commissioner mondejar: no more. commissioner pilpel: i tried and tried and tried. >> did we want to hear about this? you said you would fight until the end. thank you, that was helpful. commissioner schreiber: we are good with where we are right now. >> with respect for deviation? >> and it may be helpful that that will not be kept under 5. >> 4.998%. >> thank you. >> the only thing i was looking at was that other we're border. >> close your eyes. just kidding. >> you go west of that. and there is a hill at the top about. >> give them direction, please. just to the left of the block. >> that is a population of 36 people. the deviation for district 7 would be -0.64%. the deviation for district 9 would be 9.4%. 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 le

commissioner mondejar: yes. >> thank you, please make this change. >> is in the same area of that battle blocked of the things that we just moved. it looks like a trapezoid right above. it is mirrored in the exhaust stream boundaries. -- mirroring the existing boundaries. >> the deviation for district 7 to -7.3%. >> i would propose that we make that change to allow glen park to be unified. >> thank you very much. >> yes. >> yes. vice chair lam: yes. commissioner mondejar: yes. >> no. commissioner schreiber: yes. >> please make that change. one moment please. talk amongst yourselves. just kidding. did we do the northern border of d6? done. satisfied? correct? there was one proposal with a trade-off and then there was an alternate proposal. >> my proposal is doing what we have done today. >> we did hers. >> perfect. we are done there. and that is all i am looking for. to check it off. what is the proposal? >> to move the heights into summit. >> i think public testimony would make sense. can you look at where it is

commissioner mondejar: no. vice chair lam:

commissioner mondejar: no. chairman mcdonnell: what is the next move? we have not decided on this yet. i want to appreciate what is coming next. >> i was going to propose to deflect the northeast corner and straight line id on leavenworth -- it on leavenworth. >> in terms of if we have to, the current aviation in two -- a deviation in two, you have to go down to the cathedral hill and move from sutter to post. chairman mcdonnell: go ahead and make the change, please. commissioner tidwell: so i look at the two blocks between sutter and post. that is goff and van ness. that is a population of 592 people. the deviation for district 2 is -5.2% and the division for district 5 to 2.59%. commissioner tidwell: so the option is also the 49 people at the end of seacrest? it would be to the left of 32nd and el camino del mar. chairman mcdonnell: won't we have to make the first change first? >> would you happen to know which block it is? >> if you looked and cost to the left, it is sticking out on california. not that. can you add all three of those? >> we have. th

commissioner mondejar: yes. >> we will make that change. thank you. we will move -- to the 911 border. >> we are not doing that unless we do the overall rotation. that was what that was part of. let's go to 610. >> that is the mission bay, right? >> that is the block on the center right there. the zero population changed. restore its the way it is. -- zero population change. >> that is mission bay? >> yes. it is south of 16th, where they're building a hospital is what i am told and it is the black -- the block east of third. where is the oil. this is one where i screwed up. it would restore the boundary to where it is. this is what it would do.

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 changes that we made today. so that we -- when we return to this item, we can, in fact, take a final vote on

>> yes. >> miss mondejar? >> yes. >> mr. pilpel? >> i just need to know which direction it's going. >> from seven to four. >> yes. >> mr. schreiber? >> yes. >> miss tidwell? >> yes. >> please make this change. >> would you like to see the zero population move that were made per task force direction since the last meeting, or should we go to those later? >> i would rather focus on population at this time. >> ok, then that would conclude this particular item. >> yes. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> now we can go d-6, d-3. mr. leigh, i said two and you said what about the other? oh, no, sorry. you took us back to ensuring we weren't satisfying -- ok. these are -- >> these are blocks between mason and powell, south of o'farrell street. so if we can look at the population of those three blocks. >> are those the blocks? >> yes. >> that is a population of 365 people. it would bring the deviation for district 6 to 1.13%. i'm sorry. and the deviation for district 3 to negative 4%. >> negative 4? >> negative 4%, correct. >> i will propose that

