says that adopting the redevelopment plan does not affect environmental impact of the proposed project, but rather affects funding mechanisms to be used to implement the proposed project -- it is kind of a circular argument. the way you find it results in the kinds of physical things that the eir is supposed to address. it is not only the loss of housing. it could lead to other things which have not been studied. i do not know whether it is the appropriate way to address something like the issue of keeping the number of affordable housing units and paying for that, and taking the money from somewhere else like open space. my belief is that if you take it from open space, you have to recirculate the eir because there comes a fundamental problem with public benefit.

that is my belief, anyway. that is on a macro scale. i think that it would affect the way that physical things are enhanced, either built or not build, whether various programs can be implemented or not. i think those kinds of things have not been properly addressed in the change brought about by the funding mechanism since the draft eir and since the production of the cnr document. a house staff has mentioned, we have not received at least -- as stuff has mentioned, we have received at least to reduce. one i do not believe was minor. it ran to a number of pages. these are all characterized as technical or typographical. but we have been getting these at least two or three times.

i think that alone speaks to perhaps stepping back a bit and taking another look at the eir. more specifically, on some more targeted issues, in terms of historic resources, the eri makes-- eir makes a determination that some of the impact would be less than significant. i think the problem that i have is that there is not enough detail in the proposed plan to really evaluate what the impacts are. i think then they try to pass it off to subsequent reviews. but my question in my mind, the question i have in my mind, is how many times can you use the

same argument, where you say we think there is an impact but there is not enough information and later we will figure it out if we get the design, and then have a review process? that is the other issue that i have. i do not believe the review process that is being proposed, with respect to historic resources, works for me. it eliminates any expertise that reside in the city and passes it all off and says that are going to hire an independent private consultant to do that analysis. that does not work for me. that kind of issue i think should have been looked at a little more closely. then, just one may be even smaller thing. i still have an issue with building 111. it is being passed off as an ancillary kind of building that

has no real significance, or has been recognized as significant but can be demolished because it is treated as an addition to a larger building. i think if the eir was -- they try to tell me this was a result of dueling experts, because some architectural historians have said this building is historic and if you demolish it it is unavoidable and significant impact. you bring in another expert and they say it is historic but you can demolish it because it is an ancillary structure to a bigger building which still remains and the impact does not rise to the level of being significant. if there are already significant unavoidable impact in the eir, it would be more honest to treat

the demolition of the building as such and leave it that way. president olague: thank you. commissioner moore: i wanted to think the public for the various expressions of support for the project, but i remind the public that we are tasked to consider whether or not to certify this informational document as adequate for informed public agency decision makers such as ourselves. has it identified to the full extent possible ways to minimize significant effects and described reasonable alternatives to the project? the first thing i tried to do was understand whether or not what we looked at in 2006 and are looking at in 2011 our plans

which have significant similarities. in 2006, we were dealing with 2800 dwelling units. that was under the navy base reuse plan. 2500 of those units were to be on treasure island. the remainder were to be on ybi. this proposes 800 residential units, an increase. the 2006 plan projects a 8267 spaces, of which 7627 are considered to be off-street spaces, together with 640 cars in on-street parking. the 2011 plan increases parking by 34%, to a total of 11,155

spaces, with an increase in parking to 107. please bear with me. i am trying to determine whether or not you are seeing a change. the 2006 change and provides a detailed account of parking. that is a particular diagram shown in the transportation plan 2006, together with a summary of overall proposed parking. the 2011 plan has failed to give us any comparable detailed information on that subject, at least not in any map. the 2006 plan provides a detailed application mapping of on street and off street parking. the 2006 transportation plan shows numbers of cars in each location. this was brought up by the public. it is a shortcoming of the e.r. -- of the eir.

the 2011 plan does not provide any comparable information. the 2006 plan is based on a remark of smart growth, new neighborhood design, and a very block structure resulting in a plan that creates a more interesting urban form than what is currently suggested. the 2011 plan has changed the basic residential structure into a more generic, less interesting arrangement of uniformly parallel residential blocks, which makes the plan look regimented. the 2006 plan provided a green connector which is a mid block open space. the screen connector informally weaves through the neighborhood fabric and is planned to support a variety of adjoining residential blocks to knit

together the entire community. the 2011 plan has a fantasy idea of the neighborhood green connector set into a 40 ft. wide concept which is noticeably more informal. it makes the block pattern book not only less interesting, but less varied. it looks quite regimented. the 2006 plan proposes a total of seven street types. i am referring to the 2006 transportation plan. each is intended to respond to the varying circulation needs of different parts of the community, in keeping with smart growth and new urbanism and sustainability growth for st. design. the proposed street plan suggest your and neyra were moving

