second of all just to echo calvin walsh's point. there is absolutely no reason we should have lower affordability requirements on the folks who have made a killing buying this land before the rezoning. [microphone cut] >> do you want me to speak to that, mr. preston? first of all, the -- when the original legislation that was -- fillmore was part of the n.c.t. and then planning the economic feasible study had said that the numbers just didn't work out. it wasn't going to be economic economy feasible. i have planning here if you want to get into those details because it is important to have that right. i also had that question that you had, why aren't we keeping the fillmore in. and then the second ones that these two projects were in the pipeline and they were going. the 650 and the 400divisadero. and when we were moving the target date of having a site plan for 30 months after december 6, that made me -- i had to move. because they're actually going toen mraiing on november 8. so i had to push to get these two projects through. and

. >> calvin walsh, affordable vis steering committee. three objections to the legislation first. it seems rather curious to base a percentage on a city-wide nexus study that specifically did not look at density bonuses. this is second, this is a huge density bonus as ms. wellborn testified. we're talking about a 300% increase in allowable density and a 50% increase based upon a city-wide survey that did not look at density increases in affordability. that is the second. 20%, it's backwards. the first two projects purchased the land based on the original zoning, which is one-third of what they'res proposing now. these folks should be paying the highest amount of inclusionary zoning requirements because they bought the land at the cheapest price. subsequent developers will see the value of the land increase and perhaps it makes some sort of sense to be only 23%. but this is a killing for these first two developers and we ought not to participate in this public education of affordable housing opportunity. finally, it seems odd that we would want to adopt fewer affordable housing uni