mr. pilpel: yes. mr. mcdonnell: ok. go ahead. mr. pilpel: ok. what are you proposing it is in? mr. mcdonnell: propose what you want, it does not matter. mr. pilpel: silver terrace, candlestick, the central waterfront/dog patch, showplace square. mr. mcdonnell: any objection? it ms. tidwell: yes. i was attempting to be helpful by adding neighborhoods. with 16th street, i don't think we have included potrero, and the ones we have highlighted with issues. mr. mcdonnell: okay, that is what objection. ok, list them off. one more time. >> silver terrace, a little hollywood, candlestick. ms. tidwell: isn't candlestick -- isn't that an institution? >> i think there is a candlestick neighborhood. ms. tidwell: you think, or there is? >> ok, we will exclude candlestick. bayview hunters point, potrero hill, and showplace square. ms. tidwell: i don't think -- sorry, what ever. ms. lam: i think there are concerns including potrero hill

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

mr. pilpel: yes. mr. mcdonnell: ok. go ahead. mr. pilpel: ok. what are you proposing it is in? mr. mcdonnell: propose what you want, it does not matter. mr. pilpel: silver terrace, candlestick, the central waterfront/dog patch, showplace square. mr. mcdonnell: any objection? it ms. tidwell: yes. i was attempting to be helpful by adding neighborhoods. with 16th street, i don't think we have included potrero, and the ones we have highlighted with issues. mr. mcdonnell: okay, that is what objection. ok, list them off. one more time. >> silver terrace, a little hollywood, candlestick. ms. tidwell: isn't candlestick -- isn't that an institution? >> i think there is a candlestick neighborhood. ms. tidwell: you think, or there is? >> ok, we will exclude candlestick. bayview hunters point, potrero hill, and showplace square. ms. tidwell: i don't think -- sorry, what ever. ms. lam: i think there are concerns including potrero hill as an interactive neighborhood. could we show you the map? mr. pilpel: i suggest we just excluded. i will live with that. i have to go at about 45 minutes. >> i h

mr. pilpel? >> the printed version that we have, the top of page 5 and the third -- well, the second paragraph that begins on 5, the beginning and october 2011, it's redundant about the four community meetings. >> i'm sorry, what are you suggesting get stricken? >> one of the references. perhaps the second? well, it doesn't read well. that's my point. >> that's fine. is it factually incorrect? >> knost -- no, it's redoesn't ant and reperspective -- repit active. >> mr. alonso? >> no. >> 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 a

mr. pilpel: thank you. mr. mcdonnell: anyet

mr. pilpel: if i may? for my purposes, again, just the format that was used in the 2000 report as a baseline would be great. for the maps, it was just the maps themselves for each district, sort of a zoom-in that showed each district, and then the tables with the statistics were separate. if that much could be done, i think that would be sufficient. >> ok, so we did not put the data up on, we just put the district, and the data is in the appendix. >> what about population? district 1, this is the population? >> i think all of that information would be in the tables. i will share this with you. >> do we want to clarify what should be included in the table? i don't know if anyone wants me to clarify what should be in that table or if i should just leave that? mr. mcdonnell: i would just mirror the 2000 report, and for purposes of the individual districts, continuation have done. -- continue as you have done. >> could you switch to this map mr. mcdonnell: one second? : i'm sang continue what you have done. --

mr. pilpel: all right. mr. mcdonnell: ok. with respect to the report -- >> yes, on the list of appendices, we're going to include the statistics and the community newspaper advertisements? mr. mcdonnell: yes. >> ok. >> man asked the question considering the district descriptions? mr. mcdonnell: what we were referring to, i believe they were separate, but the description to have done as we have completed each of the draft maps. >> i see, thank you. mr. mcdonnell: okay, any other additions to the appendices? >> i asked if that is duplicative? >> needs and bounce our defense from the district descriptions. they will take about eight, 10 hours. little description as a rough summer rates so that people can follow along. we have the district descriptions, and those are already on the website. i'm not sure if you wanted us to do district descriptions before those are completed. there are more formal. -- they are mor formal. >> when i spoke with john, he indicated before the actual final map, he would have to work with the consultant

