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%

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

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'

schreiber? >> just under district two. including d.-1 is one of the options to be consistent with the discussion on d-5. >> ok, member advertise well, sorry to disrupt your insertion but can you jump down to district two for a moment and the vista and whether to include and the vista in d-1 so d 2 and d 5. thank you. mr. pill pell? >> -- pilpel? >> i'm not sure wife we have reasons and are adoption. >> i was going to get to that. any other edits ms. lam? >> after ms. tidwell adds hers, i want to make it consistent with the format. >> very good. anyone else? >> yes, we still have the question of district seven, drafted by member tidwell? >> we'll come back to that that moment. we just need for ms. tidwell to catch up with us. she's entering her two districts. while she's doing that on the heading, on the reasons for adoption, that should not be there. we aren't offering reasons for adoption. >> i propose that sorry, district considerations as opposed to findings, which would more suggest the one to five. >> sure. >> ok, so

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

commissioner schreiber: no. vice chair lam: none. commissioner melara: did we give up on the mission bay campus issue to bring it to the 16th? >> yes, we did. we addressed it and determined not to. commissioner leigh: no. commissioner alonso: no. commissioner pilpel: i don't think i have any. >> we need their attention. other than the 64-person thing we talked about earlier, we have absolutely correlated and minimize the number of ballot types. >> as much as we could come we could just put them off to you. >> after this draft is complete, i would go back inn the areas that there were changes to make sure that there were not other issues. >> ok. i was hoping to take a recess again soon. >> thank you for that proposal. could you name the others that were non-population related. >> hopefully, these are all still properly. there was a change made between districts two and 3. the alliance with the bart district line. the next one was between three and 6. it moved from 6 to 3. between districts 9 and 10, there was an alignment with the bar

member schreiber drafted this and it was very helpful. it needed i. this whole section needed in our opinion, a little editing. so if anybody sees any comments to make, please interrupt me. otherwise, we will just go on to the second page. again, there wasn't a whole lot in this most recent round of edits that member melara and i made to the second page either. we did cleanup the names as appropriate. and i don't think there was any change to page two, going on to page three, member melara, please help me if you notice changes i'm not -- that i'm not updating people on. >> to clarify was -- because both member land jahr and lam submitted quite a bit of information both on the -- on what happened for outreach and some of the issues confronted because in the outreach process and because some of it overlapped itself, you know, i sort of took the license to sort of summarize what was being said so it's important for the two of you to look at it and see if we captured what you wanted in it because there was some repetitive information so we didn't want to

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

schreiber: russian hill community association. mr. mcdonnell: ok. proposal to eliminate. any objection? ok. mr. pilpel: proposed to eliminate middle polk. mr. mcdonnell: any objection to elimination? ok. we will eliminate middle polk. the elementary school, a proposal to eliminate. any objection? ok. thank you. district 4. any additions to district 4 description? >> for those districts that are less than the deviation, are we treating it in the same way? we are referencing it, but it is not the same? we will include the same language? >> yes, sir. i would suggest adding parkside and outer parkside. mr. mcdonnell: any objection? are those real or fictitious? no. i see discussion happening. >> there is a comment that it might be in both district 4 and the district 7. park side? >> we don't have a submission. erring on the conservative side, we will not include park side -- parkside. outer parkside? >> there is also no submission. mr. mcdonnell: it will remain as submitted. you want to vote? let's vote, please. >> we just located parkside. mr. mcdonnell: that is fine. we are

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

schreiber: yes. ms. tidwell: yes. mr. mcdonnell: thank you so much. >> i just wanted to thank tidwell, melara, and gh

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

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

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 populationbe

schreiber? >> yes. >> miss tidwell? >> yes. >> please make this change. as you're doing that can you give the new deviation

. >> member 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: yeah. mr. pilpel: i have a brief statement. i will keep it brief. this is a collective exercise. i thought a lot this afternoon as we went through this whether to support it. i am choosing to support it. i would not have made all of these choices, but we worked as a group, and we worked through a lot of disagreements among speech other, respectfully. i would note and want to continue to call attention to the disparity in voter registration that results from under populating 3 and overpopulating 8. it appears to me that there will be roughly 35,000 voters registered in three, compared with eight, so a vote in district 3 4 supervisor will matter more than an individual vote for supervisor in district 8. i understand that some disparity will exist. i am concerned we have increased the level of disparity from what it was under the prior plan. that concerns me. otherwise, i can live with the differences in the plan, and thus i cast my vote to support. thank you. ms. mondejar: my vote is yes. i just want to say this is a collective process. it was difficu

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

other panelists included michael green and randy schreiber, a former deputy. this is one hour and 20 minutes. >> let me ask you find seats. ok, we're going to get started. hello. welcome. i want to say greetings to all of you. when richard said he would issue his report, on the 15th of august i said you are crazy. nobody is in washington. this is absolutely fabulous. i am delighted to have everyone here. it does speak to the very importance of the topic of the day. welcome all of you. we are delighted to have you here. we are very pleased that secretary arm attachedarmitage and secretary nye have been appalled and the studies and have shaped the direction for the policy traject tree in united states. i think it has had a sick of against impact as well. -- a significant impact as well. they see the signal againstsignificance of the events of today. what you have before you is a fine study would truth because you can do. i think that will be the thrust of the day. i read their jokingly said this look like an old dutch masters print except the two at the end. tha