running honorable justices i hope that i won't actually use all of my time seem to be very easy when we first began it back at the city of mountain level i tried to figure out how to best exemplify hall simple that these issues were and as i prepared for argument today finally clicked on me as i grow from santa rosa so i kind of scratched what i had originally intended and i would just ask you to bear with me that you have to just imagine  statute that allowed me to actually be here before for this appeal simply read any aggrieved party from the lower court's decision was the law to appeal for the sake of argument keep it simple therefore notice of appeal submitted by the plaintiff of the lower court decision fees paid briefs admitted research done well argument prepared and then fight last friday afternoon mr think what he was the property owner not a party to the action happen to call and say you know your honor i'm afraid that if you go you know we agree with them you don't have any right to appeal that's what this case basically boils down to at the city level there was a statute that allowed any agreed person not a party not the owner not the conditional use permit holder that any appeal which should have been you know both through before the city of mountain view city council subsequent to that you know they were going i thought process which therefore brought up some lesser issues in this case which you know they're asking for their cake and eat it too well how many hearings do you think you want to have the ones granted by the statute which was the hearing to the what was there a modification hearing we got our our hearing for the original conditional  and then by their statute we were allowed to appeal that you know vote to the city council that's what we never received i am and i'm having a hard time understanding why that in federal hunter traditional right once you have had a do want to clarify somewhat because it gets confusing on the language of the auto body shop versus automotive oriented business and what the one was was strictly for an auto body type pain issues but you haven't quite answered my question he moved to a new location he continued to operate under the conventional use permit until he moved to know it was voided prior to moving they did not their vacation of the property did not happen till the end of january the w what do you know we do know that from the record is that he for quote for all the problems you're having with the city what we do what the appeal would have shown was in the nec these things were in the process of having experts hired to actually go one step further after the modifications to get noise experts and whatnot in there which would have then been presented at the city council hearing under the noble review we don't know specifically why other than what the lender said was due to the problems with the city violation itself and i still had another shot at the city council but you can take it and i would beg to differ only on the issues that you have probably seen the case and then said let's get back to the lower court for one more go to the city council never had our you know other than a little short one page form that says we want to have an appeal they never had to clean the appeal before them or any kind of briefing for them to review and say ok let's go back down to the zoning administrator it was purely on the request of a third party that was unimpressed that was you know not part of the appeal in the first place just the name of the landlord at that point the conditional use permit was applied for by the plaintiffs in the name of the landlord and the conditional use permit or step in the record at fifty three fifty four and that's because the conditions promise are and especially in the main home i am or is that they run with the land and of course the law the landlord owns the property and they are officially in the name of the landlord and issued and april and the modifications things would not change the name of the permit holder so in other words the permit holder from the april cup was conforming yes in father drinan so when the conditional use permit was applied for there was no challenge to the fact that they could continue to operate under the non conforming because he feared that the city council would impose even more stringent conditions on the permit and he knew the man leaving and he didn't want to have the his ability to rant his property further degraded or degraded it wasn't degraded obviously since he ran into an auto body shop after that that he was concerned that the gaskins who were leaving is what the city accomplished was to appropriately consider the concerns of the legal holder of the cop and and all of this directives with regard to that now maybe it didn't accomplish anything because of course different group operating there that was the information the city had which is not just weird and so the conditions have changed and i think that it makes sense then to go back to the zoning administrator under those changed conditions that we were anticipating vacation of the property by the mecca and and have the zoning ministry to look at look at the issue again given those changed circumstances the only other question is whether the  adequate notice of the new hearing well the new hearing was noticed for january twenty second they were given ten days notice which was what this provided for the hearing was actually moved one  they don't challenge the fairness of that procedure here they do not challenge the fairness of the hearing on the twenty third april and october to january when we talk about what kinds of trucks and cars could work on with the modifications i mean that's fifty that really it sounds like a little few conditions change that was fifty percent of what types of vehicles they worked on and then with regard to whether the notice of the january hearing now was the city sent out a notice on the sixteenth of january it was not postmarked until the eighteenth and that actually was like i believe was martin luther king holiday weekend they received it on the twenty second which was the day they hear you saying by the way you're hearing before city council tomorrow isn't going forward you're going to hear what we did object to at that hearing was that we should even be at that hearing we should be at the city council that following day with our experts  it wasn't that we did object to that hearing we weren't there prepared to argue the conditional use permit changes again we were there to say look we're supposed to go in before the city council the following day so i just wanted to clarify those issues with thank you very much