pilpel, mr. leigh, mr. alonso. ok. mr. pilpel. >> back to where we are, in the block to the west as well. this is with me haight and inner sunset. the big rack. the children's playground carousel. the tennis courts. but there probably are a couple of other things, but, yes, they are a major feature. this is reasonable. a little odd to look at, but i am wondering if there is any population in this highlighted area. a at -- the deviation of district 5 would be 1.3%. it would be -4.99%. >> i so propose. >> thank you. mr. mr. leigh, mr. alonso. [reading names] who did i leave out? ok. ok, phase two, and i am not as supportive of this, but i am thinking about this on the west side, north of four. select certain blocks, so starting at 19th and lincoln /crossover. north of there. south of their headed west. yes? yes? keep going. and let's try that for a moment, and then we can talk about it. these are the areas just inside the park on the south, and it seems to me that this is in an interest, and this does not include the polo fi

>> 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 bl

mr. leigh: i am going to say yes. on the whole, i think it is fine. i appreciate member pilpel's attempts to respond to the issues we had. ms. tidwell: no. mr. mcdonnell: ok. it will remain in the individual section. ok. at the break on this section, mrs. mondejar will edit and give to ms. tidwell. the addition will be at tit -- added to lessons learned and recommendations. ms. tidwell: clarification. where do we want -- we want to include this at the end of the current submissions so we have lessons learned from the task force as part 6 and 7 as individual recommendations? ok. >> i was motioning to her that i have 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 someth

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. leigh, yes, ms. 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 --

. >> mr. leigh? >> yes. >> miss melara? >> yes. >> i'm sorry, could you repeat the proposal? >> 64 reversinging it from d-3 back to d-2. sorry, other way. reversing it from -- thank you. >> yes. >> mr. mondejar? >> yes. >> mr. pilpel? >> i'm in favor of fewer so i think i'm no on the question. >> mr. schreiber? >> yes. >> miss tidwell? >> yes. >> please make this change. as you're doing that can you give the new deviation or temporary deviation. >> for district 3 the temporary deviation is negative 3.5%. for district two the temporary deviation is negative 4.54% and for district one negative 5.23%. >> thank you. >> and the population being 270 with deviation. >> population for this is 331. >> that's what i said. >> deviation for district one would be negative 4.78%. for district two, next to 5%. we're going to look at the decimals right now. look at the decimals after the change. can we make the change temporarily? >> yes, please. let's not presume there's agreement. sorry, even though we discussed it. miss tidwell? >> discussion? >> i'm sorry. >> two points i believe it would

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 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

mr. leigh, yes, ms. 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 another

chairman mcdonnell: mr. leigh? >> no. chairman mcdonnell: and mr. alonso? >> no. >> please make the change. chairman district eight at 3.98 and district nine 4.94. >> can i ask about that other block as anoff set. chairman mcdonnell: no, not at this time. why are you trying tooff set? >> i didn't want to add more population to eight. chairman mcdonnell: is there a sentiment around trying tooff set this. >> i was not interested in offer setting. currently before this move, district nine was at 4.98. he would certainly pelfrey to stay away from 5% to the extent we can. >> and i am actually good with going to 5% in nine. chairman mcdonnell: thank you, but we are not going to do that at this time. we can add it to the bottom of our list of propose always. i didn't hear a proposal, so i am going to presume for purposes of moving forward that there is not a proposal with respect to the tingley-kayuga? >> i think we voted against it. chairman mcdonnell: no, what we voted against was the rotation. ok. so let's go then to to the sunny side and the conservatory . >>

so mr. leigh, would you like to have considered your rather lessons learned considered to become no longer a single submission of your own but to be blended into the larger body of the report? >> i think basically the answer -- my answer is yes. to the extent the task force agrees with this, i would actually love to have it be supported or this notion be supported by the task force of the hole. i have one small concern which i can hold on to. if at the end of the discussion we only have three, i guess we're going to have four with member tidwell. but let's say depending how this discussion concludes, if we have only one or two, it wouldn't bother me as much. but if we only had one member that was captured in sort of in the context of individual members, recommendations and lessons learned, i think it could be awkward for the report. it doesn't bother me a whole lot. i could live with it. but it could little a little odd . >> so the answer is yes, and in a moment we'll go back to the top on this. i

mr. leigh: i would strike open house and lgbt community center. mr. mcdonnell: removing them from this list. any additions? mr. pilpel: i am looking at it. it is changing. >> i withdraw the comment. mr. mcdonnell: ok. so, we have -- can -- >> can i suggest eureka valley? ms. tidwell: i just deleted eureka valley. some of those are encompassed with what the other neighborhoods are. mr. pilpel: i don't think i agree with that. i think eureka valley is in district 8. >> adding eureka valley. mr. mcdonnell: there is no need to create an exhaustive list. mr. pilpel: ok. all right. mr. mcdonnell: any other additions? moving then to d 9. mr. pilpel: i would suggest vernal heights. mr. mcdonnell: objections? >> i will turn this over to the consultant. >> there is no publicly cemented neighborhood boundary.

mr. leigh? >> can i ask some clarifying questions? chairman mcdonnell: you may. >> i know we had talked about the u.s.f. campus in those three blocks. can we have the population of those? for me personally i would want to see more on sort of -- i think the implication is the russian hill area. so i would like to see more

