>> charles sullivan, just to be correct again, these various plans that are referenced in that paragraph are attachments to the d.d.a., disposition and development agree many. that is an agreement between an agency and the developer so the city is not really technically approving these documents as an initial matter which is what i think mr. cohen is referring to, that there's things that you've seen them, they're all before you. we're not hiding them. nobody is hiding them. but they are attachments to a disposition and development agreement that the city is not a party to. so if without this language i think the interagency cooperation agreement requires that significant or material amendments, and i would propose that we do use amendment rather than change, they currently are supposed to go back for the agency commission and to affected city departments for approval and it would not require they come back to the board. and again, there are certain things that are approving right now as part of the redevelopment plan amendments. there's the redevelopment plan that's a constitution. if t

>> charles sullivan, just to be correct again, these various plans that are referenced in that paragraph are attachments to the d.d.a., disposition and development agree many. that is an agreement between an agency and the developer so the city is not really technically approving these documents as an initial matter which is what i think mr. cohen is referring to, that there's things that you've seen them, they're all before you. we're not hiding them. nobody is