decide i want to put up a billboard and i look over what the regulations are as the no regulation that will say to me you must get a permit before you start construction when the law that if that applies  ordinance require them to get a permit before they commence construction the ordinance yes the answer to that question or whether the ordinance allow them to come back come in later and apply for a late permit and the answer that question is yes and that's part of your attack here is on the whole late application process we have two chances that's correct right but there is a requirement to get a permit before you build and then but if you don't you're not out of the ballpark yeah right you can come in and you can apply for a late perm up question of that if if it requires that my question to you is why didn't you people apply for a permit before you start to construct the decision was made based on the desert outdoor nine hundred ninety six case  prohibits the sign in order to challenge the constitutionality that's the way we have to do it we have to actually be equal violation or just challenge the statute stubblefield cases just the opposite th stake to challenge the ordinance first and then build your signs later you have to have a stake you have to have a will you ply for a permit and if the her maid and you believe you are into the unconstitutional i don't know why you couldn't and i think i'd like to talking about his church some other issues for just a moment you know one is this whole business about the late application process yes and you make an argument that it was arbitrary the way in says next is valid contends that believe the city would not have granted them there's no magic to the work facility but valley contents and it doesn't know that the city it believes the city would not have granted them is the defen moreover the questions raised by the by the city requires us to respond that way or at least give an explanation seven twenty seven  raised by the city provides an opportunity for us to respond that way the issue it's no more over one one more thing and i forgive me for saying this but the court itself i'm talking about judge  caribbean said in the trial record at two twenty five twenty five to twenty six in response he said after the b programs that it was filed with some understanding for the only what the case of the about the judge said the plaintiffs claim rejecting it and they did that the day after the new ordinance went into effect and you argue that there is no there are no standards is no disc you know it's just unbridled discretion for them to reject these late filed application sense that the color is wrong on a steel pipe and therefore want to have when to reject the application but we welcome new applications they were all over the idea of the right to file post construction permit applications but we're not about to grant them and they've moved in the amended ordinance and said that was the reason they were going to grant it and the court has expressed leak summarily ruled the amended orders doesn't apply at the very reason they used  and there's no appeal on that before this court now so that's on the very reason they use ex post facto to deny these permits was a state statute that the courts it does not apply now so you talk about the city of riverside versus outdoor media case not rest different from the case we just received our chambers we didn't get into yesterday city riverside versus valley outdoor you want to say something about that that we have not yet rule on whether to take you didn't notice but you want to  than tearing him down and this whole process really is about a trial i mean this judge made a summary judgment type decision on a limb an emotion and just deprived us of the chance to go to trial the trial the issues here much different kind of feel if we're up here if  there's a record in this case there's no record whatever that the post construction permit was not appropriate i look very carefully in the record to opposition i saw no evidence in opposition really argument in exchange we had a declaration from i think mr newbie we have the mr while saying we're pleased to process your application we have a sixty two plan check her corrections think apply for an application all these pieces of paper all these this evidence says apply for the post construction permit go ahead and apply and all we know is that there's not one of them to the contrary and we're now held with some kind of burden of proof to show the plain meaning instead it doesn't apply reason being that everyone agreed including the alley that there was a permit a requirement of construction permit in a building permit requirement that valley had deliberately decided to build the signs without applying for it and this is the most critical valley made inspection impossible made it impossible to comply with the substantive building requirements of the riverside municipal code because once you pour concrete over the rebar whatever you cannot inspect the foundation was there any break up the concrete and destroy the foundation that's that's what this is that's what this is yeah i mean i mean that's like the i mean you know when they say they've made inspections impossible made such inspection impossible i think just to be easing was allowed to take them at their word at that stipulated facts i think they don't they're running away from the stipulated facts and now you know i think they've got to try something of value out or case comes down and they and they have to find a new a new theory well that their theories were in the holes are dug before but you do this is that in our brief we talk about the uniform building code is adopted by the city of riverside very specific construction standards when you're doing foundations and stuff i mean very specific rebar has to be a certain size you go there before they pour the concrete because once it's covered up once the hole spill but you can't go back in there and do that and while cooking things want to talk about really what you or i would be doing is looking before and to right and that and that is i mean i think that's why valley when they had other council did stipulate to that fact because i mean it's beyond to see that once you pour the concrete over there you cannot perform the inspection required by the code and i want to know something about you know for structures let alone structures the size and billboards one of the guys is talking about grading permits the other person i think it's mr stevens talks about what other jurisdictions do but you know that's not evidence that the city of riverside or really any public hannity can't grant a late part application if it's impossible to do the inspection ok but that hasn't been determined that that understands your position well there's not much of a showing to that effect in the papers in this ca stipulation on the construction part that they filled in the hole and made the the inspection impossible he did it based on the building permit aspect of it ok but he did not make a determination as in this case on germane issues and the fact that like i said just before trial the valley outdoor case comes down and really changes the complection and i think he sighs a very straightforward case given the facts they stipulated to and i value didn't object to that process though it certainly objected to the event is once you stipulate that you can't get that you made it impossible to get to comply with the riverside provisions if that's correct then you know i'm not sure what he could do go to trial and not present evidence to the jury i mean i think he if that is a correct decision this is the correct way to go about it otherwise it would really be be an idle act and what's different here is i think it's rare for someone to essentially stipulate themselves out of their case but it is what happened w president knew generally what inspections entailed and then he wanted to say but that's not of the mission of what we can see into the other plane in the case they don't have any testimony or in what what the other plaintiff knew here this is the comment of one sensually technically irrelevant person who says what he only knew generally and that is the entire basis of this case we now know it's the fault in whole case and that's the only evidence i got that i submit is not a mission that finds everybody here it doesn't bind even valley much less regency which was the plant at the time who position we know sume and moreover the evidence is powerful that there's ways of inspecting in fact if there's a trial here we're going to put on the twenty thousand dollars we spent for this on our review that we now know the state inspection sometimes costs money we pay we have minutes if we have to pay for the do something but core samples drilling someone are digging around the hole all these are available all they've got by with it there's not one piece of evidence to the contr there's no no declaration or nothing they've got this admission that that our leasing manager president which is the strength knew generally something and all these other people were all these other individuals we can have come forward for it for us have not been pinned down you know this guy maybe but he's only one person in this whole team of people involved who know what went on or could testify to what went on and we put that evidence in not just you know we only had a few days but with what we had this new e and also of our clients other experiences that's not a trial but that's a that's a quick stand and deliver you have to do it right then but that's that's in response to nothing no rebuttal at all on that issue and i would