my name is pamela duffy. the reason i'm so late in turning in my heart is because i do not ordinarily speak at a certification hearing. i figured this is the city's eir, but there has been such a panoply of commentary that relates to the actual substance of the project that i thought i might take a moment and try to characterize this in a little more leveling sort of way. i think there has been considerable confusion in the testimony so far between the advocates -- adequacy of the document and whether or not people think the project itself is meritorious. the document is extensive. it is rather remarkable. i meant to carry it up here with me, but i have a bad shoulder. the document for what we're dealing with, which is the replacement of an existing tower and whether or not it relates well, and constructively to what is there and what has been there since 1961, is being characterized as some radical new undertaking, and i think the environmental document speaks very well to what is actually, for whether or no