lines and then what has been dictated in the past. standards which have proved not to compromise either safety for pedestrians or vehicular movement, but support operational standards. this has reduced the total number of proposed streets sections 23 generic street types. that is the transportation plan of 2011, page 25, figure 3.3, which does not consider the outline of residential neighborhoods which would likely not have the same amount of vehicular traffic as those further south. the 2006 plan proposes street sections with more emphasis on creating a pedestrian foyer then on vehicular movement. proposed streets would be more sustainable and in keeping with

the overall plan goals of neighborhood development. the 2011 plan proposes a wider streets. these wider streets increase the amount of land dedicated to roadways and pavement. the 2006 plan proposes wide sidewalks and prominence, all supporting the overriding goals for pedestrians and green at new san francisco neighborhoods. the 2011 plan proposes decreasing sidewalk with by approximately 39% as the average. this reduction in sidewalk with the occurs across the board. it involves each of the three proposed street types. the 2006 plan was nominated for an aia german design honor award in 2009. the 2011 plan has so

fundamentally unchanged it cannot be thought any longer the same plan that won the award. i will follow up with additional comments on other matters. for all the reasons i just described in exhaustive length, there is no new analysis of impact. some of this may turn out to be less. some may turn out to be more significant. some may add to the already exhaustive list of unavoidable impacts identified in this eir. i conclude in support of commissioner sugaya that without any revised project description, this is inaccurate and incomplete. i will pick up after i hear from my fellow commissioners. commissioner delcarlo: good

evening. thank you to all the members of the public that spoke to mike. it is very helpful to hear the views from our diverse community. we heard from labor and business tonight, and a number of residents and representatives from treasure island/yerba buena island. thank you for that. i would have to disagree with those planning commissioners that are recommending recirculation of the eir. i am one of the new guys on the treasure island development authority, but some of my colleagues have been at this for at least over 10 years, maybe 12. i do not know exactly. the short time that i have been on this board, i have been briefed a very, very well. my questions have been answered. i have seen the support from not

just the treasure island community, but the community of san francisco in general. i feel very good about the process that we have gone through and how this plan has been feted for years -- been vetted for years. i am very disappointed that we are not going to get 30% affordable housing. i was hoping that that would happen. because of the change in financing that was necessary to deal with the governor's proposal to eliminate redevelopment, unfortunately, the infrastructure financing districts do not raise as much money as the tax increment financing of a redevelopment area. that is just a fact of life. i think the staff of the office of economic development and workforce development and the

development team have done an excellent job in informing us of how the ifd's work and the difference between that and redevelopment financing. i think that our members understand that very well. we were given an opportunity to ask a number of questions, and we are very satisfied with the answers that we received. i feel strongly that the city has been waiting a long time for this project. people have been talking about it and looking forward to it. the jobs that it will create are an enormous and will greatly support and improve the economy of the whole city. my heart goes out to those workers who have not been able to work for such a long time. i want to see them working.

i want to see this development go forward now, and not be delayed any longer. and i will support the approval of the eir and later will support the approval of the dda. i am anxious to see it go forward. i am anxious to see folks going back to work. i would urge an aye vote on the eir tonight. commissioner mazzola: first, i would like to ask a question of staff regarding an issue that was brought up earlier in public comment. somebody said there were too many changes of not enough time to review them. can i please ask staff what has changed in eir?

>> perhaps you could be more specific. there have been some changes to the project that have been reflected since the publication of the draft eir. those were requested in the comments and responses document. there are further changes are described in a memorandum sent to you, mostly regarding changes in the financing of the project and some other changes in the development project itself. we did not find any of those light changes to change the analysis or conclusions of the eir. commissioner mazzola: thank you. i am in favor of approving this. as far as affordable housing goes, and there has been some questions about this -- in the case of redevelopment and in the case of ifd's, in both cases we

are well above the minimum required. i think that is important for everybody to understand. 25% is above the minimum. the affordable housing advocates on treasure island, tihdi, are asking you to approve this. so is the citizen's advisory board. i feel that this horse has been beat to death. i am also a new commissioner, but this has been going on for 10 to 15 years. we cannot afford as a city to let this project go. we cannot delay it and delay it and the late it. it makes the sense. it is time. it is ready. like my colleague just said, and

some building trade members in the audience have said, the trades have been hit in a way where we have never seen it before, unprecedented. we have 30% to 50% unemployment across the board in the building trades for over two years. i cannot tell you how many stories of members -- the membership is dropping out in huge numbers because the cannot afford to stay in the unions. secondly, they have no health and welfare anymore. they are running out of unemployment. they are draining everything out of there for 01 if they can get it. i hear the stories every day. this project needs to happen to revitalize the city and to get construction back on track. it is very important for working men and women in this city. i would like to end by saying

