mr. schreiber: yes. ms. tidwell: yes. mr. mcdonnell: thank you. on the second question, using the consultant descriptions as submitted by consultants. 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. m

mr. schreiber? >> yes. >> mr. pilpel? >> 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. 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 oth

mr. schreiber: yes. mr. pilpel: pass. ms. lam: the outreach section? mr. mcdonnell: these are lessons learned and recommendations. this is if they go into the body or remain as an individual. ms. lam: can we included in the full body? mr. mcdonnell: all of these are being determined -- considered to determine if they go into the fall letter or if they remain as individual insertions. ms. lam: full body. ms. melara: no, because i think it is included in the body. mr. mcdonnell: thank you. mr. leigh: yes. mr. alonso: no. ms. tidwell: yes. >> i was going to make the same observation. parts of this are already there. it is augmenting it a little bit to get what is not there included. mr. pilpel: if we are not able to edit, i would not include it in this way. mr. mcdonnell: ok. thank you. ms. mondejar: included in the body of the report. maybe at the last sentence. -- edit the last sentence. mr. mcdonnell: your response but the break for editing. ok. thank you. on mr. pilpel's? everyone take a moment to read this suggestion. >> the question you're going to call

mr. schreiber? >> yes, i agree. >> you agree. ok. mr. mondejar? >> i agree. >> miss lam? >> 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 a

mr. schreiber: yes. ms. tidwell: yes. mr. mcdonnell: thank you so much.

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 district two is that - 5%. deviation for district 3 it is 3.84%. district 4 is -5.6%

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 >> for district 3 the temporary deviation is negative 3.5%.

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

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 fina

schreiber, which was d-2. so that was the agreed upon format for that section. mr. leigh? >> ok. so the next section was section five, section five deviations in excess of 1%. this is where i think i need a little bit of clarification. so i was not quite sure whether this format that appears in this main draft in that document is what we intended to include in our draft or whether it was meant to be substituted with this other document which is on a separate page in our handouts, s.f. redistricting task force, neighborhoods in fact for 2011 or they meant to be two different things and i want prepared for that? >> sure. let me try to represent where we landed. where i believe we landed is we were clear that we wanted and needed to offer justification for deviations, and we had discussion whether or not to do all of them or only to do those plus or above minus 1%. we determined to do all of them. we leave at the second description because the assignment is given upon the agreement to do all of them, the assignment was given to the consultants to please give us the reconnected -- be