they lost circumscribed the city's ability to deny a density bonus two projects providing less than 25% affordable housing or imposing hiring inclusionary requirements that density bonus project. this was of course referring to the context of grandfathered projects that are not subject to the current 25% requirement and that is this project. this discussion actually tacitly acknowledge the holdings in the latino-case which held that quote 11 that county to increase the minimum number of affordable units required for density bonus would conflict with state law and that's really exactly the result that this best efforts language is aiming for. it's inviting the city to require logix to provide a higher density bonus than they are required to provide or that they can require a sponsor to provide under state law. i would say as a last thing last point on that, notwithstanding the conflict the problems with the vagueness of the best efforts clause, the affordability percentage for this project has increased over time. when we file this application and when the land deal for this project was