her instances where political speech was allowed her in violation of the signed order not at the time of me not at the time that we moved for the dozens and dozens of times that were more offensive of the permanent and were political signs and my clients including major campaign signs by the mayor and some of these signs were put on the gas stations there they were all over the city you couldn't miss them but so there were no other political signs the only other political sign that was an issue was the one in the prior litigation of the privatisation of this ordinance where my clients and that's all the court focused on below the very next sentence in that ordinance says the city planner can issue any conditions that they want on that permit to ensure compliance that is the same standard that this court found invalidated the organisms in seattle affiliate of the october nd coalition where the police chief was required to grant or deny a permit the language of the ordinance said shell but then it six i believe ok and then the that discretion to impose conditions is compound good by the standard that allows the officials to extend the time for deciding the permit the only standard in the ordinance for extending the time to decide the permit is whether that permit presents its duty as being extraordinarily complex or difficult and that is this it is entered without any definition without any ability for the court to review that it allows in this instance because the temporary permit application requires you attach a picture that only goes to the time right i mean and it's twenty one dollars days versus forty two dollars days i mean i'm more interested in your st argument  don't i just don't know that there's a lot i don't think there's what they're on the timing for you as far as i'm reynolds question but it is interesting whether the to what extent this this is controlled by seattle affiliate but i didn't you know are there other other other got internal guidelines their control how how that discretion supposed to be limited or you know there are no internal guidelines for anything the only evidence that the defendants submitted in the case where a couple of them get briefed eckler a shift from government officials who said we tell people not to look at the content well that's not a standard and that's not something that this court or any court could in force because you have no way of knowing whether they looked at that standard in did at the content and what i thought there was i thought you would represent the sign design by the well they are still in guidelines that set out what the regulations are by different zoning codes and i believe they were put in the record in the brief that the appellate pelly filed below and we the court below note of this the court looked for for the business permit application and could not find it anywhere and the court looked for the original guidelines that the appellate cited to and the court could only find these broad design guidelines that cover basically cover huge developments you shopping malls and huge housing developments in the city but nothing that speaks to what are the rules you can put and i would judge nelson and one other issue which is that the district court and the appellate said that our client should have started a waiver if they wanted to have a sign larger than was allowed under the temporary sign  coming and as we've noted our clients signs are absolutely within the size limits allowed for property that is owned industrial and commercial but in that now it were they one other issue of the district court emphasized that the signs were two stories high and occupied the entire side of the building that was absolutely wrong that was based on looking at a close up of the sign that we've it into the record so that the court could read the language on the sign but every other copy of the sign in the record and there is none to ball and there pictured on all the citations that were issued by the city shows that the sign occupies about one  of the building facade which is totally in line with what is permitted for a wall sign on a building zone industrial and commercial but required for a permit but that had it would have required a permit you agree with that right at least as written so it wouldn't it would not have required a full fermat i don't believe because there already was a wall sign on that building advertising the auto  are you're claiming you did i don't you're stupid you're quiet had conceded that he needed to seek a permit but is now claiming that the permitting scheme is unconstitutional is that the position or are you claiming that but the difference in size of the issue here is if he set it to that temporary sign ordinance that applies to everyone else his sign is way oversized if it is a wall sign on a property zoned industrial commercial which it is specific way and if the sign is made of let's say wood it has to be attached in a particular way to be secure if it's made of cloth it has to be attached in a different way there is just nothing in the ordinance that tells you  that and so it was it is it is basically a standard good scheme that just says you need a permit but there is another section of the ordinance that says if you're it depends on the building that you're putting the sign up arm so that would be our position is that this ordinance is unconstitutional and let me let me just go back to one of the issue your honor said that the co concerned really about the extended time in well i'm just speaking for myself i think that i understand but i wanted to i wanted to point out that the waiver provision that the court below said my client should have availed himself as an even more onerous extension because it turns on language that is virtually identical to the language that this court struck down in desert outdoor advertising versus the city of marino it allows an initial forty two dollars days for a decision to be made and then if it is in if it's judged again to be a big strawberry complexity and difficulty they get cordie to in forty two dollars for the waiver twenty one dollars twenty one cents so basically we're talking over six months altogether by kind of gone through that process and when it comes to st amendment activity there is no justification for such a has said repeatedly that there are two reasons why a st amendment challenge activity such as just would be subject to a facial challenge and that's because when you have an ordinance that has un case where this court and the supreme court has faced that type of language the statute has been held to be unconstitutional because there is no limitation on what conditions could be applied  i think about my limit i'd like to add that the grace of the court reserved the rest of any time for or about having your time is used up but for so you can plan for science it does not say that he came to make any willy nilly discretionary conditions to prove the sign based on the substance of the sign the content of the sign the visible conditions of design the conditions of approval action that actually challenge as noted at the beginning was the temporary sign permit provision which is part of a broader assigned work that allows for extensive speech through signs without any notice to or approval from the government regardless of the subject or the point of view so the temporary sign permits section only requires a permit if someone wants to vehicles for communicating their message is not enough to satisfy somebody who wants to speak their within their rights than to pursuit they are permanent through the challenge temporary cyberman workmen's which allows for  the allowance was eighty square feet i could never do all that down and so i guess i'm wondering if you agree with that or if it's just undetermined i don't think i agree with it in theirs there is to import reasons why st there's no record yeah this is in the context of course of an appeal a factual findings by the or for which they must show it were were clearly erroneous putting that aside they're there there's a permit for temporary the city planner may apply conditions of approval to ensure compliance if that were bridal discretion and then they would support reversing the district or if we found that this is not a permanent statue council started her argument by saying that everybody who wants to post the sign is is burdened by this current statue but it's not true it doesn't stand alone people how many supreme court decision under the miller problems were relying on the end better discretion i think i heard just the opposite so i'd like to ask you what is in the sign design guidelines are they in the record and is there anything that what your position is you don't see anything in the same design guidelines that gives discretion but yours is the so my understanding and again it's not in the record my understanding is t offer to submit them and also give the court information about how the public would generally be able to access it yet that's that would be great even yeah we just couldn't find them online so i wrote sure what publicly available  statute so for example there are there are references and again this isn't what's under consideration which is to the court understand why there's that language when it comes to wall signs for example the statute  is the city of marino was just says it's got to be compatible with the environment or not be adverse effects with no definition of what any of that met so if they wanted to have an ordinance that met the terms of g k limited they could buy an in those sorts of limiting principles but they don't the nd thing that i would say your honor is the court below everyone has had difficulty finding the sign design guidelines how can you hold people to a issues are now going to give everyone the signed guidelines when the member of the public comes in to file that application if none of us can find the site guidelines we cannot impose on public an obligation to read is that or difficult if not impossible to find and i frankly believe your honor that the signed guidelines will not answer the questions here because i believe that they are what they essentially put in the zoning guidelines public and to make those available to the public they were not available they still are not available and as they said you know this court said they did that this court could not find them and the court below could not find them and so how can you turn a ordinance that says we can impose conditions based on the signed guidelines when people don't know what the sign guidelines say and i'm over my time again  for benefit of counsel on both sides who case i think if the court decides to do so we could issue a formal order that has  the city submit the signed kind of mines and let's both of you file short supplemental briefs that's the significance if i may have those kind of