss tidwell . commissioner tidwell: yes. 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 hav

and i don't think there was any change to page two, going on to page three, member melara, please help me if you notice changes i'm not -- that i'm not updating people on. >> to clarify was -- because both member land jahr and lam submitted quite a bit of information both on the -- on what happened for outreach and some of the issues confronted because in the outreach process and because some of it overlapped itself, you know, i sort of took the license to sort of summarize what was being said so it's important for the two of you to look at it and see if we captured what you wanted in it because there was some repetitive information so we didn't want to just put the two pieces side by side. instead i took the liberty of combining everything. >> and that is a few -- more pages in. so i think it's more like page four and five and six and -- >> well, if it is, there is some -- i will tell you what, for example -- >> no. >> member melara, if you wouldn't mind, if i can just go through the earlier sections and we will comment on that momentarily. so one slide edit to the bottom of page thre

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 shou

commissioner melara: yes. commissioner leigh: i thought we were talking about the possibility of putting the conservatory back in district 8. this is going the other way. i appreciate the boundaries of the neighborhood have been submitted and everything, but we have not had much conversation about this and it seems like it is quite late to be entertaining new proposals that could have a serious -- serious impact. this is sort of like glen park /sunnyside type zone. i am uncomfortable with not the general concept, that would have been fine to discuss it in an earlier stage. given where we are to move this into out of district 8 into district 7, i am not comfortable with that. >> can i first line? >> you sure can. >> i thought we were talking about the conservatory, not the rest of the neighborhood. that is glen park, actually, yes. i would say no. i change my vote. >> i will start over. i lost my place. commissioner tidwell: yes. commissioner schreiber: yes. commissioner pilpel: yes. commissioner mondejar: yes.

member melara: no. that would be the big piece. if we agree with having something with the consultants and how they're going to do their work, we definitely need to suggest a charter revision of some kind. >> the second paragraph speaks to something different. member melara: the one increasing the city department? that is different. that has to do with, i believe mr. pilpel wanted the task force to consider outreach to the city department to tell us, to give us information. some of the questions i had was that all of the departments to not have the information that we would use anywhere. what we need is a city departments that have been for mitch -- information about neighborhoods, and data, and the task at hand. not all departments have any information that is valuable to this task force. i would say, my suggestion would be to city departments maintain specific data related to recognizing communities of interest or applicable data to the task at hand. or something like that. >> that part of it -- member mondejar: i would say they

>> yes. >> miss ma melara? >> yes. >> mr. league? >> yes. -- mr. leeg -- leigh. >> yes. >> no. >> i will look at the deviations. >> thank you. >> can i make a comment while at the look at the numbers? >> sure. i think the pop lore initially had either ben the four blocks between two and five as a way to clean the lines. so since those are not submitted as part of a neighborhood, i would suggest we look there to the extent we still have a population issue. >> ok. >> mr. chair, we have the deviation. it is negative 4.997%. >> are you comfortable? >> i'm comfortable. >> thank you. thanks for that exercise. let's visit now the less again attempting to move fairly swiftly through each of these considerations. let's go to the question of d-60 border, at the same time we will secondarly visit the maria manner. >> i don't know where they are continue may affect it. if you can tell us where they are. >> sure. give us the other two. so we will look out -- so the next -- the next one is between districts 10 and 9. bart line we would align to. this is an area

commissioner melara: i am not sure. yes, of course. commissioner leigh: yes. >> please make this change. >> all i feel so much better. >> is there anything else for consideration with regard to this iteration of the map which becomes our final map? i want to see if there are any other proposals of any kind. i entertain a motion to adopt this as our final map.

. -- 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. that's clear. mr. leigh? >> can i ask a question? does the second move require moving st. luke's? chairman mcdonnell: no. the intent is to keep st. luke's in district nine. it has no -- nothing to do with st. luke's present site at all, period. >> i would actually be open to looking at it. chairman mcdonnell: thank you. mr. alonso? >> i second that thought, yes. chairman mcdonnell: ok. that's it. for both the reasons that mrs. melara indicated, which is we made decisions with forethought in mind and with all considerations and the unfortunat

melara: yes. ms. mondejar: yes. mr. schreiber: yes. ms. tidwell: yes. ms. lam: yes. mr. mcdonnell: thank you. all right. district 2. oh, -- mr. pilpel: oh, can we also have them not avoided -- voided -- mr. mcdonnell: please keep going. >> can we separate and jordan park from the village? mr. mcdonnell: the proposal is to keep -- i will refer to it as the consultant draft. >> i am sorry. no. mr. mcdonnell: hold on. the proposal is to use the consultant language of district 2. mr. alonso: yes. mr. leigh: yes. ms. melara: yes. ms. mondejar: yes. ms. lam: yes. mr. pilpel: no. mr. schreiber: yes. ms. tidwell: yes. sure. do i leave it in the paris laugh -- paragraph form? mr. mcdonnell: be consistent and line it up. ok. moving into district 3. ms. tidwell: i am just cutting and pasting the consultants on the bottom. mr. mcdonnell: yes. in district 1, we did not use consultant. mr. pilpel: couple of things i am confused about now. if we are using the consultant language, i think this is two words. i do not know about keeping the parentheticals, and we receive somewhat differen