that i think -- i think this is a well thought out project. over like i said plenty of years, it has gone in front of the board of supervisors, a different board of supervisors. it has been approved. i think the developer has gone out of his way to work with everybody and make sure that everybody is taken care of. they have gone over and above what the minimum qualifications are as far as rent-controlled, affordable housing. they have gone over and above every time. they have done everything asked of them, and then some. i ask for your support for this project. it is vitally important to san francisco. we need to get it back on track. we need to get our people working. commissioner richardson: i wanted to take this opportunity

to recognize and thank my fellow commissioners on the planning side, and members of tihdi. but in particular i wanted to acknowledge the work of the planning staff, san francisco planning, tihdi, the mayor's office of economic development, and the city staff from the various agencies that make a contribution to this. as a former planning commissioner, i worked on the other side. i have had the opportunity and privilege in all my years in san francisco to sit through numerous eir proceedings where the public had a chance to speak. significant projects in san francisco like mission bay, the giants stadium, and a lot of projects that have today transformed san francisco -- all

the projects in question had tremendous transportation impact. and the city staff, san francisco staff, are known throughout this country and worldwide, for the work they do. i just want to put that on the record. i also wanted to state that after numerous meetings and meetings and meetings on the community level, by the cic, by tihdi, the special meetings with the telegraph hill organizations, a fine organization -- i think they came here today and spread their opposition and concerns. we also heard from other members of telegraph hill. this is democracy in action. i think san francisco is known for its citizens to come up and express their ideas. i am basing my recommendation because of the extensive reading and my participation in

this project. i am very qualified to make a statement on the eir. what i have found is a consistency throughout the evaluation and the application of the rules and regulation policies set aside by ceqa. i think the documents meet those criteria. i have also narrowed my interest. i looked at the transportation. caltrans, a state organization, has stood in support of this the guy are. they did mention mitigation issues there would like to have. the organization actually states that we should make sure

during the implementation on the bay bridge to make sure there are adequate signs so that motorists approaching the ramparts can follow those guidelines. i want to ask the staff. it is this the same types of thing that you find on the bay bridge currently, where motorists are required to stop and on the light proceed? anyone that does not abide by those rules would be in violation of traffic laws. is that right? >> that is correct. commissioner richardson: here we are again, to mitigate what we know has already worked in the bay area. so to me that is not an issue. i was very impressed to read a comment of the san francisco bicycle coalition, a membership

12,000 strong. they have come forward to support the eir. to me, that is very significant. that shows that the users in san francisco took the time to read the eir and are in favor. they look forward to development of this precious property in san francisco. i also read the comments of organizations very prestigious and well-respected, like spurts. -- like spur. they also took their time. the building owners association is longstanding and well known for its process. they also took the time to look at the eir. to me, it is very significant.

i look to the san francisco building trades and the various letters of the san francisco labor union. they have identified different aspects of this document and have come out to be in support. i can also say that to the san francisco chamber of commerce. but most importantly, tihdi, a community organization, a nonprofit. all of the home life catholic charities have attended numerous meetings. i was told that official numbers could be from 250 to 500 at the special meetings. we can conclude that the process to this day has been a very great process.

it has allowed san francisco residence to be part of the process. in fact, one of the speaker's earlier, my colleague at san francisco tomorrow, mentioned that city staff has gone beyond the call of duty to make the document accessible. that is the respect of the staff and hints at my earlier statement, thanking them for going beyond the call of duty. the other issue i have has to do with this sea wall. at this point, i am going to call staff and please ask you to read, because i think this document is very significant for you to read to the record. can you find that document, please? i will give you mine.

>> dear president chiu, i understand the board will be certifying the final environmental impact report over the next few weeks. there is a land use committee set for an march 21, 2011. i am writing to convey our overall support for which the issue of sea level rise has been addressed on this project. we are proud to have been recognized as a leader on saleable rise policy in the bay area. we actively participated with other document -- with other organizations in drafting and california strategy, and are working on the day plan. the treasure island project has already earned praise from local, state, an international

government agencies for its innovative approach to sea level rise in general sustainability measures. governor schwarzenegger recognize the city's approach for its compliance and consistency with california's climate adaptation strategy. our staff has worked closely on the treasure island community development for the past four years on potential sea level rise impact and strategies to address this challenge. the staff ability to understand the complexity of this long-term issue has been impressive. the technical and engineering responses have been well thought out and innovative. the commitment to long-term strategies, including funding the strategies, will insure this regional party development area will be well-positioned to protect the community. the