commissioner sugaya: staying with the ifd's, since they are mentioned here as overriding consideration, i assume that that is considered to be an integral part of this whole project. that assumption might be wrong. that calls into question the same california code section c, which says that any district that distrust dwelling units shall set aside not less than 20% of those units to increase and improve the community's supply of low and moderate income housing available at an affordable cost. as defined by a another section of the health and safety code. it says "schock construct dwelling units and set aside not less than 20% of those units." it means units in the building, not a payment. i do not know whether this is applicable to this project. if it is applicable, whether it overrides the city's inclusion their housing law. whether or not they go together. it is just an issue i am raising. under transportation, it says the project would provide pedestrian circulation improvements, including pedestrian access through the former jackson street. we heard a lot about this with respect to

to begin to get the schlage lock and other redevelopment project areas designated and qualified for ifd financing? >> yes, commissioner, although i would characterize it as embryonic at this point. we are not the only area or a municipality in california that has been left hanging by the -- especially, the suddeness of the change with redevelopment. there is a forming a coalition, especially urban core jurisdictions like san francisco, oakland, to some extent san jose, and some of the older cities in southern california. they are looking for an opening legislatively to try to find some relief. supervisor cohen: my specific question is, are our legislators actually moving to introduce that legislation? >> yes, there is a movement underway. i do not know, however, that we will see a successful bill this session. if nothing else, because only so many ways to deal with this issue of the capture of the value of land development, and the governor has sent over a strong signal in the way he has treated the redevelopment movement. so there is the distinct threat that the governor would not sign