Laserfiche WebLink
well as the proposed rules regarding the-, ifin the event that if someone were to remove the signs <br />or vandalize the signs that they would have to be replaced again, placed back on site. We don€t <br />have anything in the provisions in any of the rules to cover that. <br />SIRACUSA:That€s too bad you know because there are people with attitudes who you <br />know would see something disapprove of it and say ah, you know, just get angry, pull out the <br />sign, disappear it and then it could be the very next day and then no one is going to know about <br />it. <br />HAYASHI:Unfortunately, the intent is to make sure that the applicant posts these <br />signs. It€s unfortunate that somebody may go there, opposed to the project, opposed to the <br />posting, takes these signs down. By requiring the applicant to go back and place these signs <br />again we may be penalizing him for you know something that he or she was not responsible for. <br />ALAMEDA:Thank you Commissioner Siracusa. Norman I have a question then. How <br />do we respond to the, the language that suggests that it shall remain posted? Even if it was taken <br />downbyanotherperson? <br />HAYASHI:You asking me? <br />ALAMEDA:Yes sir. Yes, I€m asking you how do we respond then? Cause if you, you <br />just, I heard you just say that you know if it was a community member that maybe is opposed to <br />the project that goes and takes down the sign, that€s all good. But it€s the rule or the language <br />suggests that it still remain posted. So I€m wondering, how do fix that or we change the <br />language or what we do? <br />SIRACUSA:I just want to say that cause otherwise it€s the public that€s being penalized <br />by being, not knowing you know if this project is going to happen? <br />WATANABE:I thought this came up in discussion? <br />ALAMEDA:Commissioner? Or how about Director? <br />YUEN:Well, this was discussed. This sign posting thing was an initiative of <br />Councilmember Jacobson and in order not to make it an undue burden on the applicant it is part <br />of the understanding and part of the ordinance that we€re just implementing by changing the <br />rules that the applicant€s job is simply to post the sign. And they€re also obligated not to take it <br />down themselves. But if somebody does knock the sign down, steal it or do something then <br />they€re not obligated to re-post. That is the way it€s, that€s the rule. That€s the way the <br />ordinance is written and that€s the way is proposed to be written. <br />ALAMEDA:Commissioner Siracusa? <br />SIRACUSA:Yeah, I was under the impression that the intent of the ordinance was not <br />to make the applicant post a sign but to inform the general public about potent- you know, <br />potential developments. That€s why I question that. <br />EXHIBIT C <br />3 <br /> <br />