>> 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 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

>> 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 other two. so we will look

>> mr. pilpel? >> ditto. >> mr. schreiber? >> yes, reference only. >> miss tidwell? >> yes, i would just clarify that since we're already making edits to the process section in part four that we just clarify there we're adding potentially the 100 hours in statistics we just clarified there. >> agreed. ok. so at this point that means the only thing noted in the appendsies is community newspaper advertisements. ok. mr. pilpel. >> although we reduced it to that, i would add back in the appendsies the final map. i think that's where it goes, appendix one. i would add as an additional appendix if it's possible to print out the individual 11 district maps that blow up a little better, if it's possible. if not, then not. and the district descriptions, even if it's not the formal meets and bounds, even if it's just the document that -- this document. >> yes. >> and the statistic and whatever statistic, we agree. i think all of those things are appropriate for appendsies, not the body of the report but should be referenced in the body of the report. that's at least one, two,

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 confere

mr. alonso: no. ms. lamms. leigh: yes. ms. mondejar: yes. mr. pilpel: yes. 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. tidw

. >> mr. schreiber? >> no. >> mr. pilpel? >> no. miss lam? >> over the last two weeks we had taken numerous considerations and votes for this very section and i had at that point wanted to keep the border at 15th from some of our public testimonies and history of that area, but at this time and where we're at in the process, i for today will vote no for this proposal. >> thank you. miss 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 th

pilpel, you had a public comment? >> david pilpel, just to comment on wages, benefits, and working conditions. i think something in the 255 to 275 range would be something for the new general manager and benefits in terms to a department head 5 and the related provisions in the agreement i think makes sense, and looking very much forward to him as general manager, and thank you all for your diligence today and continuing diligence on the commission. president moran: thanks. secretary hood: did you already speak, or did you have a card? >> in the bay area, there has been a big population, and we have been out there, too, so when you do the consideration, please throw us in, and we have got a high unemployment rate. we are about almost 70%, so if you can keep that in mind, i would appreciate it. president moran: thank you very much. item 12, can i have a motion on whether to assert the attorney- client privilege on matters during the closed session? moved to assert? any comments? all of those in favor? opposed? the moti

mr. pilpel had asked for public comment. >> i want to start off thanking staff and consultants. i know a lot of people here have spent a lot of time on this and have done good work. i wore my greyish green shirt today because i thought back i wanted -- i wanted to highlight that it is not gravers is green. >> it needed to be washed. -- it is not great verses green. >> if needed to be washed. [laughter] >> thank you. i thought it was a good discussion about using the vip projects for validation -- the eip projects for validation and so that we are sizing that appropriately. the southeast project is the signature portion within treatment. it is what i call the channel tunnel, although staff tells me i need to refer to it as the central based hudson improvement project. it is this significant project within the collection system. but i also think the ip -- eip a segment of the green project is just as critical. i am hopeful that the two big projects, plus the eip program will be looked at separately for project-level environmental review, which may result in an eir, what ever is th

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

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 populationbe

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

so mr. leigh, would you like to have considered your rather lessons learned considered to become no longer a single submission of your own but to be blended into the larger body of the report? >> i think basically the answer -- my answer is yes. to the extent the task force agrees with this, i would actually love to have it be supported or this notion be supported by the task force of the hole. i have one small concern which i can hold on to. if at the end of the discussion we only have three, i guess we're going to have four with member tidwell. but let's say depending how this discussion concludes, if we have only one or two, it wouldn't bother me as much. but if we only had one member that was captured in sort of in the context of individual members, recommendations and lessons learned, i think it could be awkward for the report. it doesn't bother me a whole lot. i could live with it. but it could little a little odd . >> so the answer is yes, and in a moment we'll go back to the top on t

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