quote and i think this is the important quote this was exactly what the city the churches attorneys told the city council on that day we are asking and i quote that the city council if it has to impose some additional restrictions including parking had not introduced any evidence supporting its claim prevented g s i've looked in your opening brief to find any reference to evidence in the record supporting damages and there was evidence in the record supporting these claims this case is decided on summary judgment and there has to be evidence it's not enough just to list what you want have to have proof where do i look in the record to find the proof in our favor is the fact that you're looking at a church that had just spent thousands of dollars to update their building at the city's direction they had just paid for the condition to use permit application which is a night that's right that's the damage that city had just the churches just paid for damages for the way in which the substantial burden and that is the only denial distracted the leadership of the organization the difficulty in these situations is this is not a company that's making income and so the damage is a lot  word move and i think your promise correct and i think the difficulty here is in a religious freedom case what the measure of damages for how your religious exercise has been burden is it is a difficult one and so that's why we cite carry provide again with what this church presented to the city and a lot of this stems from the fact that the the city council is operating from a parking report that it would not share to the church the building inspector came out of the property did this all of course gave to the church the church's thought ok fine the plank commission has this report and the church is wondering well what it what are can restrictions you what impose whatever he can to impose the condition of our zoning approval i will comply with that just like they have done with the building issues that were pointed out and so what happened was they offered to have there's only people condition on focal points of the officer part that's exactly what happened before the city council when that was denied the church had no reason to think that the city was going to grant the zoning problem by allowing them to provide less parking they had already offered to provide compliant parking and so that's what happened and so they they were left with nowhere else to turn but the there was no other party that was going to side this case when the when the city the court indicated in the world outreach case those are usually handled through building code citations fines are street parking fines and frankly that's why this court held the world outreach to park in issues are very minor issues they're  not a compelling interest to shout at church especially existing one that has the support of all of its neighbors that have illegal parking on the street and sunday so again most significant number of the church does is here today we're not talking about a significant issue at all and frankly has the interest of the city truly been in austria parking it had every right and the city the city hasn't shown any authority that would have limited the city council from spain will grant your condition use permit and will impose a conditional one th there's either no zone where churches permitted as a right so we have this unreasonable limitation on equal terms problem or we're committed as a right where we're at and so that's why we engaged in discovery to the city to one position of the other and what the city  use condition of use permit requirement on us and that's where i moved a partial summary judgment before the district court even in the briefing today in this court the city still contends that there is a zone out there where the churches are permitted as right and again that the distinction is critical because if they're permitted as a right that means they can go somewhere without having to go through the prior restraint of the political process appealing to the fact that we're church problems as we were meeting at the pastor's home there came a point where they said you need a conditions permit problem and we said ok what do we need and we applied for one and then we said well what are our building problems they don't fight it and we addressed the building inspector says well i looked at you you have twenty parking spaces at these three lots so we thought we were fine to get to the planning commission and they got the separate report and it says that we have all these parking problems and we said give us the report and they said we don't need to give it to you we don't need to give you this report unless we use it or an integrated in our decision and the church says it will at least give us time to comply with this report planning commission could have recommended approve condition that we comply with park it didn't city council the same thing happened we show up the city council has this parking report and the pastor pastor mccracken and the attorney stood before the city council and again th i think is very important and it's at record one thirty nine dash six we are asking that the city council if it has to impose some additional restrictions including parking restrictions or whatever that they do that without forcing this church  there was no reason that this church could not have been accommodated and allowed to continue the church expressed its willingness to fully comply with parking the city in two thousand and seventeen gave us conditions permit process and says here are parking mr mr smith so what happened by not seeking a variance it well it really didn't allow the record before the court to get developer before that the city developed and that's one of the things that's one of the things about about rightness and why the courts like to see at least a final determination by the city based based on a meaningful application develops a full record court knows how the city will apply and regulation certainly didn't i'm in their complaint opinion is that that there are places where the churches can locate as of right and of course in this case it is not the case that the church was it was laser focused on this property only they operate legally this church would need both a conditional use permit with a parking there so is that correct that's right because in this case they thought that the code requires twenty three required twenty three parking to raise that and by the way there's there's there's there's lots of churches in the city mark and there's thirty two up for the testimony of their economic development record on documents could you give us the records cite for that  require only a couple of other things you know were looked up kind of has three or at least the church focused on the three homes or look at the substantial burden or portion the on reasonable limitations is saying you've got to submit a meaningful application in the meantime you know you're operating where where you established yourself without building permits or you always look at  another client of mine had an injunction in order to get the permitted in the seat tube or c one district the original bible church case which is cited a six page six and sixteen a twenty three in my opening brief and just shocking to me and if it is permitted as right in see one then it's definitely permitted right in our three and that's right where all the churches that he's reference are located and the fact that they may permitted churches a long time ago doesn't mean that they're still providing the same people today but