. >> chairman, supervisors, my name is ron wornick and i live at 765 market and i'm pleased to have a couple minutes of your time. i recognize fully that this issue will be adjudicated ultimately by those who sit over the nuances of the particular issues that will distinguish the case being made by the developer versus those who think this is not a good idea. and i will leave that to you and to all of them. the one thing that i would add to your list of things that i would ask that you might be asked to do is to look at this issue from 10,000'. picture the yerba buena gardens with your magnificent fountations at one end, the beautiful lawn that gets hundreds if not thousands of visitors everyday, the contempt jewish museum, looking across this. the plan is to put a behemoth of a building with a shadow across union square, across the yerba buena gardens and changes the whole character of that neighborhood and while i cannot argue the subtleties of each law, this will change the way we have live there had and makes it a non-san francisco place. please consider carefully. >> thank you, n

residential owners association friends of yerba buena and the following individuals, pail segway, ron wornick, matthew schonberg, joe fang and margaret collins state that the eir is inadequate in the following areas, traffic circulation, et cetera >> historic resources, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, noise and recreation and therefore, based on this, there is a need to recirculate the eir. the appeal letters for the most part raise issues that are exactly the same oar similar to those addressed in the final eir in the responses to comments document orr tc, which was [p-eubl/]ed march 7th, 2013. letters were submitted by the resident and owners association and friends of yerba buena -- in addition, a letter summarizes the issue previously raised and finally a letter was received this afternoon that will be responded to in this presentation. i would like to focus my remarks on the main issues raised in the appeal letters and supplemental information at today's hearing. with regarding to the assessment of impacts to historic architectural resources appellant states that the eir does not