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. mcdonnell: i will withdraw what i just proposed. let's go district by district. let's see if there any exclusions you would like to make. then we will answer them. district 3. inclusions or deletions?

>> we're looking at this one, right? mr. mcdonnell: we are only looking at the consultants. there might be information you want to pull from ms. tidwell's list. we can determine whether there are additions or deletions. ms. tidwell: for clarity, to city attorney's position, for instance, i will be writing russian hill as opposed to rational community association. -- to russian hill community association. >> i think there might be a reason why the consultants listed it that way. we should have that discussion. ms. tidwell: ok. i will say russian hill.

>> if the association cemented boundaries for russian help, which are obviously different than -- >> the community association submitted boundaries for a the community association. they indicated they are different. >> my concern is that i think there's an argument that russian hill is -- i would encourage you not to list it here. you can be really conservative here. if there's a question as to whether the neighborhood is but cannot, don't worry about it. >> man please add something? -- may i please add something?

when somebody gave us something and said, these are the descriptions, since we were talking about the richmond, we actually have neighborhood boundaries in the only bloc that is outside of those boundaries, it was actually submitted to us. this is an instance where you might want to make the decision to say, this is actually whole. we do have evidence, even if we don't of lines. i think the understanding was that you would not just stick to the lines that were submitted. >> makes sense. >> i think so. mr. mcdonnell: ok. >> i am flagging in yellow the

ones that are not on the consultants list. that is on her list. the elementary school, telegraph hill, north beach, north waterfront. mr. mcdonnell: i am not sure why there yellow. >> to the point of institutions verses neighborhoods. we can certainly delete these. mr. mcdonnell: i am unclear on what we're doing now. what i propose we do, we will try it again, we can use the consultants description as the basis for additional subtraction -- addition or subtraction.

only consider the list for the purpose of adding to the consultants. ok? district 3. any additions to the consultants submission? or deletions? mr. pilpel: i would suggest to include from the consultant list nob hill and chinatown and to include northern waterfront spelled out, north beach, telegraph hill, financial district, and union square. mr. mcdonnell: additions. you made some deletions. let's start with additions first. mr. pilpel: i would take no. waterfront, spelled out, north

beach, telegraph hill, and add those. mr. mcdonnell: any other proposed additions? ok. here is the proposed list of additions. any objection to this list of additions? all right. we will add north waterfront, north beach, telegraph hill, financial district, and union square. you good? ms. tidwell: yes. sorry. thank you. mr. pilpel: thank you.

mr. mcdonnell: any deletions from district 3 description? mr. 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 voting. mr. alonso: no. 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 replacing"nopa" with north of the panhandle. mr. mcdonnell: if you eliminate the institutions, you have eliminated the disk -- the descriptions from the task

force. referring in this case to bthe submission, -- >> i would just propose -- never mind. i will stop talking. mr. mcdonnell: ok. mr. pilpel: i suggest replacing nopa. i would add cole valley. we can discuss lower hataight. mr. mcdonnell: objection to

japan town-fillmore? objection to the north of panhandle? objection to cole valley? all right. there will be three neighborhoods listed or recognized in d 5. can we -- >> can we keep in those listed here? mr. mcdonnell: ok. the proposal to list each of them. any objection to listing them? any objection? we move forward.

district 6. from the consultants, we remove all of those. referring to ms. tidwell's list. >> we left the tenderloin out entirely. that was one of our primary concerns. mr. mcdonnell: we are on 6 now. so, tenderloin. >> we look at district consultants now? where are we? mr. mcdonnell: we are on district 6. this is the consultants lists list association. all of those will come off.

we will now refer to ms. tidwell's list. mission bay, south beach, rincon hill, treasure island, filipino community, and the tenderloin just added by ms. 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 this was the reason for the line. >> there is no publicly- submitted neighborhood boundaries for yerba buena.

there is not a boundary from planned neighborhoods. mr. pilpel: i think this is referring to treasure island and yerba buena island, not yerba buena center. >> they are recommending it as a neighborhood based on public testimony, as i recall. mr. mcdonnell: the proposal is to list yerba buena. >> maybe it was one of the colored maps. mr. mcdonnell: then we will not

list it. any objection? mr. pilpel: i would separate them, but i don't care that strongly. mr. mcdonnell: any objection to adding central waterfront? >> i thought it was part of the dog patch. mr. mcdonnell: we will not add. moving -- we are not moving. >> did i hear this call likely from the consultants that there is no neighborhood called yerba buena? >> not a publicly submitted neighborhood. >> it seems to me it is common knowledge where it is. mr. mcdonnell: we agreed to err on the conservative side. for purposes of reporting and listing, we will not include it. mr. pilpel: can i ask for a vote

or whatever we are doing here on come binding -- combining these to instead read "south of market"? i think that is more of a generally recognized neighborhood. i'm concerned the other name is not a recognized neighborhood in the way that these others are. that is all. >> it is a planning department- approved neighborhood. it is historical. mr. pilpel: it is a sub area within south of market. mr. alonso: are we in agreement that we know where it exists? mr. mcdonnell: i believe so. mr. alonso: and i'm pretty sure

it does not matter. mr. mcdonnell: mr. pilpel has proposed it. mr. pilpel: i would probably be ok with it as is. mr. mcdonnell: any objection to the insertion? ok. that includes district 6. only five more to go. >> this is long. mr. mcdonnell: district 7. so -- ms. tidwell: this gets to the consultants point that i listed

out all of the neighborhoods and they just included them as listed in the [mumbling] boundaries. mr. mcdonnell: i am not sure what your point was. ms. tidwell: just explaining the difference. mr. mcdonnell: thank you. beginning with the consultants. let's go the other way around. any deletions? jamie? are there any of these that we should not list?

>> i do not believe so. i think this is a great list. mr. mcdonnell: you think this is a great list? all in favor? all: aye. >> if they have submitted their boundaries, also a list of neighborhoods that are included in the central council, then i think this is representative of those neighborhoods. mr. mcdonnell: ok. any objection to leading the list as is? -- leaving the list as is? mr. pilpel: do we need to add san francisco state university? mr. mcdonnell: no institutions. mr. pilpel: i would add lake merced. mr. mcdonnell: jamie? if jamie says it is recognized,

we will list. >> it is based on the department of elections definition. mr. mcdonnell: thank you. mr. alonso: did we add clinton heights -- clarington heights? not the whole thing? park merced? mr. mcdonnell: ok. we are not attempting to create an exhaustive list. this is one that does not need as a vacation. district 8. -- need justification. district 8. >> i would combine diamond

heights. mr. mcdonnell: you would combine? >> just diamond heights. mr. mcdonnell: ok. mr. leigh: i would strike open house and lgbt community center. mr. mcdonnell: removing them from this list. any additions? mr. pilpel: i am looking at it. it is changing.

>> i withdraw the comment. mr. mcdonnell: ok. so, we have -- can -- >> can i suggest eureka valley? ms. tidwell: i just deleted eureka valley. some of those are encompassed with what the other neighborhoods are. mr. pilpel: i don't think i agree with that. i think eureka valley is in district 8.

>> adding eureka valley. mr. mcdonnell: there is no need to create an exhaustive list. mr. pilpel: ok. all right. mr. mcdonnell: any other additions? moving then to d 9. mr. pilpel: i would suggest vernal heights. mr. mcdonnell: objections? >> i will turn this over to the consultant. >> there is no publicly cemented neighborhood boundary.