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 would be only listing t

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.

ms. mondejar? >> no. >> mr. pilpel? >> no. i think it's important to include. >> thank you. mr. schreiber? >> no. >> and ms. tidwell? >> uh, no. >> ok, then we'll include it. thank you. next. all right so we're now at section 4. schb the map and plan -- >> i'm going to type in mine for one and four. while we do that can we decide where we're going to put the final map and the other thing? but i'm going to type in mine -- mine on one and four. >> thank you. do you have a suggestion on where to put the final map? doesn't matter? very good. any points, point of view where the final map goes? there was one proposal from mr. pilpel to put it in the first item in the appendixes along with the descriptions of each district, along with individual district maps. >> exhibit a, exhibit b. >> yes. any objection to that? >> yes. >> ok. >> one point of clarification. i would recommend that the findings regarding the population deviation be included in the report itself rather than in the abend i said. >> very good. ok. so we'll have district one -- i'm sorry, the findings and deviations as the

ms. mondejar. >> no. >> mr. schreiber? >> no. >> ms. tidwell? >> no. >> ok, next. >> and to be replace technical advice, i would replace that with technical assistance. >> which line? >> just the line before the end. >> because? >> i think we received technical assistance more so than technical advice. we also received advice, granted but it was technical assistance. i just think it's more descriptive, that's all. >> ok, so again, if we have this discussion over speech, we could be here all day. it's not that it isn't worth -- >> i didn't see this until last night and i didn't have an opportunity to review it until now and we're being asked to vote on this, so -- >> excuse me, you're saying you didn't get the first draft? >> none of this was changed. >> this has been in the draft from the beginning. >> the earlier draft had yellow all over the place. i thought that was a working draft that was in process. >> ok, we're here now. thank you. what we don't have time or interest in doing is debating speech. what we want to focus on is fact and conten

ms. mondejar: i'm not really sure bridget ms. melara: i agree this information has to get out to the media and as many people as possible, as soon as possible. by tomorrow, this will be old news, so a press conference is probably it less than effective. it is more trying to get the information out. mr. mcdonnell: thank you. any other comments? i wouldn't say whether it is a press conference or not, the idea is it is a moment of idea distribution. i don't want to get caught up on the language of "press." mr. pilpel: perhaps since we have issued press releases before, if we could just issue a short release saying that we have adopted this matter and report, distribute that to anyone we could think of it as a beginning, we certainly have seen some coverage today. i don't know of the board of supervisors would want you to make a short presentation at a meeting on tuesday, to just say, is there, something along those lines. mr. mcdonnell: okay, thank you. mr. alonso: the press is out there, so we could just run out in the next five mi

ms. mondejar, and members? >> i do not think is splitting apart in three different districts -- >> i have less concern. this is more of an impact in connection. and the need for the involvement of the supervisor. >> i am not opposed to having its supervisors. i think it makes this very neighborly. >> 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. th

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 t

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 mcdonnell and vice chai

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 panhandle. mr. mcdonnell: if yo

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

ms. mondejar. >> no. chairman mcdonnell: no, never? >> no to this proposal. chairman mcdonnell: thank you. ms. lam, for clarification, the stoney ford for stony brook move for the 9-11 border would go into -- >> from nine -- >> from 11 to nine. >> right. >> and then bringing the tingley out of eight into 11. we need to see the population variance for those two moves. i am not interested in the st. luke's move. i don't know if that would get us close enough. >> what he identified in the rotation were three, relatively-speaking approximately 800 populations. that is the puzzle move. >> no. chairman mcdonnell: thank you. mrs. mondejar. -- m's melara. i am not interested in changing our decision we made last time, primarily we made it very deliberately. when the community comes tonight and says you took away this piece, they were not taking into consideration what it would cost elsewhere in their district. we moved something in their district, and next week the people will come back saying you shouldn't have done that. so let's leave it where it is. so no, no, no.

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 proposal that nobody is happy with that does not reflect a good sol

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 --