in this case, sort of the peskin doctrine, if there's a prior determination by an expert body that particular amount of shadow would have an impact that may be substantial evidence that there's an impact there. this is significantly greater impact. i imagine we weren't going to spending lot of time on the ceqa here. i'm actually kind of wondering if the peskin rule make some sense here. i'm not sure how many projects there will be out there where the recreation and park commission found substantial negative impact on shadow. >> president yee: was that a question or comment? >> supervisor mandelman: i don't know if anybody wants to respond or if it makes sense. >> president yee: there's no response. >> what bill maher meant in subsection c295 of the code, was one meeting, not multiple meetings. i contend you can answer this or not, this is not what's before us today. i contend that the continued joint meetings to change shadow budgets for parks that did not exist, who are not in the 198 9/19/11 memorandum -- 1989 memo that includes v.m.d., it was not intend bid bill maher and voters when they