question that the district court got the issue preclusion issue wrong for two separate reasons the first is that under england because this court had previously or home an extension has no issue preclusion when the case returns to is four square but then a call to the federal i'm not saying that's the case here but you're saying the rule is home and of stage in england reservation you get to come back absolutely i think that's that every time without and credit it's actually right but it's an abstention doctrine that's designed to vindicate federal constitutional rights those federal constitutional rights from the cases holding to the contrary with respect to pullman extension or think that there's no real question on that point that the second reason is that even if the court concludes that i'm incorrect about the pullman extension doctrine the courts then looks to the question and or die which is what are the state law the rules of preclusion with respect to the judgment at hand and under the american continental insurance case the california courts would provide no proof of the fact to the ruling under state law on the federal claims that are now at issue in this case american continental involved the application identical issue subsequently the parties try to really get that in california and the court said they were allowed to really get that under in california because even if the arizona court h concluded that arizona law in california law are the same the california courts were entitled and required to revisit those questions decide whether the law is the same so just as in the american continental case the federal courts are supposed to revisit the federal law questions to see whether the california supreme court was correct when it said that california and federal law are the same with respect to takings but what is your view on state law on federal law on takings and the california supreme court seemed this night that heightened scrutiny is applied to both rent control and land use regulations and when the california supreme court decided to apply a lower level of scrutiny a level of scrutiny as deferential as a rational basis scrutiny they say they're not applying the same as a rational basis for you but in effect the test that they applied was a rational basis level of scrutiny and this court and the u s supreme court has held that in takings well you don't get rational basis level scrutiny you get a higher level of scrutiny you hosmer said well we don't necessarily need to reach that question because it's not quite certain how this issue is going to play out in the california courts but i think i believe i know how it's going to play out in the california courts the california courts are not going to apply any kind of takings law to those questions are going to apply subs to sort of the underlying narratives there came a point in time when the when san francisco decided how many rooms were tourists and how many were residential right  accurately determined in your client's mind how many rooms were residential and how many were tourist would you have to complete it depends question with our clients are brought a complaint or is the question that our clients have a complaint to bring because obviously there's a there's there's an economic issue involved in any litigation with what ever happen but flows from that is what we're here about today might my question the as doesn't the harvey you're complaining relate to the city and counties determination as far back as  eighty one which was residential and which was during that i don't believe that's correct that that is part of our claim but that's not the heart of the claim the heart of the claim is that the city imposed regulations on ninety ordinance that took away their right to rent their rooms to tourists in the summertime because under the original hotel ordinance calling a room residential didn't make it residential didn't require it to be used residential but whatever it is and that's why we've got no problem with you fine see you there be no problem right but but the but the problem with that is that's not what's going on here the city did not take a historical use the city did not say what have these rooms historically ninety they said we're not going to allow you to continue flipping back and forth between residential and first use in one nine hundred ninety the city came along and said this summer tourist use is gone or rather seventy five percent is gone and twenty five percent is gone unless you comply with our mandatory our new will tolling because those allow parties to pursue administrative remedies that are at least thought to be or arguably required before the litigation can commence and i think fair reading of the law as of one nine hundred ninety as recognized by this court in the southern pacific case it was unclear whether administrative relief the first prong of the williamson county test was required in order to write an official takings claim and i think there are quite decision to pursue administrati the morning andrew schwartz for the city i'd like to start with the statute of limitations if i may because i think that because the claims are barred by the staff limitations you don't reach the issue issue necessarily i think judge hawkins your line of questions is exactly the city's point that in one thousand nine hundred eighty one the san re and that they should not be required to mitigate the conversion of residential units to commercial use they argued they their claim is that the hotel ordinance is impermissible that it places a disproportionate burden on five hundred hotel owners a burden that should be borne by the public as a whole the one nine hundred ninety ordinance cause no change in their core argument which was that they shouldn't be restricted in their conversion of residential units at all it doesn't matter whether the the replacement housing is forty percent of the cost of replacement or eighty rather it is the existence of the transfer that forms the basis of the claim and that's precisely what the scenery more was arguing here they are not challenging the amount of the fee they're not challenging forty percent versus eighty percent they're challenging the basic policy of the ordinance and that's why they don't have an as apply claim in reality it's really a facial challenge because it's a challenge to the basic policy of the ordinance that they were disproportionately burdened with this public program and apply challenge and follow the special use permit administrative procedure and challenge it constitutionally all through that without making a federal kline at the end of it if it more than a year there were that claim would also be barred right it if i guess i got this leaves me with an uncomfortable feeling which i cannot hope you would address if one is challenging the basic policy through the normal administrative process  i assume that at the end of that process you're saying that if they don't articulate it specifically then it's that time has been limited of a your time is run after a year and if you file a challenge in court with any or you're argument would be they haven't exhausted administrative procedures if you're making a facial challenge right to an ordinance the statue of limitations run one if your challenge is a facial challenge then yes it doesn't matter with administrative procedures you invoke if they if the administrative procedures don't constitute a challenge to the basic because their administrative challenge was for an exemption under the planning code they challenge the board the fuse decision that they needed a conditional use permit under the planning code in order to convert a different statute they did not a little hard time explaining this to a high school civics class the notion of the first you come to federal court and the federal court says pullman ok you're back to state court you make your england reservation you try your state clean i think specifically reserved your federal clean come back to federal court in federal courts as  state court litigation well let me back up in the ninth circuit in this court in san rima one we argued that and as applied taking a challenge is on right because it's simple it's certain we went and we did win on that issue when the ninth circuit this court dismissed the claim and sent it to state court after the state court litigation we are now back in this court and what has emerged is a more in this case it was the identical thanks identical law the tentacle parties there was a final judgment these taking claims were fully litigated in the state court they say in remote was permitted to make every argument that i thought was relevant the california supreme court analyzed the claim under both state and federal cases all of the law that we're applying here under the substantially advanced test originates with the agins case the pen central case the nolan and dolan cases and they're all money dunes cases from the united states supreme court and that is the law that the california supreme court applied to the nature of the claim i think that there's some misunderstanding we have always challenged the number of rooms that were designated as residential in litigation our complaint that you are one eighteen alleges that there were