ms. melara.

ms. melara: yes. ms. mondejar: yes. mr. schreiber: yes. ms. tidwell: yes. ms. lam: yes. mr. mcdonnell: thank you. all right. district 2. oh, -- mr. pilpel: oh, can we also have them not avoided -- voided -- mr. mcdonnell: please keep going. >> can we separate and jordan park from the village? mr. mcdonnell: the proposal is to keep -- i will refer to it as the consultant draft. >> i am sorry. no. mr. mcdonnell: hold on. the proposal is to use the consultant language of district 2. mr. alonso: yes. 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 differen

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 wholeok. i just wanted to make sure. mr. mcdonnell: it will be included in its entiret

ms. melara's suggestion. member pilpel: by it -- i think i am with a member melara but i am also open to do it individually. chair mcdonnell: from her point of view, there are two areas we have agreement on. two ideas -- one around city departments and data, the other more time around the outreach plan. member schreiber: yes, i am with that. >> i also submitted something. chair mcdonnell: we are not on community outreach. we are on city departments. we're going to come to outreach. member lam: i think it is important to have a reflection recommendation on how departments can be considered or incorporated for the task force. member leigh: yes. member alonso: yes. chair mcdonnell: she will craft a recommendation. the second one is around time to plan, time and resources, to plan for outreach. it is not properly stated? >> that is very prompt -- broad. member tidwell: i would suggest note to additional time but it should be considered earlier on in the process. chair mcdonnell: ok. member schreiber: yes. it shoul

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 mcdonn

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 replacing"nopa" with north of the p

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 you very much

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

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

ms. melara? >> no. after hearing public testimony, i am against it. >> mr. leigh? >> also know. what i remember from public testimony is one or more of the individuals that we heard from that represent parks or that are involved with institutions that are in some ways community shepherds of the park, i believe they expressed support for the eastern part of the parked being shared with district 5, but i do not recall any similar testimony regarding the southern and western part with district four, so as other folks have said come on and going to say no. >> mr. alonso? >> i am going to say no, because even though i live right there, i am going to say that i think two supervisors is more than adequate for the park. that should be fine. >> mr. mcdonnell? >> i say no for the same reasons. i am actually opposed to splitting the park at all. >> so we will not make this change. >> thank you. >> i thought the eastern side had more merit. thank you very much. >> thank you, sir. are there any other non population based? >> yes. i had, i was wondering if we could consider moving all of the

melara? >> no. chairman mcdonnell: ms. lam. >> i used to live at monterrey and juice, and i have for -- for several years, and i think i did have a closer -- the bordering neighborhood, but i am in in support of moving that border to monterrey. chairman mcdonnell: that was a yes? >> yes. chairman mcdonnell: and mrs. mondejar? >> no, wipet support this. chairman mcdonnell: all right. so we would not make that change. >> did we look at russian hill? can we get the count there? the 2-3 border and see. chairman mcdonnell: let's go for a moment -- i am going to come back to this area in a moment. let's go to another area. >> i am not sure how the legal description works here to go from mansell to bayshore because they don't connect. there is a freeway in between. my intent was to go m mansell, up san brunoo and east on paul. it end up selecting one block with some population, probably a couple of zdeno people and some freeway parcel. i also was interested in going to -- you wanted to do zero population stuff after. so i will ho

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 was at the end of the fir

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

ms. melara. >> no. >> got it. sorry. member lam: i agree. i think eight months was enough time. >> everybody can say what they wanted to. saarinen made some assumptions. -- sorry i made some assumptions. member schreiber: there is nothing in my experience that expect -- suggested we would have been benefited by having more time. i was satisfied with the proposed suggestion that we save the city consider those things and leave it at that. i would be happy either to eliminate the recommendations or say that the city could consider them. but would not be my recommendation of those things are necessary. >> i'm not sure where you just said. you can live with that of someone else agrees? in or out? >> as modified by -- >> it would require additional -- >> the modification is no. member pilpel: my preference would be to include it as modified. i think we have gained experience going through this. the city and others could benefit from that experience. i would like to capture some of it. to the point of adding time, i think it would be worth startin

ms. melara made. ok, she reference to the conclusion of our meeting on saturday. we will have deliberated over this and other pieces of the final report. and there will be a moment at approximately 12:15 on saturday when we will declare ourselves done. how's that for optimism? but there is of point a which we say we are done and we are able to hand it to you. what what about that does not work in your mind? >> she was suggesting if changes needed to be made that we had a laptop available that we could make the changes. i can see of that can be done, and then a member can be making changes up there. and i think we would have to check on the wi-fi situation. >> i will bring my laptop and i have a sprint card. >> is that member tidwell? >> that is. anything else, kate, you would need of us? >> i dno'on't think so. >> ok, thank you. mr. pilpel. >> will that be similar to the ballot simplification committee where we are working on line to finish things? >> that is how i am in addition it. >> if that can happen, that can be great. >> there would be a computer and a scre