not surprisingly i agree with mr. lippe in terms of the fact you can't ignore the incremental effects of each project and defer to a wider analysis or averaging. you have to look at each project and if you have a problem, you think of it in terms of flooding or traffic. if you have a full glass of water and a project adds a little bit of water, it's going overflow. when you have a problem incrementally, you add to the problem and you can't individually look at projects unless you have done the cumulative analysis ahead of time. here you don't have it. and because you haven't done it, you can't approve a project without the underlying study and president eberling is here, unless there are questions i will defer to mr. eberling. >> i have the copies for the record; good afternoon, supervisor, i am the proceed of the toddcogroup and consortium and we're here today, including a number of our senior residents from yerba buena, because over the years the city has refused to evaluate ped pedestrian safety and the projects over tha

ask representatives of one of the two appellants to step up and again, you have up to 20 minutes, mr. lippe, will you use ten minutes? >> ten minutes for my client and ten minutes for the other. >> why don't you proceed. >> thank you, board of supervisors my name is top lippe. and i am here for a group of appellants including the 765 residential owners association, the friends ever yerba buena and five individuals, paul wornick, matthew schoenberg, joe fang and margaret collins. i have written quite a bit of material on the appeal and i'm not going to try to summarize all of that within this limited time. i will try to hit high points and crystalize what i think are the critical issues for the board in thinking about the problem with the eir and its function to disclose to the project the environmental impacts to the public and those that are significant and those less that significant and for those that are circumstance to identify mitigation efforts that would substantially reduce the impacts. this eir does not do that in a number of areas and i want to start with historic preservation. a

mr. lippe may have that answer and deal with those. i deal with historic preservation, which is an individual impact. but i think that ceqa as a general concept and a benefit to the environment requires that the methodology be used in a way that truly looks at the relevant impacts and ways to mitigate them. what is consistent in the case law, whether it's about an airport expansion or gravel mining or any other kind of project, you need to use a methodology that will, in fact, assess the impacts and assess and allow the proper mitigation to occur. so any kind of choice, whether it's a list or plan or the way that whatever is chosen needs to provide a good, safe basis for environmental analysis. when you have a unique situation, what does happen statewide is that the courts find that you need to fairly look at the environmental issues in away that fits the process and there is no ironclad rule about cumulative impacts. and it's a confusing area with a considerable cumulatively considerable -- it's hard to say and certainly not an easy t