-- we are going to insert the neighborhoods into this section of section 5 under each district with the deviation. comment? discussion? >> in section 5, that will only include those seven districts that are -- >> we decided to do the mall. >> ok. the header will appropriately reflect where districts deviate more than 1%, but we will list all 11 of them in this section. is that what you're saying? mr. mcdonnell: that is. ms. lam: will -- mr. pilpel: will we edit this after the

break? it is our findings as to what constitutes the neighborhood. mr. mcdonnell: you just agreed on something. i have no idea what you agreed upon. ms. tidwell: what the task force lists are the task force's findings. mr. mcdonnell: what is there to correct? mr. pilpel: in district 1, we might continue to use the reference to the outer richmond, in a richmond, as opposed to the -- the doe'[s richmond district. i don't know that we need to make specific reference to doe in this section. ms. tidwell: can i make a suggestion that we clarify that i write down the deviations'

currently in these districts, and then we can work on incorporating the other comments that we decided to do? we will come back with a final draft before we get to this. i will e-mail it and then i can include it. give me some time to draft. >> as and give you time to make the draft? >> the rest of the needs 10 minutes to include and create a more final draft before we get to the question of what should go in each district. mr. mcdonnell: ok. let me suggest this as a weekend fully utilize the break for all the editing we need to do. there is another question that memberpilpel is raising. we will need to visit that.

we have two sets of information. we have what is in the draft, and we have what is on the one- page that the consultants provided. member pilel is suggesting -- pilpel is suggesting we go district by district. mr. pilpel: in general, i like the language that was proposed. outer richmond, in a richmond -- inener richmond. >> to preserve? mr. mcdonnell: in addition to or replacing -- mr. pilpel: i am generally not

with the language they provided. i think it is less hopeful. i think this language is better. mr. mcdonnell: we will go district by district. the proposal is to utilize -- the district is described on the bottom of page 8. mr. alonso: yes. mr. leigh: yes. 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 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 those neighborhoods where you have a specific public map where it matches the department of elections. there is a less conservative approach, which is if you're confident you have public testimony to tell you that central richmond is the neighborhood, you can list it. i wanted to have that out there. mr. mcdonnell: ok. we will go back to the consultants one more time so we can appreciate what we're looking at. what exactly are we looking at? >> when i compiled this list of neighborhoods, i looked at each

district and looked through the list of publicly submitted neighborhood boundaries. i also looked at the planning neighborhood boundaries, and also looked at the department of elections boundaries. in any case where any of these neighborhoods were intact in the district, then those names made it onto this list. >> can i add clarity around my list? mr. mcdonnell: you don't have to. >> at 11:30 at night, i drafted neighborhoods, glancing at the map and sort of generally guessing. for instance, central richmond, as somebody lives in that area, i suggested those. i do think there is a slight difference as opposed to the richmond. just want to clarify that. >> one last note on what i

submitted. if there is no parentheses with a note at the end, it is just the neighborhood boundaries, unless otherwise noted. mr. mcdonnell: is everybody clear on what we're looking at? mr. schreiber: i just had a suggestion that to the extent we use the consultants list rather than ms. tidwell's, that we remove the parent pedicles -- parentheticals for consistency. there will not be some in some districts but not others. mr. mcdonnell: a of the purpose of the parenthetical thoughts was for definition purposes.

>> there are findings as to neighborhoods. mr. mcdonnell: jamie? the inclusion of the parentheticals were for what purpose? >> for task force member reference. mr. mcdonnell: the proposal is to remove them and move forward in utilizing the consultants submission of the neighborhood descriptions. that is the question on the table. i am broadening the question so we do not necessarily need to go district by district, unless someone feels the need to go district by district. is there anyone who feels the need to go district by district? mr. pilpel: i don't feel the need except that i like the approach, which captures more

areas more specifically than the consultant. that is why we generally go with her language. mr. mcdonnell: we will go district by district. district to we did. -- district 2 we did. let's take that vote. here is the vote. whether to go all in with each of the districts as described by the consultants with the exclusion of the parentheses for the purposes of the task force. ms. lam: is your recommendation that only the consultants get highlighted, or just incorporated into the list

before us? mr. schreiber: my proposal was that when we use the consultant list of a neighborhood, we do not include the parentheses when we do so. ms. lam: thank you. mr. mcdonnell: as everyone clear on the question before us? we have submitted descriptions of the districts submitted by the consultants. the question before us, a, remove the parenthetical statements from the description, and b, utilize this list of neighborhood descriptions with the exception of district 1, which you already voted to do differently, as the information that will fill this section. ms. tidwell: i would ask that we separate the questions. mr. mcdonnell: first question,

to remove the parenthetical statements that are included in the consultants description of the neighborhoods. mr. alonso: yes. mr. leigh: yes. ms. melara: yes. ms. lam: yes. ms. mondejar: yes. mr. pilpel: yes. mr. 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. 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. mcel