CCMIN100191 - Laserfiche WebLink

53 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS Item 6a RZ-91-5, City of Pleasanton; Application to amend Section 18.20.020 and other pertinent sectiQns oft he Pleasanton Municipal Code related to the composition and function of the Design Review Board. (SR 91:412) Mr. Mercer declared the public hearing open on the application. There being no testimony, Mr. Mercer declared the public hearing closed. Ms. Scribner wanted to make one clarification in the wording of Section 18.20.020 - Membership and Qualifications, to reflect that all members should be residents of the City. Under the same section, Mr. Tarver would like to see the "unlicensed design/development professionals" revised to reflect design professionals only. Mr. Butler agreed with Mr. Tarver's suggestion. A person doesn't need to be a licensed engineer, architect or design consultant, to be one. However, the fact is the State has set up professional review boards and examinations that guarantee a certain minimum level of competency. There is no reason why the City shouldn't looking for that level of expertise in the Design Review Board. Ms. Scribner's concern is that there may be difficulty in finding five licensed people to serve on the Board. Mayor Mercer thought that by accepting non-licensed professionals the Board would be more balanced. It doesn't mean that all five members would have to be interior designers. There is some validity in trying to balance the Design Review Board with somebody who knows architecture, somebody who knows landscaping, and somebody who knows interior design and colors. He supports the concept of being able to appoint an interior design person or color coordinator that does that profession for a living although they are not licensed by the State. Mr. Butler then suggested a compromise to allow a maximum of only two members on the Board being unlicensed. 10-01-91 7