three minutes rebuttal possible you want me to cut you off at six where john would be so kind i would try to do my best to maintain my own time ok i'll be addressing the issue of whether from osa has a protected property interest mr curry will be address one seven zero three imposes a significant limitation on the discretion of the city's vehicle clerk in issuing those permits a major owners are aware there's two criteria that are included with then subdivision g one the first criteria is that the dwelling units be located within the city of avalon and the second criteria is that the applicant be either the owner or an occupant of one of those long units other than those you do your own and that's exactly right but in this sense the first sentence the maze dealing with it's not dealing with the circumstances in which a permit can be issued it's dealing with how many permits can be  court looked at there and that was actually even last mandatory language and have statutes that what was the case here stoush versus the city of columbia heights and the statute in that case your honour's stated that the renewal  dealt with the renewal of the license for a rental unit and so the renewal of the license as required and we buy this code may be made by filling out the required you know form first by the building official t of the phrase may which is a permissive language and also look at only and said that those are the only three crates here that are included anywhere in that statute they guy the issuance of the permits for renewal much like that case here we only have to particularized criteria that the city can look at to determine when a permit should be issued and that is the residence requirement in the ownership requirement and the court said the absence of any open into discretionary factors in that case was an indication that other than that you could do it particularize factors the city had no discretion to deny the permits under those circumstances and that's all we have here we have two factors that are specifically included in the code beyond those two factors there's no other contact just the first sentence deals with the number of permits that can all to merely be issued and it's a recognition in the statute that you may or may not get a permit the pending on whether or not you meet the specified which are illustrated in the second part of the statement so the may is not discretionary and if you're on a look at the other code sections that are included with then the avalon municipal code at section four dash four point seven hundred zero three the other code sections dealing with commercial permits for example or temporary permits they all start with the statement may as well but the difference between those code sections in the wanted issue is they contain several open ended discretionary factors that in that  give the city council and or the the permit official various grounds and discretion for determining whether or not to grant or to deny the permit and they also allow the officials to add additional conditions in addition to the factors that are numerate in the code this particular provision doesn't include any of those types of provisions just simply to particularize factors other than that it's completely silent as the any other factors that the city could consider and your equal protection slightly differently do you realize the court the district court held that the sole issue before the court is whether plaintiffs have a constitutionally protected property interest in the request to not a weapon it which is a threshold requirement to planter's claims that's not accurate it's not accurate that you need a property interest for equal protection claim your eyes were focusing on the legality of that statute and whether requires a permit city does not does not use anything other than those two factors if you meet both of those factors they approve it without exception for the legal protection because the time when our client went in with the requests for thirty two permits he was treated differently than every other applicant had ever been treated before many other applicants have applied for thirty two premises there's no evidence that anyone came in with thirty two permits there is evidence that multiple property owners on multiple units were granted permits there's also evidence that if the thirty two residents of those that had gone in and applied and even today that they w the landlord a permit that's not that's not an equal protection argument but that's a quibble if you are pointing to the city's ability to control and limit the number of permits you're not limiting the number of permits i'm not i'm not going to point it out i think i'm saying saying that they treat owners and occupiers differently doesn't cost anything like an equal protection problem owners and own  occupants are different and i can think of about seventy five rational reasons why a city my tweet owners occupy us hardly all you need is a rational reason one of those seventy five will do so so saying oh the individual occupants could go and get permits doesn't help your law it sort of we consider case by making it look seems silly well i think it but they're also treating owners and owners differently that's what is an argument i was told i was focusing on your statement which you made hoping to advance your argument that the owners of the occupants could now go in and get a permit and that they constantly issue permits to occupants and even in this case the occupants could go in and get thirty two separate permits well so i am not so obviously you are making an argument or you were making an argument that the cities irrationally intreating owners and occupants presently and i was ridiculing that as being just the silliest thing i've heard all week but you can go ahead and persuade me otherwise well as to what you evidence of what the second the second biggest one was but there are multiple and the city all testified yes multiple owners of multiple units were given them without exception are they had to show was the task i was in when you sure there's evidence one should tell us what kind of evidence i take it you don't have actual permanent