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 the broader move of that area into 8, it would be the broader rotation that i saw the other day. this is already in 8. >> we are good on 3919. moving down to the potential block of sunnyside, the overlapping block of sunnyside and glen park. >> what are the streets that this block is bounded by? >> mangel and congo. >> that is correct. >> is that the correct b

melara, yes. ms. mondejar, yes. mr. pilpel, yes. -- not at this time. >> could i ask a process question? at the appropriate time. please make this change. commissioner leigh: the process question or suggestion that i would offer is, is it possible for us to use where we were prior to this move as a starting point or launching point that we could possibly revisit if we wanted to? our process we have made one move at a time and that is -- has worked very well but given the delicate place where we find ourselves, not having a lot of time in all these dominance. i am wondering if we could remember where we were prior to making this move. explore and continue and finish the remaining -- deliberations about the dominos we need to consider within our permitted variances. and see how we each field boulware week and up and perhaps consider whether we prefer that place or that the outcome where we were prior to the vote we just took. i do not want to overly complicate things. i am concerned that we are going to end up with anothe

. >> 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 agreed -- you said let's do the grammatical at the end. >> ok. so i will provide that to someone during the break and it will get looked at. great. cool. >> anything else in this next? ok, moving then to page 6, which is the end of that last section. at the very top of that page. substantial amounts of public comment. we've already referenced the apox mat and specific amount of public comment and extent of written comment. i don't think those two sentences are needed now. >> will the chair, on page 4 -- >> on page 4? >> yeah, i'm sorry, we -- >> hold on one second. let's finish this though

>> yes. >> miss melara? mr. leigh? >> to make sure i understand, this is to not include any of our draft map? >> i agree. >> mr. alanso? >> yes. >> number one does not get included either. second point then, maps submitted by the public. >> mr. chair, just to let you know, a followup from the department of elections that the website will all be in psychiatristance for 10 years and it will be ssgrdtv and working maps are all available on the website also. we can reference. it will be there for anybody who wants to see it. sorry. >> that's ok, thank you. maps submitted by the public. mr. alanso, in or out? >> out. >> mr. leigh? >> out with the possibility -- i think this is the suggestion i would make just based on what madam clerk has said is that we have two sentences tend of this, one referring to the public file and one referring to the website and in the second sentence referring to the website, explicitly mention working map drafts as well as maps submitted by the public will be available 10 years on the website wi

commissioner melara: yes. chairman mcdonnellcommissioner . commissioner alonso: yes. chairman mcdonnell: we will not make this change. thank you. >> this was the 610 corridor. >>commissioner melara: i am wondering sometimes when we say no to something based on the fact there was no real population in the area and we have ha a community testimony on that change that we go against it, i would like to hear the rationale against that. sometimes we're making changes for populations. when we're not exchanging for population, i am confused. i would like to hear it because we could be here all night and saying no to certain things that make no difference. >> it is the ucsf campus. it is all in six currently so i do not see a reason to move that portion where they're moving the site in tutan. -- into ten. >> all right. thelis list we started with we have completed. the 911 border, seacliff, 49 people and corner of 16th street. >> please remind us of the deviations? >> district 1, -4.99%. district 2, -4.91%. district 3,-[inaudible] district four, district 5, 2.12%, district 6,

melara, yes. ms. mondejar, yes. mr. pilpel, yes. -- not at this time. >> could i ask a process question? at the appropriate time. please make this change. commissioner leigh: the process question or suggestion that i would offer is, is it possible for us to use where we were prior to this move as a starting point or launching point that we could possibly revisit if we wanted to? our process we have made one move at a time and that is -- has worked very well but given the delicate place where we find ourselves, not having a lot of time in all these dominance. i am wondering if we could remember where we were prior to making this move. explore and continue and finish the remaining --

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, a, we hold a press conference with less than a quorum present, which therefore does not constitute a meeting and we issue it, or to report its issued and a less public, less formal, less visible way and just gets distributed to committee and habitants. discussion? >> i have a suggestion. i suggest we hold a press conference with share mcdon

melara, no, mr. leigh, no. mr. alonso, no. chairman mcdonnell: are you prepared to have us look at some population data information? >> yes. chairman mcdonnell: but go to the population data on north mission and 14th street, what ever is easier for you to get to. >> we do not have filipino population. what we do have is the major population groups that are reported in the senses. we have latino and asians but not sub groups such as the appeals -- filipinos or koreans or chinese within this group. >> we can look at the latino or asian trade we have surname matched -- we can look at the latino or asian. we have surname matched filipino. which one would like to see first? which population group? chairman mcdonnell: latino. >> as you can see this as percent latino population. the darker the color, the higher the population. this is the area around cayuga. cayuga is right here and you see the district boundary in black. chairman mcdonnell: i will start with you with any questions related to the data she sharing. >> this is the pres

