mr. alonso? >> yes. >> mr. leigh? >> no. >> ms. lam? >> yes. >> ms mondejar? >> i thought this was about a non population moved. >> that is correct. you are tracking correctly. [laughter] >> so for now, i will say no. >> ok. mr. pilpel? >> no. i think this potentially affects the woods area, and we have heard some testimony on that. i hadn't and seven previous meetings to put all of this into five, and i explained before the road that is not there, so i am not with doing this at this time. i am sorry. >> thank you. mr. schrieber? >> no. >> i am actually leaning towards yes. i was trying to clarify, so i am actually going to say yes, based that this does not really encroach on the area. yes. >> excuse me. so it is -- -- >> can we just overlay public testimony? i think the council submitted boundaries. i am sorry. do you guys set boundaries for that amount? >> no, i do not think we do. >> and do we have the council met but they submitted in the entirety? >> i believe that we have one large, like one large layer for that

mr. alonso: yes. mr. leigh: yes. i have a question. should i ask my question? the question had to do with the description between neighborhoods and institutions. i think this refers to the lead. however the lead-in is phrased, as long as it is consistent with the content with what is indicated for each district. right now, it looks like it is a reference to neighborhoods. i think we need to reconcile that of it to include institutions. >> i encourage you to stick with the recognized neighborhoods language. the purpose of having the findings is to justify going above 1%, which you can only do for recognize neighborhoods. >> i understand that logic. i think there are a couple of important exceptions. i am fine with taking this general approach. with district 10 -- right now, it is listed in the consultants list as general hospital with a note. that would be problematic to just leave it that way. mr. mcdonnell: i will withdraw what i just proposed. let's go district by district. let's see if there any exclusions you would like to make. then we will answer them. di

mr. alonso: we did miss one thing for section 4. on district 9, we did put it north of the park in district 9. mr. mcdonnell: that is a point of fact. >> you're talking about district considerations. >> it is in the 11 write-up. are we putting them in twice? >> across all of them, we had -- >> my point is there is a bunch of redundancy. everything should show up in five. if it is stated once, the point is captured. are you satisfied -- >> it even says mclaren park south. it would make sense for the reader that mclaren park north would be included in the section. mr. mcdonnell: ok. sure. >> the web would resolve that is to put the text in the district where it ended up. that is just the way i would do it. mr. mcdonnell: thank you. we are resolved. ok. with that intro the city attorney just offered, what follows is -- how would you say it in court? >> exhibit a. mr. mcdonnell: recognized neighborhoods. that goes tehre as -- there as a replacement. the intro to those sections is correct. district 1 and the deviation. district to come a

mr. alonso? >> i would prefer that it remain separate. >> ok, thank you. ms. 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 point of view. that's the best i can do. >> what's your vote? >> i've stated my point of view. i would include it except for the last snefpblets that's it. -- sentence. that's it. >> mr. schreiber? >> yes, on balance, yes. >> ms. tidwell? >> i apologize for -- >> sorry, the question are we looking at the individual member submissions and whether there's consensus around them sufficient to include them in the body or keep them as individual submissions and the first one we're visiting is member leigh's. >> i apologize member leevement i will go with the group. >> so it will be included in the body. >> safety concerns in the neighborhood and whether it should be made

mr. alonso: are we in agreement that we know where it exists? mr. mcdonnell: i believe so. mr. alonso: and i'm pretty sure it does not matter. mr. mcdonnell: mr. 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 neighborhood