applications with an approved stamp on them but this was never a written application situation that was over the counter they walk in  k so it's that differen question ok there are other passages  how does that help you it doesn't it doesn't say multiple i mean there's an exception for owners who actually are occupiers as well as her and so she says so phrase application play into your equal protection argument only as evidence under gear hard we need to show intentionality treated differently and without a rational basis and issue back there i would believe so you don't need to show elwell as you know you only need to show they intended it to take effect with this person because that is part i mean next time that's the part that i find compelling it's meg the due process argument travel's me because the statute seems ambiguous and that the fact that your client was that argument so clearly made i believe it reflects the city as well and the interpretation that my colleague was was saying that the statute and believed that they had to do something because that's what the statute says and because it would seem equally plausible to me that everyone else who wanted to get thirty or so auto permits for their hotels complied with the commercial section which is clearly stated saying if your hotel owner you have to go through this procedure and it was only when your client chose to treat himself differently by saying i'm a hotel owner but i can read the statute in a way that lets me shortcut this that it became apparent that there was a potential flaw here that's certainly what the city said at the time i still think it creates travel issue of fact i also believe if you look at the stats it involved and realize that the units here had a asked how that impacts the equal protection i think equal protection used to prove any entitlement under the code but as applied by the city and everyone and sort of admitted by doing their jobs the ordinance that specifically targets your person clearly they thought one person could have five dwelling units and five got cards golf carts associated with each drawing was more specific than lodging and therefore found that if you have willing units wherever they are they get a residential permit not a commercial permit and the other condos were getting the same residential permit ranting there is that those are under commercial there's two ways to get a permit and one is the statute we're going under another is a commercial statute where the commercial stature covers your client was well well we weren't going the first is that subsection g which we've been discussing that contains the auto wet permits provision if we look down at subsection g five there's an explicit reference there  it's under the g five it's just one sentence i believe and that's the portion of the statute that includes language saying that the operator of any hotel motel or other type of lodgings for consideration has to apply for a commercial rental auto it permit if they want to make the think just answer the question for crying out loud what what what has organs i think the concern was that there might be additional hotel operators on the island who would attempt to exploit the same perceived loophole and apply for five eleven or was it that you weren't going to grant him any permits anyway and that's why the city passed the urgency ordinance specifically targeting him no not at all your honor the concern was just the sheer number of golf carts that were involved here thirty two golf carts would have been immediately added to the city streets and the primary concern there was the issue of parking thirty two golf carts at one address that would require  w you're not going to grant any to him well the only thing that the city is not going to grant are residential golf cart permits to a hotel operator that was the only concern that was raised in the urgency ordinance and the reason the ordinance was passed is so that the code could be amended to clarify it and remove any ambiguity so that the city wouldn't be faced with this particular situation again the concern was that if if we didn't do this that the other owners of hotels on the island may suddenly begin applying for multiple residential golf cart permits and we would have no way to regulate that the residential permits are addressed very differently from the commercial rental permits there's a hearing process for the commercial rental permits that doesn't apply to the residential permit and you have it did you need the urgency ordinance to do that please you just said no it is thirty two in your hotel apply under section it and i would defer to his knowledge he is the owner but the issue was the concern regarding the parking there are portions of the record where mr malone a admits the fact that he didn't have sufficient off street which is contained  then you can't tell me where he said it i can't and you're out of the only reason that mr molon is specifically identified in the urgency ordinance is because mr miller once letter on behalf of the her most was what brought this issue to light so the issue had been presented and it's just part of the addressing a an issue raised by the economy does it commonly do that i don't believe so your honor y but again if to find that there is an equal protection violation her most would have to show that it's been treated differently from other similarly situated applicants and the problem here is that there are no similarly situated applicants there isn't so what we would expect races so tell me what this what this shows us is that for the homes that are rather for the hotels that do include dwelling units if her mosul were correct what we would expect to see is instances where for example we have four residential units for carts registered and only one owner holding all of those are what permits but that's not what we see one owner and then three long term renters who qualify as residents under the code and are entitled to a residential auto a permit so what we residential permits to owners of other hotels simply not doing it for her most of what it confirms to look at the two right hand columns there should be equal e yes your honor and one other