chairman mcdonnell: mrs. melara? >> no. chairman mcdonnell: mr. leigh? >> no. chairman mcdonnell: and mr. alonso? no. chairman mcdonnell: ms. tidwell? >> no. chairman mcdonnell: thank you. let's go then back up to doctor sorry, give me one moment, please. let's go back up to north panhandle. mr. alonso? >> yes, let's get the population for the portion that is currently in 2:00-1, south of fulton and east of stan on-- -- stanion. >> that is a population of 2,855 people, to bring the deviation for district five for 3.89% and the deviation for district one to negative 8.01%. >> d-5 one more time? >> 2:00 p 5, 3.8%. chairman mcdonnell: thank you. >> and i would like to see the population of ansa -- vista. >> would you like me to put the neighborhood layer up and just select those census blocks, or would you like the whole chunk here? >> we will start with the neighborhood layer. >> ok. >> i think it is not the northerly blocks. chairman mcdonnell: he is trying to suggest to you what to consider. finish what you are thinking, and then we will give him a chance to of

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 anothe

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: no. ms. melara: no. ms. lam: no. ms. 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 repl

melara? >> 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 b

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 approach, which

mr. leigh? >> no. >> ms. melara? >> no. >> ms. mondejar? >> no. >> ms. lam? >> no. >> mr. schreiber? >> no. >> ms. tidwell? >> no. >> anything else in criteria section? page three. the continuance of the criteria section. make sure you didn't overlook anything. ok, thank you. moving into page four, section 3. description of redistricting task force process. ms. lam? >> i just wanted to be able to add that the task force had received more than 1,000 written and oral testimony? >> where? >> i'm sorry, second paragraph. page 4. >> sorry, i have the task force of over 1,000 written in oral testimony or public comment. >> i'm sorry, and 300 what? >> [inaudible] >> can you include that in? ok. madam clerk state what you just said. >> to add in over 300 public comments submitted at meetings and member lam with 1,000 emails via the email public comment. >> so do we want to just change it from 1,000 1,300? >> yes. >> good. >> i want you to know that you've been working hard. >> thank you. >> just for clarification, the 00 hours of meeting time that member leigh had raised? >> my suggestion wa

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 available 10 years on the website wi

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 agreed -- you said let's do the grammatical at the end. >> ok. so i will provide that to someone during the break and it will get looked at. great. cool. >> anything else in this next? ok, moving then to page 6, which is the end of that last section. at the very top of that page. substantial amounts of public comment. we've already referenced the apox mat and specific amount of public comment and extent of written comment. i don't think those two sentences are needed now. >> will the chair, on page 4 -- >> on page 4? >> yeah, i'm sorry, we -- >> hold on one second. let's finish

mr. schreiber? ms. 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 that invisible line. and the other proposed changes? >> having completed this later or worse on saturday. all right, hearing none, thank

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. schreiber, no. ms. 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

mr. schreiber. member schreiber: ok. member lam: yes. member melara: yes, i am fine wiht that. -- with that. chair mcdonnell: the only thing i would ask is that he would title this section appropriately. that these are the recommendations of individuals. as opposed to minority opinions. there may be some constituents. so it is clear what folks are reviewing. member leigh: i think i am ok with this. i'm trying to imagine what it might look like and what it might contain. chair mcdonnell: in general, a volume and two sentences. member leigh: that is part of what i'm grappling with. if it ends up being completely open to whoever wants to contribute what ever thought, it could end up looking different than our own opinions. if we are all comfortable with that, that is fine. i'm willing to go with it. bring it back and see what it looks like. member alonso: i will see you back here in 2022. chair mcdonnell: 4 lessons learned on recommendation, what we have agreed to do is move forward with each member representing his or her points of view around the lessons learned and recommendations. the secti

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 clarendon heights into 7

melara: the one increasing the city department? that is different. that has to do with, i believe mr. pilpel wanted the task force to consider outreach to the city department to tell us, to give us information. some of the questions i had was that all of the departments to not have the information that we would use anywhere. what we need is a city departments that have been for mitch -- information about neighborhoods, and data, and the task at hand. not all departments have any information that is valuable to this task force. i would say, my suggestion would be to city departments maintain specific data related to recognizing communities of interest or applicable data to the task at hand. or something like that. >> 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

melara. >> are we keeping it together in district 6? >> we did not fully achieve that for the mission, either. mr. mcdonnell: we will not include the tenderloin. >> there is a planning department-recognized neighborhood. correct the spelling. replace "n" with "p." mr. pilpel: could i suggest combining those and saying south of market? that seems to be more of a neighborhood that we could recognize. >> they are separate, though. mr. mcdonnell: hold on. we have heard one proposal. i will confirm the spelling. >> no. that is not right. >> no what? >> we are not voting. >> could you repeat the question? mr. mcdonnell: silma -- recognized neighborhood? >> that was a public submission boundary. mr. mcdonnell: what is the first letter? >> p. mr. mcdonnell: ok. it is a p. >> excuse my spelling error. >> that is why we are editing. mr. mcdonnell: ok. again, we have selma, treasure island, mission bay -- >> i combined the list. i hate -- -- i have -- mr. mcdonnell: i thought we agreed, no institutions? >> yes. ok. mr. mcdonnell: south beach, rincon hill. any additions? >> there was a public submission about