melara. >> i'd include it. >> ms. lam? >> include. >> ms. mondejar? >> include. >> mr. pill -- pilpel? >> i think i would include it except for the last sentence. >> we're not going to it. in or out? does that change your vote is the question? fully appreciating your point of view. does that change your vote? >> i stated my poif

melara, mr. alonso? please make this change. >> point of order, we keep on doing what we are not supposed to do, and we have other items on the agenda, and i would love to do those, because i would like to get it tomorrow and not be tired.

melara. >> are we keeping it together in district 6? >> we did not fully achieve that for the mission, either. mr. mcdonnell: we will not include the tenderloin. >> there is a planning department-recognized neighborhood. correct the spelling. replace "n" with "p." mr. pilpel: could i suggest combining those and saying south of market? that seems to be more of a neighborhood that we could recognize. >> they are separate, though. mr. mcdonnell: hold on. we have heard one proposal. i will confirm the spelling. >> no. that is not right. >> no what? >> we are not voting. >> could you repeat the question? 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, rinc

melara, mr. alonso? please make this change. >> point of order, we keep on doing what we are not supposed to do, and we have other items on the agenda, and i would love to do those, because i would like to get it tomorrow and not be tired. if we could move because we are not doing any significant pieces, this is based on the fact that we were told that we were not going to do anything that involved population. i have not proposed anything. and we are following those voters. so i would like as a point of order to either do it or not do it and move on. >> ok, so let's open a population with exchanges, just some people are not tripping over an invisible line? mr. alonso? >> to be honest, i do not think anything we suggested where areas where we thought there was any population, so -- >> the letter of the law, no population, and we found population, so we move that invisible line. and the other proposed changes? >> having completed this later or worse on saturday. all right, hearing none, thank you very much

>> yes. >> miss ma melara? >> yes. >> mr. league? >> yes.

>> yes. >> miss ma melara? >> yes. >> mr. league? >> yes. -- mr. leeg -- leigh. >> yes. >> no. >> i will look at the deviations. >> thank you. >> can i make a comment while at the look at the numbers? >> sure.

melara made. ok, she reference to the conclusion of our meeting on saturday. we will have deliberated over this and other pieces of the final report. and there will be a moment at approximately 12:15 on saturday when we will declare ourselves done. how's that for optimism? but there is of point a which we say we are done and we are able to hand it to you. what what about that does not work in your mind? >> she was suggesting if changes needed to be made that we had a laptop available that we could make the changes. i can see of that can be done, and then a member can be making changes up there. and i think we would have to check on the wi-fi situation. >> i will bring my laptop and i have a sprint card. >> is that member tidwell? >> that is. anything else, kate, you would need of us? >> i dno'on't think so. >> ok, thank you. mr. pilpel. >> will that be similar to the ballot simplification committee where we are working on line to finish things? >> that is how i am in addition it. >> if that can happen, that can be great. >> there would be a computer and a scre

melara: i agree this information has to get out to the media and as many people as possible, as soon as possible. by tomorrow, this will be old news, so a press conference is probably it less than effective. it is more trying to get the information out. mr. mcdonnell: thank you. any other comments? i wouldn't say whether it is a press conference or not, the idea is it is a moment of idea distribution. i don't want to get caught up on the language of "press." mr. pilpel: perhaps since we have issued press releases before, if we could just issue a short release saying that we have adopted this matter and report, distribute that to anyone we could think of it as a beginning, we certainly have seen some coverage today. i don't know of the board of supervisors would want you to make a short presentation at a meeting on tuesday, to just say, is there, something along those lines. mr. mcdonnell: okay, thank you. mr. alonso: the press is out there, so we could just run out in the next five minutes? mr. mcdonnell: nice. we have one proposal on a press conference with less than a quorum, at a

ok, so again, on the individual assignments, please get them to member melara by end of day tomorrow. >> if i don't get it, i will be passing it on to. >> so whoever has the final, i am bringing a laptop. if your email it to me. >> i can bring it at 6:00. >> ok. public comment on this item? on the item of the final report? this is not general public, and. comment. uh-oh. we're off. th>> i'm a district 6 to president kerry in regards to the report, i wonder if it there was a way to apply data hopefully it is available towards filling out to see what response there was in the district to the meetings like what participation basically if there was any kind of attendance record so that we could no and the meetings that were the nine districts what the turnout was relative and a different districts and then for the rest of the meetings, i am not sure on the number. it is confusing, but maybe an average of center city, said center turned out so that there is sort of a quantifiable feeling on how successful the participation was in the various super of restorvisorial distric. >> thank you, s