what do you make of that answer that he cites as being his best piece of news if you follow i attempted to your honor i believe he was talking about the testimony where there was a reference to an owner who had five separate residences and five golf carts one registered to each residence this is page one thirty six yes you're on  i think that's a different situation than what we're addressing here number one we don't know that the individual in question is the operator of a hotel which would which would be addressed in a different fashion it may be one person who simply owns five different residences and that doesn't raise the same concerns if we have for example five carts and one address one physical address if it's five separate addresses then there there's less of a parking issue because those carts are spread out they're not just located at one one address who can going back to this see you did you prepare this i did not prepare t they're all at the same address your are well right but if it's separate dwelling units when they be able to park their car in front of their unit that's not in the record  and the and the larger concern about the sheer number that were being asked by her most this was unprecedented we have testimony from the vehicle clerk himself mr dudley moran who stated that he had never received a request like this couldn't couldn't recall any occasions when he had and then just the volume i mean what if the owner had come in and taken over the course of thirty days come in once a day and said here's my two airline unit and i want to permit far  and the next day came for another one and the next i mean it's just the fact that he decided to do thirty two on one day that makes this an issue that i think that is part of it i understand the point of your hypothetical but i think the other concern is the use for which these golf carts were intended it's they're not intended for residents who are living here long term who are going to be going to work to the grocery store etc these are intended for transit visitors who are just going to be on the island visiting so there are different standards that the city applies to that type of permit for the simple reason that you know we don't know who your long term visitors are going to be they're not residents here they're a different concern and in fact that was testified to by bob kennedy the mayor of avalon that was one of the driving concerns behind the issuance of the urgency ordinance was the fact that if all of the hotels suddenly apply for residential permits for their welling units you would have in effect an increase in the number of rental auto what's available for use by by tourists on the island without going through the hearing process that's required subdivision d one which is in the minds of thirty two so i don't see notwithstanding in that section two in the middle of it is this is not withstanding section five dash of love in point zero three here the owner of a rental unit in a residential dwelling who is otherwise entitle to the a section says look if you're that kind of operator you have to apply in the commercial sector if you have lodgings other than a dwelling and you're on a five point zero three only speaks to hotels with lodgings not to actual dwelling  qualified as residential dwelling units and that's that's the distinction we have here is all the units that mr malone applied for herman's four or residential dwelling it is he was not applying for permits for regular hotel rooms under the code which would then implicate five dosh eleven if you have to have this commercial permit for a lodging the fact that your lodging would also qualify as a commercial as a residential do while i do well in unit and pick the residential out just as dwelling unit and it's being used by transit and non transit occupants not not people who are long term renters they are that become residents how do you just you just avoid the commercial i need just even though that would face apply to you and anybody else applying for commercial permits would be following that he becomes the class of one because he came in and wanted to be under the dwelling provision i know residential permits to provide vacation rent renters they come into town and what the district court did is it reconcile the commercial provision five actual eleven point zero three with the dwelling a provision to read those two sections together to say and to address one point your owners were asking about this this one fell swoop of thirty two permits if the occupants themselves still today all decided they wanted to go in and request are met for each one of those those drawing it's they could get them over the counter transients occupants of those units to use those permits and the difference being someone's considered transit and if they're there for less than thirty days and non transit if it's more so if you're there for a month or two months permits for those units to the actual residence themselves the only point that i'm making in trying to make your honor is that if there were residents in all those rooms the city would still have to issue permits for every single one of those thirty two units the difference here is that mr milan is asking for the permits to be issued directly to him as part of the application so that the justification that there's going to be an overabundance of our website this particular location that could still happen it would just be the thousand and twelve i would have immediately begun looking for off street parking for the auto apps with certain modifications that her most a hotel property has sufficient space to provide off street parking for the thirty two auto it permits furthermore and based on my research and investigation i e talking with lot owners etc there are alternative lots around the city that i could lease to provide off street parking for the thirty two auto ads thus had my auto what application been granted by the city i believe it is very likely that i would have been able to locate off street parking for the thirty two auto s within the five year expiration period set forth in the urgency ordinance that's the that's the testimony that i was recalled when i made