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

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 deviations between 1% and 5% of the statistical mean. these deviations were necessary to keep recognize neighborhoods intact in th

miss mondejar? >> a clarification. when you said public maps submitted by the public, you're talking about only city wide? >> only city wide. >> not district maps. >> not district maps. >> so not included but with a reference to the website? >> mr. pilpel? >> ditto. >> mr. schreiber? >> yes, reference only. >> miss tidwell? >> yes, i would just clarify that since we're already making edits to the process section in part four that we just clarify there we're adding potentially the 100 hours in statistics we just clarified there. >> agreed. ok. so at this point that means the only thing noted in the appendsies is community newspaper advertisements. ok. mr. pilpel. >> although we reduced it to that, i would add back in the appendsies the final map. i think that's where it goes, appendix one. i would add as an additional appendix if it's possible to print out the individual 11 district maps that blow up a little better, if it's possible. if not, then not. and the district descriptions, even if it's not the formal meets and

miss mondejar and -- i'm sorry, mr. pilpel. >> i would just like to go back to the individual submissions. that we -- i would just like the chair to ask members to vote because she submitted comments, i think and i remember seeing that. >> i did submit but i -- i think it was one of my was due politic tive of the community outreach component and the other one was just a process point about responding to public comment during meetings. >> i think i remember seeing it. and i think we were copied that. thank you. >> so i don't have a particular concern oz to whether i need to include for purposes of moving quicker, sooner rather. >> thank you. anyone else? mr. leigh? >> so just a couple of other things. first of all, member alanso's asking me a question which i think is a good question of whether the initial vizzization should be included among the appendsies or fass task force draft maps. i don't think contemplated as part of how this was drafted but something for us to consider. >> the question is whether to include vezz

miss mondejar? >> i have no objection incorporating my comments into the body of the report. what i would suggest is to instead of sort of rewrite this a little bit so that it doesn't -- because it just feels like the way it's written, there's a voice, it's coming from a particular person's voice. i would suggest if you're going to incorporate all of this as one of our voice t. could get edited a little built to reflect that. >> so in answer to your submission, you're open to a, reach a consensus, and b, it being folded in. to be clear with both of you what this means fundamentally is that not being attributed to you? because this section is the opportunity for staff, something attributed to you. the other section is not. >> i for my part don't have any problem that. >> same thing. >> mr. pilpel. >> i'm sorry, have i been busy editing the report but it's been a great conversation i have been hearing. >> fantastic. >> if there's consensus on the language that i suggested, i would be happy for that to be consensus stuff. i did revise the language considerably based on our last

mondejar, and members? >> i do not think is splitting apart in three different districts -- >> i have less concern. this is more of an impact in connection. and the need for the involvement of the supervisor. >> i am not opposed to having its supervisors. i think it makes this very neighborly. >> ms. melara? >> no. after hearing public testimony, i am against it. >> mr. leigh? >> also know. what i remember from public testimony is one or more of the individuals that we heard from that represent parks or that are involved with institutions that are in some ways community shepherds of the park, i believe they expressed support for the eastern part of the parked being shared with district 5, but i do not recall any similar testimony regarding the southern and western part with district four, so as other folks have said come on and going to say no. >> mr. alonso? >> i am going to say no, because even though i live right there, i am going to say that i think two supervisors is more than adequate for the park. th

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. 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

