PC 061108 - Laserfiche WebLink

get her a copy. She noted that these were copyrighted materials from Ned Abrams in 1985. She inquired how the public could have had access to see these plans if the City did not distribute them to anyone other than the Commission and the City Council, and if the document were not distributed and the public did not have access to them, she questioned how they could have appealed the decision or challenged it in 1985. Ms. Harryman noted that she was not familiar with the Pereira issue, since she did not handle that case. She noted that the question in this case was substantial conformance. She could not confirm whether the copyright laws existed in 1985 and noted that people could always review materials at the counter. She noted that copies could not be made of plan-size drawings. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Fox regarding how the public would have known to appeal this item in 1985, Ms. Harryman replied that the public received a notice that gave a general description of the project. Chair Blank noted that the notice would have said two to three stories. Ms. Harryman agreed with that assessment. Commissioner O'Connor noted that when the ordinance was approved for two to three stories, it referred to Exhibit A, which was conditions of approval, which did not contain actual drawings or plans. Ms. Harryman noted that the first condition of approval discussed the drawings and noted that was a common occurrence in conditions of approval. Commissioner O'Connor noted that it was confusing to have the ordinance refer to Exhibit A, Conditions of Approval, with the first condition of the Conditions of Approval referred to another Exhibit A, the development plan. Ms. Harryman noted that the ordinance referred to Exhibit A and the plans attached to the ordinance. She noted that Item 1 read, "The development is substantially as shown on the development plan, [another] Exhibit A on file with the Planning Department." She noted that it would have been clearer if the second Exhibit A had been labeled more accurately. Commissioner O'Connor noted that the Commission generally saw plans stamped Exhibit A and that the plans the Commissioners had were not stamped as Exhibit A. He added that the general public might think that this Exhibit A was a development plan because the 24 conditions, plus the standard conditions, tied the document to the development plan. He noted that would be confusing to the general public. He added that in the conditions of approval, Condition No. 17, stated, "This project is subject to all standard conditions of development, which are attached hereto and made a part hereof," with the exception of four paragraphs that were otherwise not pertinent to his question. He noted that in the standard conditions of development, Condition No. 14 stated, "The applicant be aware that design review approval lapses within one year, unless a building PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES June 11, 2008 Page 11 of 28