After discussions on how to best form a committee providing feedback on an effort to shape new vision for San Mateo, city officials opted to form a seven-person working group comprised of elected and appointed officials as a part of a public participation plan for the city’s General and Downtown plan updates.
By including two councilmembers, two planning commissioners, two members of the city’s Sustainability and Infrastructure Commission and one member of the Park and Recreation Commission in a committee expected to work closely with city staff and a consultants hired to guide the city’s planning process, officials are hoping those familiar with the city and its policies can provide direct feedback on proposed plan updates.
Though they had previously considered forming a larger subcommittee to include youth, members of the city’s immigrant population and others who haven’t previously engaged with city government, among other representatives of the city’s diverse community, officials felt the in-person community meetings, city tours and online and mobile surveys included in the city’s public participation plan could capture input from a wide array of stakeholders.
Noting he would like to hear from residents from all of the city’s neighborhoods as the planning process unfolds in the coming years, Councilman Joe Goethals said he supported forming a smaller working group to provide more detailed feedback on specific plan components and changes.
“I think the volunteers who already committed themselves to the city and who aren’t just here for their neighborhood or for their interest but who have volunteered their time to the city because they want to serve everyone, that’s who I think can best serve the committee,” he said, according to a video of the meeting Monday, June 18.
Though resident Ken Abreu was among those who had previously advocated for a committee with fewer city officials and greater representation from younger residents, renters and low-income residents at the council’s May 21 meeting, he expressed hopes city officials would make the committee’s meetings and materials open to the public. He also asked them to ensure residents who didn’t make it onto the committee have ample opportunities to provide input on its work.
“You need to make sure you’re providing the various groups sufficient time … to put forward their ideas and their concerns and their thoughts,” he said. “It’s critical if this General Plan process is going to work that people are able to say ‘it was open and I got my chance.’”
Recommended for you
City Manager Larry Patterson said the committee’s meetings and materials would be available to the public and that they would make time for public input at the meetings. Councilwoman Maureen Freschet asked if the meetings would be televised so those who can’t attend can still see what was discussed, and though Patterson wasn’t sure if the working group’s meetings would lend themselves well to video, he said city staff would look into finding spaces big enough for the group to meet and where it can also be televised.
Though the council already nominated Mayor Rick Bonilla and Councilman Eric Rodriguez to serve on the committee, the council will wait until a vacancy on the city’s Sustainability and Infrastructure Commission is filled next month before selecting the other five members of the General Plan Committee.
Initiated last year, the effort to chart a vision for the San Mateo’s future and help the city navigate shifts in the Bay Area’s demographics, jobs and traffic congestion, among other changes, is expected to include discussions on housing, land use policy, circulation, open space, noise, safety and conservation.
Freschet said she wanted to assure residents that their voices can be heard through many other avenues as the updates to the city’s General and Downtown plans take shape, and if they are not able to participate in the subcommittee, it doesn’t mean their voices won’t be heard.
“I hope that people will trust that this is going to be a community process and that every voice will get heard,” she said. “It’s going to be a long process.”
Same thing happened with the Bay Meadows approval...the fix was in by limiting the debate and appointments to the so-called Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC)...Input from San Mateo residents beyond the "appointed "CAC group was ignored......that's a fact, now matter how much the Bay Meadows advocates tried to defend the process.
And so now... " city officials opted to form a seven-person working group comprised of elected and appointed officials as a part of a public participation plan for the city’s General and Downtown plan updates"...Seriously???
And further, Goethal's says he doesn't want neighborhood (associations) input represented on the committee...?...but his approved special interest groups are okay though.... Joe have you ever heard of democracy?....I say if the City truly wants majority resident input... there should be some home owner association representation on it....
I won't hold my breath though...clearly with this "new" approach to formulating the general plan by the City....the fix is already in...
I strongly advocated for a broadly representative advisory committee. Such a committee is in line with best practices as recommended by the state of California’s general plan guidelines. The decision to afford the broader public (meaning renters, environmentalists, homeowners, representatives of various minority groups, younger people, etc.) a place only on the outside of the General Plan update process is, I think, a really unfortunate mistake. What it means, though, is that all of us—from the public at large to officials in government—will have to work extra hard to make sure that a diverse range of community stakeholders is heard in the General Plan update. And since not all of us can attend every meeting, one thing that would greatly help is if a video record of the meetings could be made available to the public. This General Plan update, I beleive, is a particularly important one. Given the major affordable housing and traffic issues we are facing, it is now more important than ever that we plan appropriately for the future. Stay engaged!
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO
personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who
make comments. Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd,
racist or sexually-oriented language. Don't threaten. Threats of harming another
person will not be tolerated. Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone
or anything. Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on
each comment to let us know of abusive posts. PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK. Anyone violating these rules will be issued a
warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be
revoked.
Please purchase a Premium Subscription to continue reading.
To continue, please log in, or sign up for a new account.
We offer one free story view per month. If you register for an account, you will get two additional story views. After those three total views, we ask that you support us with a subscription.
A subscription to our digital content is so much more than just access to our valuable content. It means you’re helping to support a local community institution that has, from its very start, supported the betterment of our society. Thank you very much!
(2) comments
Same thing happened with the Bay Meadows approval...the fix was in by limiting the debate and appointments to the so-called Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC)...Input from San Mateo residents beyond the "appointed "CAC group was ignored......that's a fact, now matter how much the Bay Meadows advocates tried to defend the process.
And so now... " city officials opted to form a seven-person working group comprised of elected and appointed officials as a part of a public participation plan for the city’s General and Downtown plan updates"...Seriously???
And further, Goethal's says he doesn't want neighborhood (associations) input represented on the committee...?...but his approved special interest groups are okay though.... Joe have you ever heard of democracy?....I say if the City truly wants majority resident input... there should be some home owner association representation on it....
I won't hold my breath though...clearly with this "new" approach to formulating the general plan by the City....the fix is already in...
I strongly advocated for a broadly representative advisory committee. Such a committee is in line with best practices as recommended by the state of California’s general plan guidelines. The decision to afford the broader public (meaning renters, environmentalists, homeowners, representatives of various minority groups, younger people, etc.) a place only on the outside of the General Plan update process is, I think, a really unfortunate mistake. What it means, though, is that all of us—from the public at large to officials in government—will have to work extra hard to make sure that a diverse range of community stakeholders is heard in the General Plan update. And since not all of us can attend every meeting, one thing that would greatly help is if a video record of the meetings could be made available to the public. This General Plan update, I beleive, is a particularly important one. Given the major affordable housing and traffic issues we are facing, it is now more important than ever that we plan appropriately for the future. Stay engaged!
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who make comments.
Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Anyone violating these rules will be issued a warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be revoked.