. >> mr. leigh? [reading names] >> i will say yes, but there is a population here, just because there is population there. to get it on record. >> get it on the record that there is population. [reading names] please make this change. and if i can make this so it is a sweeping curve? >> that is a population of six people. the mine is on bayshore. >> take that line out. >> that adds 20 people. >> really? well, if that really is east, if that really would put a mine at bayshore to the folks that there are folks on eastside of bay shore, they really ought to be there. >> that is one point of view. >> ok. >> would you like to hear the deviation? >> yes, please. >> both of these have a population of 26. the district 10 deviation would be -0.87%, and the deviation for district 9 would be 4.81%. >> thank you. ms. mondejar? just for the record, there are people there. we were supposed to do no population. >> i actually agree. i think we are doing a lot of things that we were not going to do, and i think we s

with that, member leigh. >> thank you, mr. chair. and i believe everyone has a copy of a couple of different documents that we will be using for a reference for this item. so the main was is the latest draft of the report itself. there's a separate document that is entitled, sf redistrict and task force, neighborhoods intact 4/11/2012 draft and a third document which says lessons learned and recommendations from individual task force members. >> one second. the task force draft i have. the second document you referenced -- >> that was sent to us -- >> in my stack. >> too many papers. overloaded. it's here somewhere, i'm sure. >> there are copies, i believe, on the table as well. so some some respect it was not entirely clear to me how to incorporate some of the content. so if we can talk through that as needed. it seems like we have just one additional section of content that member tidwell submitted that we don't have in our hard copy. so if we can take that up as well. so just to begin with the mane report document itself, again, i

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

. >> mr. leigh is proposing we reverse the action we just took. >> could we look at that block bounded by california and lake and see if it is near 165 population? i suspect it is more dense. >> that was a population of 200 people. >> population is 200. >> -2.69% and district 1 would be -5.21%. >> can we take them together as a swap and see if that does it? >> no. >> district 2, deviation? >> -4.69%, district 1, -4.29%. commissioner alonso: no. commissioner mondejar: yes. 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 b

mr. leigh. >> i'm fine with including a sentence. >> 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, t

mr. alonso: no. ms. lamms. leigh: yes. ms. mondejar: yes. mr. pilpel: yes. mr. schreiber: yes. ms. tidwell: yes. mr. mcdonnell: thank you so much. we will move forward with planning and event of some sort, less than a quorum, to be determined how and when. any public comment on the press conference item? thank you so much. item number 7, task force budget. ms. lam: there are no additional reporting, just a recap from the last budget. we are anticipating a net balance of " approximately $8800 related to the outreach and consultants. at minimum, we would have that balance if not more. mr. mcdonnell: any questions? mr. pilpel: consistent with the comment a while back, some funds existing, and consistent with the admen codes, could we arrange to. a small number of reports, in addition to having a pdf available on the website for download and printing? mr. mcdonnell: yes, thank you. ok, any other questions? any public comment on budget? thank you so much. moving to item number eight, general public comment. on non-agenda items. ok. excellent. just before we adjourn, ms tidwell? ms. tidw

leigh: i believe there was a comment about delegating authority to someone to make final grammatical mr. mcdonnell: edits mcdonnell yes. ms. leigh: other than that, not to my knowledge. are you satisfied it is final? ms. tidwell: yes, with the exception of the vote and final grammatical fixes. mr. mcdonnell: okay, two pieces? >> combine them. mr. mcdonnell: all right, i entertained a motion to delegate the final edit responsibility to ms. tidwell and approval of the final report. >> so moved. >> second. mr. mcdonnell: alright, is there any objection? >> not objecting, but what we do a roll call on the final report. mr. alonso: yes. ms. melara: yes. ms. lam: yes. ms. mondejar: yes. mr. pilpel: yes. mr. schreiber: yes. ms. tidwell: yes. mr. mcdonnell: thank you so much. >> i just wanted to thank tidwell, melara, and leigh, and really, thank you for taking the time to pull all lavar reports together -- pull all of our reports together. mr. mcdonnell: thank you very much. it moving again, item number six. a press conference. based on lots of discussion and exploration with the city attorney

mr. mcdonnell: okay, excellent. ms. leigh? is there, for purposes of approving the final report, should we now go back to item 4, approve the map, come back and insert date, then approve the final report? ms. leigh: that would be my recommendation. mr. mcdonnell: thank you very much. >> the park is reminding you that you should take a final comment before we do this. mr. mcdonnell: yes. >> and i believe before you vote on the final map, you have any proposals that you did? just for meeting purposes -- mr. mcdonnell: we're going to go back in just a moment to item 4. but i want to both have member leigh -- to make sure we have answered everything we need to come up with regard to the final report. ok, ms. tidwell? ms. tidwell: yes, sir, i need to make one more slight change, but you can proceed. i'm listening. mr. mcdonnell: actually, i'm going to invite you back up here. ms. tidwell: okay, i'm sorry. >> can i ask a question, meantime? since i had to write during the break, what about any changes? it mr. mcdonnell: i'm not sure

leigh: yes. commissioner alonso: yes. >> please make this change. yes, mr. schreiber. commissioner schreiber: i had this on my list as something that you mentioned. commissioner pilpel: the tingly trade that i describe the other day and we did not come to consensus on doingis to take the area south of 280, north of tingly, i don't have the numbers here. move that back to 11. take the aread south of st. luke's, all the way down to randall. 723 is what is nets out. move that down to 8. below 280, there were three or four blocks that would go from 11 to 9. >> this is the proposal we have down before. >> it is the same proposal, correct? >> interested in revisiting? commissioner tidwell: i am not quite understanding. commissioner schreiber: no. commissioner mondejar: no. vice chair lam: no. commissioner leigh: i would be open to hearing the rationale. i am fine either way. commissioner alonso: no. >> we will not hear that set of proposals. ok, that concludes our list. let's take a moment and zoom back out. if you could get population deviations 1-11. >> deviation for distr