mr. pilpel: yes. mr. 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. i will live with that. i have to go at about 45 minutes. >> i h

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. -- publicly submitted neighborhood boundaries. it is split in the department of elections. >> i am willing to call it north and south. it is in district 9. mr. mcdonnell: jamie? >> looking at the -- is this planning more elections? looking at the planning department map, the corners have been moved into district 8. that is the this is the area between cesar chavez and south of randall, between mission and san jose avenue. that is just according to the planning. mr. 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

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. -- publicly submitted neighborhood boundaries. it is split in the department of elections. >> i am willing to call it north and south. it is in district 9. mr. mcdonnell: jamie? >> looking at the -- is this planning more elections? looking at the planning department map, the corners

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. 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

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

mr. pilpel: will we edit this after the break? it is our findings as to what constitutes the neighborhood. mr. mcdonnell: you just agreed on something. i have no idea what you agreed upon. ms. tidwell: what the task force lists are the task force's findings. mr. mcdonnell: what is there to correct? mr. pilpel: in district 1, we might continue to use the reference to the outer richmond, in a richmond, as opposed to the -- the doe'[s richmond district. i don't know that we need to make specific reference to doe in this section. ms. tidwell: can i make a suggestion that we clarify that i write down the deviations' currently in these districts, and then we can work on incorporating the other comments that we decided to do? we will come back with a final draft before we get to this. i will e-mail it and then i can include it. give me some time to draft. >> as and give you time to make the draft? >> the rest of the needs 10 minutes to include and create a more final draft before we get to the question of what should go in each district.

mr. 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 fie

mr. pilpel: if i may? for my purposes, again, just the format that was used in the 2000 report as a baseline would be great. for the maps, it was just the maps themselves for each district, sort of a zoom-in that showed each district, and then the tables with the statistics were separate. if that much could be done, i think that would be sufficient. >> ok, so we did not put the data up on, we just put the district, and the data is in the appendix. >> what about population? district 1, this is the population? >> i think all of that information would be in the tables. i will share this with you. >> do we want to clarify what should be included in the table? i don't know if anyone wants me to clarify what should be in that table or if i should just leave that? mr. mcdonnell: i would just mirror the 2000 report, and for purposes of the individual districts, continuation have done. -- continue as you have done. >> could you switch to this map mr. mcdonnell: one second? : i'm sang continue what you have done. --

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

mr. pilpel? >> the printed version that we have, the top of page 5 and the third -- well, the second paragraph that begins on 5, the beginning and october 2011, it's redundant about the four community meetings. >> i'm sorry, what are you suggesting get stricken? >> one of the references. perhaps the second? well, it doesn't read well. that's my point. >> that's fine. is it factually incorrect? >> knost -- no, it's redoesn't ant and reperspective -- repit active. >> mr. alonso? >> no. >> mr. leigh? >> i'm fine with striking the second one. >> 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 a

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. >> yes. please? >> this is not in the individual neighborhoods, is that fine? >> christine, you know? >> did that persuade you one way or another, mr. pilpel? >> no, not yet, but i am waiting. >> this

mr. pilpel? >> further depopulating three, no. >> miss mondejar? >> yes. miss lam? >> yes. >> miss melara? >> yes. >> mr. alanso? >> yes. >> please make this change. >> mr. leigh? >> then just the second part of it to move then the other two blocks into three. >> and -- >> i'm sorry, into six. >> question, the manors in both blocks? >> no, the northern block. we could just take that one, the northern block and that would be fine with me. as far as my proposal is concerned. >> ok. >> so desubmit the southern of those two blocks? exactly. >> miss tidwell? >> i would like to comment that i think if we are considering putting portions of the tenderloin, continuing to add to the tenderloin, it raises the question of moving the line i think, well, in my mind again sort of revisiting the mission market digs continuation -- distinction that's been raised because i think pot point you're going to -- we heard a number of testimony about the bristol hotel, and i could see a distinction in making that line, we're still missing numerous blocks in the tenderloin sofment my suggest

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 bounds, even if it's just the document that -- this document. >> yes. >> and the statistic and whatever statistic, we agree. i think all of those things are appropriate for appendsies, not the body of the report but should be referenced in the body of the report. that's at least one, two,

mr. pilpel? >> several thoughts based on that if i might. in terms of the appendsies, we're not doing public comment? >> that is correct. >> i'm not sure -- i agree with not including the visualizations. i'm not sure including the draft maps is actually that helpful. there are some who believe that that shows some evolution in the thinking. i think it in some ways distracts from the final map that was adopted because that's the only map that mattered. so i'm inclined to not ininclude either the draft working map that's we evolved or the map submitted by the public. i think the report is really what we ultimately do and we can reference that maybe the discussion, and then i have a couple other points. >> i want to check them out so we don't have to redo them. first one, task force draft reports. miss tidwell? >> i kind of agree with member pilpel. >> mr. schreiber? >> yes, i agree. >> you agree. ok. mr. mondejar? >> i agree. >> miss lam? >> yes. >> miss melara? mr. leigh? >> to make sure i underst

mr. 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.

mr. pilpel. member pilpel: to molly, if we included a statement like district to deviate's by the statistical me by greater than 1% to keep the outer richmond, central richmond, in richmond areas together, wouuld thald tha statemtent that would do the trick for the deviation purpose? que>> yes. you can do it in a way that the task force did previously. either way is fine legally. >> i am still in favor of that kind of statement for the deviation. and a different statement for the descriptions that were larger and lists more neighborhoods or however we would want to do color and flavor on that. >> pause for a second. >> therefore, if there is no objection, the specifics underneath these banners and notwithstanding the statement i am ready to make, what mayor tidwell has done to quote- unquote mirror the 2000 report would be the opening statement. district 1 deviates blah, blah, blah to protect these. to the point that was raised, we need to be clear that those listed are those that are in fact who

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 be in range, it would be 4.97. >> you said discussion? >> yes. that's not a question though. we -- >> can we look at the layer of sequences defined? >> what does that have to do with this question? >> got it. >> there'

mr. pilpel? >> rather than say the task force should consider, i think we should say the city should consider a charter amendment to start the process sooner or the city should consider whether the task force should have the opportunity to select the consultant and discuss the scope of work versus having that happen. the part of it is not a recommendation to the next task force, it is to the city. poor example, the charter says -- for example, the charter says it could be changed to provide 30 more days in total. as an example. >> just to keep it simple, i would say it's we're going to do -- if we're going to do additional time, that we do not kid into the minutia of what that would look like. -- get into the minutia of what that would look like. >> i agree. member melara: it would provide that task force with additional time in order to possibly have some decision making or some power over the hiring of the consultant or develop the work plan with a consultant. >> excellent. any others on the pr

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. tidwell: sorry, yes. just on behalf of the task forc