Wednesday, February 01, 2017

Planning Commission Interviews Complete

 Tom Duarte, Tom Hatch, Jim Righeimer, 
John Stephens, Sandra Genis, Katrina Foley
FOURTEEN INTERVIEWED - MATHEWS A NO-SHOW, AGAIN
The Costa Mesa City Council completed their interviews of fourteen (14) candidates for the five (5) Planning Commission vacancies Tuesday night - former Vice Chair Jeff Mathews failed to show up for the process again.
 Katrina Foley and Brenda Green
SELECTION TO OCCUR NEXT WEEK
As mentioned in an earlier post, the actual selection process for the Planning Commission, plus the Parks and Recreation Commission and the Senior Commission, will now occur at the regularly-scheduled council meeting next Tuesday, February 7, 2017.
Council contemplating
MANSOOR ABSENT DUE TO FAMILY EMERGENCY
Council member Allan Mansoor was absent from this meeting, apparently due to a family emergency, but Jim Righeimer - who was absent from the session last Tuesday - did attend the meeting last night.
 Susan Gonzales
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Mayor Katrina Foley moderated this meeting.  It began shortly after the prescribed start time of 5:30 and Foley permitted Public Comments.  The irrepressible Terry Koken jumped up and sang a short ditty.  Anna Vrska stepped up to praise candidates Jay Humphrey and Teresa Drain.
Stephan Andranian
MODIFIED SCHEDULE
The order of interview was changed from the original schedule placing Susan Gonzales first due to a prior commitment for a CERT certification class.  This is the order in which the candidates were screened:
  • Susan Gonzales
  • Stephan H. Andranian   
  • Byron de Arakal    
  • Sarah Bortz     
  • Robert L. Dickson, Jr..     
  • Teresa Callo Drain     
  • Jeffrey Harlan    
  • Danial Hoffmann     
  • Jay Humphrey     
  • Isabell Mayer Kerins          
  • Jenna Tourje     
  • Dan Worthington    
  • Jonathan Zich    
  • Mark Buchanan 
PROCESS SIMILAR TO LAST WEEK
As was the practice last week with the other two commissions, City Clerk Brenda Green escorted each candidate into the Conference Room - the others were asked to remain outside in fairness to the others - Foley introduced the candidates to the council members and explained the process.  This time around each candidate would be grilled for ten (10) minutes.  Foley led off with two pre-determined questions, followed by one question each by the council members on an alternating rotating basis and a second round of questions could occur if time permitted.  Foley generally asked the same first two questions of each, but not always.  City Clerk Brenda Green kept the time, providing a warning when two minutes remained so questions could be wrapped up and a closing statement could be given if time permitted.  More often than not there was insufficient time.
Byron de Arakal
AN INTERESTING FIRST QUESTION
Foley usually started by asking each candidate what the role of a Planning Commissioner was.  Most came close to answering the question.
Sarah Bortz
SURPRISE RESPONSES
What surprised me the most from that session was how few of the candidates had actually reviewed the recently-updated General Plan - the foundational document for development in the city - and the highly-controversial Residential Overlays for Harbor Boulevard and Newport Boulevard which formed a part of that General Plan update.  And, equally surprising, more than a few had only a vague understanding of Measure Y, passed in November and which has the potential to change development in Costa Mesa dramatically.
Rob Dickson
TOUGH TO HEAR - BUT THE MEETING WAS TAPED
The venue - Conference Room 1A - was not very user-friendly for those of us in the peanut gallery.  It was sometimes difficult to hear the questions being asked and answered because there was no amplified sound in the room.  The meeting, as was the one last week, was taped for future consumption, but nobody seemed to know when it would be available for viewing by the public.  I suspect it will be kept under wraps until after the selection process is complete next week.  If not, I'll let you know when it's available.
 Teresa Callo Drain
Jeffrey Harlan
AN EXCELLENT POOL OF CANDIDATES
Once again, this cadre of candidates - which included two recent  Planning Commissioners, a former Parks and Recreation Chairman, a former Parks and Recreation Commissioner and a former City Council member - brought excellent credentials for the council member's consideration.  As an old recruiter with decades of management team building under my ever-expanding belt, I salivated as I contemplated building a Planning Commission team from this group of candidates.  The combinations of land planning, legal training, community activism and significant leadership experience should make it possible to assemble an extremely effective commission.  We'll see next Tuesday.
 Daniel Hoffman
 Jay Humphrey
OPINIONS DIFFER
Each of us will have different opinions about the right candidates for these five openings.  I've selected mine, which will be my little secret until, perhaps, later.  It contains a mix of skills and experience that should, or could, make for an effective unit.  It was not an easy process for me because there are so many really excellent candidates.
Isabell Mayer Kerins
 Jenna Tourje
THE PROCESS
Here's the process the City Council will theoretically follow next Tuesday in the selection process for the seventeen (17) commissioners - five (5) each for the Planning and Parks and Recreation Commissions and seven (7) for the Senior Commission.  In theory, this process will help eliminate politics in the selection process - a good idea.  The process:

