further. there is one thing, and i want to hang this out as a question mark. the success of the university. that is accepted, and that has been directed in the proper way, channeled in the proper way, its own benefit. however, while there is growth at indication relative to what is needed, i do not see a counterstatement with the many students, how and where they would lift. that is basically at the core of the question here in the room for many. the institutional attitude towards future growth and housing, where would students live, in what buildings? and in what fashion? i think that needs to be addressed somewhere. perhaps part of the eir, i do not know. i believe this institutional master plan falls flat on its face because housing, if you just take the sound bites, is one of the biggest concerns. with the increase in housing, there is a major concern about transportation. the transportation has to go hand in hand with roads and housing, including the mission and rapidly
face because housing, if you just take the sound bites, is one of the biggest concerns. with the increase in housing, there is a major concern about transportation. the transportation has to go hand in hand with roads and housing, including the mission and rapidly changing the attitudes of our transportation, how the current university operates, relative to what they will be doing in the future. i think that is a disclosure statement need to have as part of this document. commissioner olague: commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: i partially disagree. i think this imp is comparable to what we have received from other universities and institutions. it is longer because it has to be, a much more complicated situation. obviously, many institutions are very small in one location, so a two-page sheet, with a rough sketch, is certainly adequate for their imp. because of the complexity of the situation, and it points out a lot of things. it is not to be a document with compl
further? please call item d. secretary falvey: item number d, commission announcements and scheduling of items. president mazzucco: do you have anything? secretary falvey: no. president mazzucco: we were at over 70 cases, and now we are in the teens. during the hearings, we take this role very seriously, but i really want to commend the commission. this was a very, very drastic situation, and it is a more than manageable situation, so we want to thank you for that. we are down to 16 cases. thank you. commissioners? commissioner chan? vice president marshawn: marshall: people did not think we could do that. i apologize. this cheap has made it clear. he has gone and told the officers. the message is clear. if you have made a mistake and are having a tough time, this commission will work with you, but if you lie, you will be gone, and that is pretty clear. commissioner chan: i wanted to ask about language access. i thought we had scheduled it for another week, but i cannot f
i would devise everyone to turn off their electronic devices during these proceedings. we have a crowded room today so just let me make an announcement. we will not accept any disruptions. we ask that you take any discussions outside. there is no standing in this room. find a space or go outside. once overflow has been established, we will let you know where this is that. he may not stand in this room. moore? sugaya? fong? olague? antonini? miguel? borden is abscent. we have the calendar items proposed for a continuance. item number one is case 2009. 01. this shows the proposal for the continuance for january 12. the staff has informed me that they are looking to a continuance to february 9, 2012. this is for 1111 california st., proposed for a continuance to january 19, 2012. case 147 south park avenue, for a continuance to january 19. case 2010. 1013 thd, proposed for continuos to december 15, 2011. 13, 14, and 15. this is for 3218 mission street. we re asking to continue t
expenses were north of $40 million to defend themselves. there is not a slide on this next point but in addition, there is a section 17. this allowed the sec to bring in action on negligence. with that being the type of enforcement action, who are the possible defendants? the sec can bring in action against a governmental issue or as the entity. they can bring an action against government officials and employees. they can bring in action against employees. the sec has on its web site and complete compendium of all of the cases that they have brought in the index. to date, there has been no action as the body. this is the only advice by which they directly speak to your responsibility. before i go into the orange county report under which we re operating here. let me focus on slide 12th. this is important. there are these various context that we discussed and there is potential liability for the city, whether it is official statements, continuing disclosure filings, this broad