>> commissioner sugaya sclon yes, that sounds good. but i had -- because then that would raise the issue, i think -- i'm trying to understand this a little bit more. so we're increasing at .44 for this specific project and saying that the memo was in error for having categorized this in, you know, in an erroneous way. that raises the limit to some percent now. is that the absolute limit or is there still leeway for increasing shadow on this park? or is that the intent of commissioner borden's substitute motion? >> pending my substitute motion is only to increase the shadow for the advantage we talked in this project. it is not to make any further statement by other all-cumulative shadow impacts. >> what i want to know -- >> talking with the attorney here, perhaps stand up and perhaps answer the questions. >> my question was with the increase of .44, that takes the shadow limit in this park to some x percent. >> correct. >> is that now the absolute limit or does this park still have leeway? >> that's correct. if that action were approve