>> i think there is a lot of confusion because a lot of you don't come to commission hearings on a regular basis. but the commission has had the rules and regulations for the 30-some-odd years i've been here. one of the rules they have amended is one to allow people modified times to address. they interests futured mod -- they instituted modifications to their rules for a group to get up to 15 minutes for standard and complicated cases. for a period not to exceed sa 15

minutes. -- 15 minutes. this will be recognized only upon application to the president prior to the hearing. again, i apologize if most of you were not aware of that prule. -- rule. this organization did write and ask for a block of time in advance of the hearing and the president granted that. the president has the right to modify the amount of time a person requests. they can request up to 15 minutes and be given 10 minutes, as an example. in most cases -- actually, in all case that i'm aware of, the president has granted the block of time making sure no other member of that organization is allowed to speak during that hearing. i'm only aware of one request

for a block of time from that hearing. they were given their 10-minute request for a block of time. there can be no request for a block of time at the hearing. i apologize for that. i am not hear to divide or ask a lot of questions, i just wanted to state the rules as they exist. >> i want to entertain questions from two people. if you can come up to the mic, and that will be end of that. ms. marshall, if you can just come up. >> in terms of the literature put out, i think there should be a response. just on that specific point of bad faith. bad faith has been shown

eveeggriegeously -- egregiously on the part of park merced. including trying to purge the tenants association. >> i want to clarify this rule for people that are not aware of it before. so ms. marshall if you can step up to the mic. >> what i heard you just say was that opponents can request from the president a block of time. that was not an opponent. that last person was a supporter probably paid by the developer. it seems outrageous that they were able to get -- it has always been our practice that either side can -- >> that was never my understand

as a opponents. we have always people given people for or against a project. >> the sponsor has all this time. so you had a rule that the opponents would also have time. so it is ironic that another supporter got more time. >> he did. he got 10 minutes was his block of time. >> cemac is willing to cede 10 minutes to mrs. guerra. >> but then no one else from the group can speak. wait a minute. wait a minute. we're getting out of hand. we have stated, the president has stated that she is not accepting anymore blocks of time. everyone here can get up to three minutes to address this commission. everyone. not your organizations, but every individual speaker can address this commission.

>> the practice is to do it in scrans. that's what -- do it in advance. that's what the rules say. we were not aware it is for opponents. that has not been our practice in the past. >> i would just like civility and enlightenment. the problem of setting up specific time is it does not always relate to the way it needs to be said. this is not the discussion that needs to happen. >> thank you. we're going to go ahead and start and go through this list. i did get someone who asked for acom dages that needs a translators -- translator. they did not immediately pick up on what we were trying to do. i'm going to ask you to come up now, ma'am, and bring the person .

you can have your three minutes and then we will start going through the list. >> i will do translation for mr. huang tonight. [speaking foreign language]

>> i am the president of the community tenant association. we are the largest community-based group with over 800 members. i am here to express concerns.

>> there are a lot of uncertainties in this project. a proposal of 8,900 units. the discussion of demolition has not been specifically addressed. more importantly, the demolition of 1,500 west units is risky. we need to conserve and not

demolish the west central units in san francisco. >> we hope the city will continue to engage the community for active concern. also protect the lives of the 10ants. >> thank you. >> ted rolison, sarah karlinski, william wiletti. i'm going to just keep calling names.

peer luigi, gail strang, james guilinitis. >> good oong, commissioners. it's nice to see you all this evening. it has been another lengthy hearing on this project, but i want to commend all of you from working hard to practice a good delibtive democracy, which i know is not always easy to do when there are strong opinions on both sides. my name is sara carlinsky. we would like to offer our support for this project. we believe this project represents one of the few places for density on the west side of san francisco. we spend a lot of time over the past decade discussing increased

density on the east side. many of you have been part of that discussion with the eastern neighborhood, market-october tafia plans and other plans as well. it is exciting to think about places that are not just on the east side of the city, to add density. that would be appropriate because of their prans transit orientation. we believe this is an opportunity to transform what is a bedroom-centered community into transit-oriented development. we are supportive of a -- there has been a lot of discussion about that as well as the addition of a new neighborhood core within walking neighborhoods of the residents on the project site. as has been noticed in the plans and the discussion, all the streets within this project will conform to the better streets plan, and we think that is an exciting opportunity to take a plan that is huh had a lot of

development with input from this commission and actually apply it in the realed world. we think it will represent some really good on the ground im pleementation that we can think of streets. we generally support transit im -- improvements in this plan, which we view as being critical to the fact of the development. we are supportive. specifically the creeds of subsidized transit passes. there has been discussion about the one-to-one parking in this project. we believe because of the long timeframe of the project it might be possible at various phases to look at reducing that over time. we are supportive of the density contemplated in this project. we like the fact that there is the higher density and the taller buildings are actually

clustered in the portions of the site that are closer to the transit. we think this is sensible and in keeping with other ways that we thought about planning in the past in market octavia and elsewhere. i thank you for listening to my complents comments and the comments of my peers here. thank you. >>eth l -- ethel silver stein. adam -- some from s.f. tomorrow. let's get to these.

>> i just wanted to say that i repeat what secretary avery said earlier. that if you were members of s.f. pac, your time was up when tim spoke. >> at some point the city attorney might need to address this question. i don't know if you want to at this time or not. >> a deputy city attorney. the rules and regulations about when a certain group can get an amount of time, and it is policy that other members of that group are then urged not to speak additionally but under the brown

act, every member of the public does receive up to three minutes. i think it has been the commission's understanding that if that policy was routinely violated, you might reconsider it. i am not aware that there has been additional members of the group that spoke. that's a determination for the commission. >> good evening. my name is lonnie. i am from the california organization for state-wide renters rights. our director, who has testified before you in the past, dean preston, unfortunately could not be here today. he's in san diego on business. he asked that i come here tonight to submit four articles to each of you. i have copies that i would like to distribute.

the first piece addresses the fact that there are a number of tenat. -- tenants who oppose this. the numbers are there. looking just at the footage of the last hearing you had, there is a very large number of people who oppose this plan. the second piece addresses the lack of a solid timeline. the third piece in "beyond cron." the article does not report on the project, it supports the project. it fails to address the lack of viability. in addition in addition to quoting the p.r. person for the developer, it

quotes the department organization. it doesn't explain why that person is the former head. that is because individuals put their personal belief and support of the project ahead of the belief of the organization that he represented. which is not to support the project. the final piece addresses the fact that if this project is approved today, you-all will be authorizing a free-for-all at park merced because there will no longer be review for you or the public. we know developers will be working on approval so they will sell for a profit. each of you consider all aspects of the project and demand answers to the serious questions that are still unanswered. on a personal level, i would like to share with you that i spent the last three years working with people that rent their homes. i was in new york with tenants living in a river ti