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