PC 01/27/1993 - Laserfiche WebLink

~ duties be modified. In further response to her questions, Mr. Swift s ted that should the Board be eliminated, the Zoning Administrator (who is Mr. Swift or me other delegated staff person) and/or the Planning Commission would assume the duti s of the Design Review Board. Mr. Beougher indicated that in the event the Zoning Administrator sh uld approve something the Planning Commission did not like, it could be appealed by the C mmission. Commissioner Mahern stated that she felt the reasons the Economic evelopment Committee gave for wishing to disband the Design Review Board were invalid. he said in comparison to other cities, the approval process for applications was very timely d that the cost of the fees was below that of most other cities. She felt the only real probl m was for those professionals who sat on the Review Board and subsequently could n t talk with staff about cases they were representing because of the State's ruling on conflict f interest. In response to Commissioner Michelotti's comments, Mr. Swift sta that if the Planning Commission took over the Design Review Board's duties, that basica1 y only new buildings and straight-zonings would go before the Commission. ~ Commissioner Wright stated that he felt the Planning Commission wo ld have a difficult time doing what the Design Review Board did, in that architects and andscape architects had more expertise in the design area. He knew that staff was very kno edgeable, but did not think they had the range of expertise on design as the architects. Mr. Swift noted that staff is not trying to downgrade the value of the esign Review Board; however, he felt that with staff and the City's landscape architect, Mi e Fulford, cases would still be handled with skill. THE PUBLIC HEARlNG WAS OPENED. Michael Goldsworthy, 633 Abbie, stated that as a past Design Revie Board member he did not have the opportunity to speak on this issue before. He said he re igned from the Board because of the new statutes on conflict of interest which virtually wo d not allow him to practice his profession of architecture in Pleasanton. He noted that t Economic Development Committee's goal was to cut through red tape and s up the approval process. He stated he has been in practice for 25 years, and he felt easanton was head and shoulders above any other town for a fast, but thorough approval pr ess, usually no more than six and one-half weeks on a fast pace. Other cities usually take ix months. He felt that eliminating the Design Review Board would not speed up the tim ng process. He felt that it would, in turn, make it more difficult for the Planning Commi sion to make major planning decisions, and also have to decide on colors, landscaping iss es, etc. Planning Commission Minules January 27, 1993 Page 9