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 unfortunate reality as we have discussed throughout almost every one of our meetings is that no matter what decision we make, someone will disagree, and they will present a compelling case for changing it. unless we want to meet past april 14, i would suggest that unless there is a compelling case, a new compelling case with new information, then i would not be in favor of making these changes, to shift decisions we just made. it would be different if we hadn't just made these decisions with full task force deliberation. on 6-3, we will not do that. ms. tidwell, let's go to the st. luke. >> i need an upgrade. chairman mcdonnell: by that clock, we will take a break for ms. tidwell, and we will res chairman mcdonnell: we will resume now our mapping discussion. ms. tidwell, are you prepar

mr. alonso? in or out? >> out. mr. leigh? >> no. >> mr. manned harr? >> no. >> ms. tidwell. >> no. >> ok, next. >> on the recaptioning of the section, i would like toe change the caption because i think it is important to refer to the staff. >> ok, so the proposal is? >> task force composition officers and staff. >> you get that, ms. tidwell? >> uh-huh. >> any snokse moving then. anything else in section b? >> what i took from the last vote was not to include the dates. could we re-order it? just the three sentences so that they're in the order of the selections. that would be the election commission, the board of supervisors and the mayor. >> why? if there are no dates, no one will have an appreciation other than you. >> because that tracks with the later -- >> ok, we're not going to debate it. that's all. >> about the history. >> great. thank you. mr. alonso? >> out. >> mr. leigh? >> no. >> ms. mondejar. >> no. >> mr. schreiber? >> no. >> ms. tidwell? >> no. >> ok, next. >> and to be replace technical advice, i would replace that with technical assistance. >> whic

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, 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 m

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 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 yo

mr. alonso is that still your proposal? >> still my proposal. 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

mr. alonso: but in the end, we pretty much brought the best out of the city as we could. thank you. >> i vote in support of the map. i also really want to thank everybody for working together on this, and it has been a pleasure to work with everybody. i personally feel like i learned a great deal about the city, which is what i will take the most value from a personal level forever, really. i want to thank, in that regard, the staff, the consultants, the district attorneys that have worked with us. they have been a tremendous resource to us. i also think everybody in the community. i am amazed summon people have spent so much time, whether in our meetings or submitting it public comment or facebook, or what have you, it has been a very rich and critical source of information for all of us. i admire the dedication of everyone who has committed the time. ms. melara: i also want to thank everyone who supported us in this process, and all disagreements and agreements that we had, it was a lot of fun. the long nights or not a lot of fun, but i want to say yes outo the map. in

mr. alonso. >> i would not want to limit it to public submissions because i do not think we got to missions for the entire city. and there may be instances where there are disputes between different organizations and difference of metals. i would say in general if the consultant believes, and this is a judgment call. i do not think this section of the report is as objective as one might want it to be carried i think it actually comes back to us and our subjective judgment as to what is a recognized neighborhood. i think we would probably find as a group that we brought the portila together and put it in 9. i'm not sure if the entire area tracks 100% to a public submission, the department of elections or city planning, but i think we can still make the finding reasonably that we brought the portila together and put it in 9. what i'm hoping for is that the consulting can look at what was done and say these, we feel very comfortable and recommending that you find and these are some ones where you may need to vote and make that judgment call. because i think all of these are judgments for us to

mr. alonso. any final population tweaks ? commissioner alonso: no. commissioner leigh: no. commissioner melara: no. 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

mr. alonso. >> no. >> on the agenda. so i will make sure a state and gets into the draft. thank you. so the draft that is being worked on between now and friday, will it be possible, assuming there is a draft by close of business friday for that still to be posted and available for the public to review overnight friday prior to our meeting saturday? >> so, if i may, correct me if i am wrong -- posting as possible. we will post whatever version of the draft is ready to be posted. >> ok. can we, who knows what is going to happen saturday, but could we at least contemplate allowing the public sometime, maybe while we take a break so that if there are further tweaks made on saturday, either on the lines or on the report, that people have a chance to digest and comment? we're not making changes on the fly and that is that without an opportunity for public comment? that is kind of important. >> i will think about that. >> ok, thank. >> clarification. to go back to the districts, who are right -- are we writing the two parts, the deviation and also the neighborhoods that we decided to inclu

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

alonso? >> present. >> me lawyerlara. >> present and not sure it's for the last time. >> 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 you so much. one moment. public comment on the final draft map. and then, approve a fin