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 different testimony about russian hill. i'm not sure we are saying we kept it together in district 2. ms. tidwell: that was part of my note-jotting-down. i was quickly taking notes when i put neighborhoods into a district. russian hill came from a prior notes, which was rejected. mr. pilpel: ok. >> for district 3, that is the publicly-submitted boundary for the russian hill community association, not for the russian hill neighborhood as a whole. >> so the task force is aware, there is a conservative approach, which would be only listing t

commissioner mondejar: yes. >> we will make that change. thank you. we will move -- to the 911 border. >> we are not doing that unless we do the overall rotation. that was what that was part of. let's go to 610. >> that is the mission bay, right? >> that is the block on the center right there. the zero population changed. restore its the way it is. -- zero population change. >> that is mission bay? >> yes. it is south of 16th, where they're building a hospital is what i am told and it is the black -- the block east of third. where is the oil. this is one where i screwed up. it would restore the boundary to where it is. this is what it would do. i believe it is 0 population. quex the>> the other element of mission bay hospital would be disconnected from this, correct? >> i do not -- yes, but i am not sure. i am not sure which things are north of 16th and which are south and what is being built and all that. i would advise that this area is more connected to dog patch and potrero hill than mission bay proper and there was a request to keep this with dis

mondejar: i'm not really sure bridget ms. 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 mi

commissioner mondejar: no. commissioner alonso: no. commissioner leigh: no. commissioner melara: yes. vice-chair lam: yes. chairman mcdonnell: ok. please make the change. ok. could we go to cathedral hill? >> we need to go to russian hill. chairman mcdonnell: i am open to either one. can i suggest on russian hill, i do not know, which do you want to do? >> russian hill. chairman mcdonnell: i would suggest we have

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 --

mondejar? >> can i ask why you are doing this? >> that is the neighborhood. >> there is population there, so note. >> ms. lam? >> however we can add population, so, yes. >> ms. 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

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

member mondejar: i would recommend we retain this. it seems to me that the next task force would want to find out what we've learned from our process. i vote for us to retain this with the recommendatioion -- recommended suggestions. we spend time listening to the previous task force. i would have loved to look at some things that i could learn from and think about. member lam: as i said, i would not move forward with a recommendation for this particular section. member melara: i am not necessarily in favor of extending the time that i would not mind telling the city that time was a factor in us not doing certain things. the plan fell through -- we did not have time to hire the right consultants. the city has a process. unfortunately, time was an issue. while it may not require the task force to meet for 10 months, it may require some people to get together and put this in place before we sit down. the fact is we were not able to hire the people we wanted to hire. >> we can consider that under community outreach. >> what i am saying i

>> yes. >> miss mondejar? >> yes. >> miss lam? >> 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.

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 mcdonnell and vice chai

mondejar: no. mr. schreiber: no. ms. tidwell: the group has spoken. no. mr. mcdonnell: thank you. moving to district 5. additions to district 5? >> can i ask a question of the city attorney and whether the consultant definition specifically around that japan town fillmore areas, is that sufficient for the neighborhood versus listing japan town somewhere? do we list out those institutions? >> in terms of recognize neighborhoods, we reference them both in the neighborhoods. i don't think -- it is helpful to have documented. those institutions are part of the neighborhood. i don't think we need to list them separately here. >> there is an item proposed -- i think there is sufficient public testimony to support what those institutions are. mr. mcdonnell: and be consistent with the use of neighborhoods versus institutions. we remove the institutions. ok. we remove the institutions. we will include japan town- fillmore. north of panhandle association, include? it is not an area. it is an association. mr. pilpel: i suggest replacing"nopa" with north of the panhandle. mr. mcdonnell: if yo

mondejar, no. ms. 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

. >> that part of it -- member mondejar: i would say they have this available to the task force. the challenge was that we did not know where to find the list of neighborhood groups. there is a list. we were sent about 500. there was a big spreadsheet sent to west. -- to us. since they have oversight of what we do, we would suggest they maintain neighborhoods or at least point just where to find it instead of us having to write letters to the department, asking them to provide -- >> those are different things. this suggestion was that we ask other departments to make presentations to the task force to consider it making a presentation. my point was that all city departments are not necessarily valuable to this task. there are certain departments which maintain certain information. that could include the department of elections. we could include another recommendation that the department of elections maintain information that could be disseminated to the task force at the time that it is needed. that would be a separate question or recommendation. >> can we take these one at a tim

. >> mondejar? >> present. >> 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