commissioner antonini: thank you, mr. burke. that answers my question, and i tend to agree with what you say. i think this and also share the concerns brought up by universal parergon that maybe they have not had a chance to review it. i do not see a problem with a continuance for a short time. i realize supervisor maxwell wants to get this through while she is still in office. maybe, maybe not. i would propose a continuance until our december 16 meeting, if that has and the availability, linda, to put on the calendar. how about december 9? >> this year is pretty packed out. commissioner antonini: sorry, sarah. i saw you moving around. >> i did want to bring forward one piece of information i think was neglected from staff's presentation. there is a policy adopted in september, the in-kind policy, the gist of which would allow a process for you to determine, on the basis of information in front of you, cost and benefit to the community, how much of an in-kind approval to grant. this legislation before you still allows 100% of th

commissioner antonini: mr. burke, could i ask you about that please? my feeling is that there is a reduction on the guarantee. basically, that was negotiated five years ago. i forget the exact date of the hearing. i do not think this should be changed, if that was a deal cut them. >> that was a deal that was cut them. it was cut directly with the supervisor. i know that because i was on the other side, representing the group of owners at the time. the community center has been included in our plants since 2005. -- plans at since 2005. it is part of our financial program. mr. uribe has had to borrow an additional $3 million and had to tap his retirement fund to keep this project alive for five years to accommodate the city. to end at $700,000 at this stage is a lot of money when he wants to go out and talk to a partner and a partner says, "what is it going to cost me for community benefits?" right now, we can tell them. if these amendments are approved as proposed, we cannot. it is a lot of money up front, and there

mr. chief justice, may it please the court?k la a california issue today beforeg this court differs from a newes. york law issued against burke and only one respect were new minors york was concerned with minors access to harmful material outside the guidance of a parent, california is no less concerned with the minors access ga the deviant level of violence that is presented in a certain category of video games that can be no less harmful to the development of minors.e when this court in ginzburgtes crafted table of law that t permits minors access to suchdid material outside the presence of the parent company did so for two fundamental reasons that are equally applicable this morningt ins this case. first, this will permit the parents claim to authority and their own household to direct the upbringing and the development of their children. std secondly, this will promote the state's independent interesn in helping parents protect thete well-being of children and thosr instances where parents cannot be president. so this morning california asked this court to adopt the rule ofb law that permits states to restrict minors abil