name rather taking the time and a significant time and according to his record to investigate some of the issues that had been raised before there was even any opportunity for possible hearings well it and  that it has been characterized as a legislative act by some of the defendants if we would we would respectfully contend that the city council was specifically excluded from the process and we get we've cited the onus in our in our briefs that the city council by this court as well when you do look at the fraud and i don't use that term lightly but i can back it up and we have backed it up in our briefs the it appears officials of the world did oversee this so the mayor and others  greater weight than any other attorney whether i'm here in this jurisdiction did your city code in any way provide for that procedure to be you know there is as far as i know there is no provision legislative official insofar as he was a member of the thirteen numbers in the city council so he's one of thirteen as i understand their system i certainly they feel they have the overman them plus the mayor now the there was a hearing that was held up on no on their papers up to that point they had taken a wife and below procedure which is one you come to the city and said we want to build a building and we'll find tenants later they'd pay stated that they did not have a tenant there were negotiations now we know now that was wants these modifications in exceptions to a war zone ordinance that one has to designate them there's a spot on the checklist and systems designate all of these none were designated those are untested and these are uncontested facts they go before that that other than there would have been legislative well i'll leave it in this particular case under under it would not have been legislative action otherwise because it's not it's not the city council acting d we are piecing it together based on public documents are not actually asking people to give you property and you're saying a five thousand page record wasn't sufficient to do that it certainly was well you that they acted with out do me any research without doing any without having any knowledge of it without caring about any of the impact and that certainly does not appear to be the case from this record with it in writing the distinction between a legal we just asked this question there was an ordinance that modified the facts family plan development district on december seventh ninety three right and said that sounding b p applies to all business areas and that only uses that are permitted uses on december seventh their date shall be permitted uses do we know does the record ordinances are there are on the sputum that that special use category had been a special use category at that time and and going back it was changed as a vot see me in your saying you had absolutely no knowledge even though your clients have been involved in the syria for some time that gemini and twenty first century had anything to do with plane here and we certainly didn't until it was  understand i believe some of your clients are neighbors that they live in the neighborhood break it every night and i got if i should've made more clear at foxborough if it was against planned parenthood is is before the court on behalf of its members who live within business you know the profit making business area immediately next to it are these folks homes which immediately next to residential so some of these folks came up hundred feet you're saying right wing and zero feet measured probably on the property line overwhelming significance and it's the question that gets to the heart of this matter which is this is part of the playing development district that section ten point seven of the world zoning ordinance against ten point seven provides expansive  rules and regulations on the power play in development districts and additions to planned double development districts should be handled and every one of those criteria was met throughout this process beginning with the submission of a plan and a meeting with the city of aurora to stay out approval by the stay on in the staff report approval by the planning commission approval by the planned development complaining development committee of the city or a city council and then finally an ordinance adopted by the city council signed by the mayor signed by the city clerk and signed by each of the three numbers of the planning development committees planning them a committee of the city council and then we submit is people in the community had a concern about well this to me parking places but i was there for them to object to what they're saying is we object to the tenants but that doesn't give you grounds to ignore parking setback and  otherwise it would not be in this little nice little neighborhood and it's hard to make a comparison with some other type of business that would do that i've been trying to think about it is there any other type of business you could compare it to there really is the first  that need to be filled in we will ask them to do so so please just to listen in to not participate thank you very much if i could go back to the legislative decision i think there were there was some question of whether or not the city council needed to act for this to be a legislative action but that is not how the courts have interpreted the phrase legislative action legislative action is that which involves city council and the board that's adopted by the city council and the president of review that by the entire city and then approval of that decision these were all legislative decisions and those are subject to an arbitrary and capricious standard and the players didn't standard and in fact this court had a fair amount to do with this change strong executive or administrative to legislative when it decided we're in and then the supreme court accepted and then the legislature quickly changed it included many things actually all actions apparently as legislative because they did not like the spin or in the situation that this court in the supreme court created correct exactly speaking of the said that they were this city reviewed this are you speaking of to the review by the attorneys that they hired to review it either i guess it should be what you're referring to both first of all the entire plane was reviewed by the city and approved in the ordinary herman a new key and also the planning commission of the city of aurora only the planning and development committee of the city of aurora during my remarks referred to these defendants collectively let me ask the question if there are currently anything within the euro zone accordance that requires notice of who the tenants will be or the specific things that the building will be put to when a building permit just the building permit is life or not that i'm aware of her on or does that ever come off your honor it is not true to my recollection and i think that really goes to the the horror of the due process claim which is the one of the reasons that i'm here is governors may recall we filed a motion to dismiss due process claim that was granted by trial court and i think it's important in that regard for a due process claim there's got to be state action was in effect a victim of misrepresentation for a while how could the city of a war off had provided the newness that would have been necessary or the notice that the against bigger claim to any kind of state action that would be necessary to support the due process argument and this is why i do believe that the trial of course decision over sixty two thousand six meeting where one of the three members of the planning a development dimity said i'd be interested in knowing who your tenant is when you can release that is there anything else in this record requirements that line up with certain provisions in let's say the part of the workroom that concerns of granting the building permit or the part of the code how would you agree with it one consideration for due process clearly would be whether or not the city filed its own ordinances and procedures would you agree that i would agree of the necessity to take in this case action that would grant notice in a timely manner and the city's argument is since he did that and by again being the matter was filed before word of these two bodies based on the motions to dismiss those appeals were dismissed but i would also like to show this state that you know nothing that has been filed here aside from authority to do that and we also don't know if the allegations that the players make here are true or not the zoning in newspaper for example could only act on the application that's presented to him back in october  same thing with the building code can't you can't file a complaint saying he should have created the certificate of occupancy or the issued the building permit based on the information presented after the bil have you can say that his decision was based on weapons presented to him and you know you just can't second guess a year or two years later especially for two bodies with such a limited jurisdiction is there identify anything other than the purpose of the building which would be in this point it was called a medical old buildings medical office building is there anything else correct i have to leave the building permit application also requires the building plans only is a certification that the building was constructed in accordance with your proof planets and specifications of the safe is there anything what if well in fact what if the owner is in fact the tenant in some fashion does that change the analysis or the review of either of the bodies your representative does not  acting on the assumption this tenet is paying taxes there's no reason to think that there was any different representation of them there was made to the trial court in this as well who look at the record of the attorneys for them because only that he did not even issue and the reason is because of the actual ordinance that governs the property only three dash one to four that were referred to earlier that was not known to the city it was never once referenced in that report mr permit itself it says very clearly and will permit it was clear from the beginning that this was intended to be a for profit medical building again you've got a for profit company sitting in for the city or pain taxes so it was me that was the representation the city from from it was well is gemini a for profit company gemini's if it is an l l c it's for profit at twenty first century above the other two layers of dummy companies here twenty first century above it is a for profit twenty  would you agree did one of the considerations for a due process claim is whether or not the city filed it's own internal ordinances and procedures that absolutely end in our urgent process claim