1. The City Council will convene in the Council Chambers. 
2. The Mayor will open the floor for public comments. 
3. Council Member comments 
4. On the nomination forms each Council Member will rank their selected applicants 5-1 (5 being the highest score) for the Planning and Parks & Recreation Commissions, and 7-1 (7 being the highest score) for the Senior Commission. Each Council Member shall submit their nomination forms to the City Clerk. The points for each applicant will be totaled and the total multiplied by the number of Council Members selecting that applicant. Example: Applicant 1 receives votes by three Council Members: 5+1+3 = 9. Multiply 9 by 3 for the total points of 27 for Applicant 1. 
5. The City Council will recess for approximately ten minutes to allow the City Clerk to tabulate the nominations. 
6. The City Clerk shall read all of the nominations into the record by each Council Member, and announce the selections with the highest totals; applicants receiving the most points shall be appointed to the four-year terms, or City Council shall provide direction on term selections. 
7. If the final selection results in a tie vote, Council Members will draw numbers to determine order of nominations. The first Council member in order nominates their preferred applicant, and upon receiving a second shall be voted on by the entire Council 
8. The City Council shall ratify the selections to the Senior Commission with a motion, second, and call for the vote. 
9. The City Council shall ratify the selections to the Parks & Recreation Commission with a motion, second, and call for the vote. 
10.The City Council shall ratify the selections to the Planning Commission with a motion, second, and call for the vote.

Dan Worthington 
A FIRST - AN APOLITICAL PROCESS
In my memory of City events, this is the first time this particular process has been used for selection of commissioners.  In the recent past, during the Jim Righeimer/Steve Mensinger/Gary Monahan era, they held the majority on the council, so most commission seats were determined by their majority vote.  It's instructive to note that the current council majority - Katrina Foley, Sandra Genis and John Stephens - are at least attempting to remove politics and cronyism from the selection of important commission positions.  I'm not sure how this process is actually going to shake out, but kudos to them for attempting to make this a fair process - they didn't have to do it.
Jonathan Zich
A WHOLE NEW TEAM NEXT WEEK
Next week at this time we will have a brand new cadre of commissioners, all ready to serve the residents of this city.  I'm looking forward to watching this process unfold and am confident we will end up with three commissions staffed with seventeen eager, skilled volunteers.
Mark Buchanan

Labels: , , , , , , , ,

4 Comments:

Anonymous Xyn Bohemia said...

thanks geoff for explaining the new process to us! :)

2/01/2017 09:49:00 AM  
Anonymous Ken Nyquist said...

I see lots of gray hair....

2/01/2017 01:04:00 PM  
Anonymous zennymoon said...

Lots of "nice" people just very few informed ...general plan, "Y", overlays, not a lot of knowledge. Thankfully several residents who have been through thick and thin, and are so knowledgeable, are in the running. teresa Drain and Jay Humphrey have been dedicated to development issues and well versed on planning, density, and Etc. and would be great choices.

2/02/2017 12:11:00 AM  
Anonymous Where's My Coffee? said...

There are some candidates I'd really like, some I'd be "okay" with, and several that I absolutely don't like. I understand they are looking for non-political commissions and a mix would be good. That said, there are a few on that list that completely and consistently ignored the rules and laws in their decisions and hope they will not be selected again. Basically, I'd like to see people on the commission that have lived in the city for awhile and have a sense of the city and care what the residents want to see. Most of these people don't know what is in the general plan, don't know what the initiatives are for, an have no idea what an overlay is.
I really think the last commission proved to be rather dishonest, and would not like to see that potential rear its ugly head again.

2/02/2017 06:53:00 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home