HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 08082000 - SD7 bF
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OntI'
Costa
FROM: INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE County
DATE: August 8, 2000 : '
SUBJECT: APPOINTMENT TO THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY ; r
PLANNING COMMISSION y `.
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATION:
REAPPOINT the following individual to the At-Large seat on the Contra Costa County Planning
Commission for a four-year term expiring June 30, 2004:
Richard Clark
1237 Robyn Drive
Danville, CA 94526
BACKGROUND:
Commissioner Clark expressed an interest in being reappointed. In recognition of his past service
and regular attendance, the Internal Operations Committee considered and approved Mr. Clark's
reappointment at its July 10, 2000 meeting.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE:
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(s): .
LE UILK ' A MARK DeSAITONIER
ACTION OF BOARD ON August 8, 2000 APPROVE AS RECOMMENDED OTHER„ ,
Marcus O'Connell,3206 Esperanza,Concord,appeared to speak on this issue: No one else desiring to comment,
the Board considered the issue and took the following action:
IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that a process was DETERMINED for accepting applications to the Contra
Costa County Planning Commission, which closes on September 15,2000;that after interviewing the candidates,the
Internal Operations Committee is DIRECTED to recommend an appointee to the Board soon thereafter; and it is
ACKNOWLEDGED that Richard Clark will continue to serve on the Commission until a permanent replacement is
appointed.
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
JM_UNANIMOUS(ABSENT — } AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE
AYES: NOES: SHOWN.
ABSENT: ABSTAIN:
ATTESTED— August 8, ZOOQ
CONTACT: JULIE ENEA (925)335-1077 PHIL BACHELOR,CLERK OF THE BOARD
OF SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY
CC: INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEEADMINISTRATOR
DENNIS BARRY,COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTO'
CLERK OF THE BOARD(MADDY BOM
B�
Dip t Clerk
Marcus O'Connell
3206 Esperanza Drive • Concord,�CA 94519 • {925}689-7881 • marcus@value.net
August 6, 20010 � ; -,JEIVED
Board of Supervisors F+ AUG " 8 2000
Contra Costa County r ._ 7,1 9 1 s
651 Pine Street %Q06TAC0.
Martinez, CA 94553
RE: August 8, 2000 agenda, item SD.7:
Reappointment of an At-Large Planning Commissioner
Dear Supervisors:
Can July 18, 2000, 1 asked to have this item pulled from the consent calendar.
Following discussion, the Board continued it until August 8.
My concerns are primarily those of a citizen rather than those of an applicant for the
position. Simply stated, I believe the process for selecting commissioners should be
open and competitive whereas the existing process is closed, without any consideration
of applicants other than the incumbent. Thus the reappointment of an incumbent
commissioner is effectively guaranteed.
This has several consequences.
• The County does.not benefit from its access to a vast reservoir of talented citizens.
• Conversely, citizens' opportunities to serve are greatly curtailed.
• Because the two at-large commissioners have both held their positions since
October, 1989, they do not necessarily reflect the choice of the current Board of
Supervisors but rather the choice of supervisors who have long since left office.
• The lack of diversity on the present Planning Commission is perpetuated. The
Commission includes only one woman and one non-Caucasian.
• Geographically, parts of the County have long been under-represented on the
Commission and, under the current process, will remain so indefinitely.
• The automatic nature of the reappointment process leaves commissioners largely
unaccountable for their actions. The positions are de facto lifetime appointments.
After your July 18, 2000 meeting, I contacted the various cities within Contra Costa
County to determine their procedures for reappointing Manning commissioners. Their _
responses are summarized in the following table.
Cities of Contra. Costa County
Planning Commission Appointment Process
Supervisorial Competitive/
District city Automatic* Notes
1 El Cerrito Competitive Maximum of 2 terms.
Richmond Competitive
San Pablo ?
2 Hercules Com titive
Lafayette Automatic High turnover.
Martinez Com titive
Mora a Competitive
Orinda Competitive
Pinole Competitive
3 Danville Competitive
San Ramon Competitive
Walnut Creek Quasi- Maximum of 2 terms.
Automatic Full Council interviews
a commissioner before
rea intro .
4 Clayton Competitive
Concord Com titive
Pleasant Hill Competitive
Antioch Com titive
Brentwood Competitive
it—ttsburg Competitive
* The term "automatic" means that planning commissioners wishing to continue serving
after their term expires are reappointed without considering other applicants. The term
"competitive" means that the positions are posted and advertises regardless of whether a
sitting commissioner seeks reappointment.
It can be seen that the preponderance of cities in Contra Costa County select planning
commissioners using an open, competitive process, regardless of whether an incumbent
seeks to be reappointed.
Your choice of an at-large planning commissioner is of great import; the Commission is
a high-profile legislative body that makes far-reaching decisions affecting a large,
diverse, geographically dispersed population. Furthermore, the County's planning
function is in a period of rapid evolution, as evidenced by the Board's current initiative
to craft and adopt a set of "smart growth" policies. An open appointment process will
help ensure that the County's planning commission is on the same evolutionary path.
1 uro the Board of Supervisors to open up the nomination process by publicly
announcing the opening and soliciting applications from all interested persons. This
approach will enable the Board to choose the best of many applicants rather than simply
ratify the reappointment of an incumbent.
Thank you for your consideration.
Respectfully yours,
Marcus O'Connell