Public Comment

There’s a pretty stark difference among maps that have been strongly considered, the Minimal Changes Map, Communities Together, Adjusted 2, the Unity Map, and the Espinoza Map. Of those, only one follows the guidelines given to the Redistricting Commission, which in turn were constrained by applicable law: the Espinoza Map.

By contrast, in particular, the ironically named Communities Together Map and both versions of Unity Map notably fail to keep communities together, let alone promote unity. The recent resolution is thus a grave disappointment, and should be voted down.

Overall, the Board should, please, cease ignoring he Commission’s diligent and productive work. Thank you.

— Rick Moen
rick@linuxmafia.com
West Menlo Park
(650) 283-7902 (cellular)

Dear Board of Supervisors**

I am writing this email as a 52 year resident of La Honda and in support of the Espinoza map.

The map keeps all of the Coastside communities together and connects us together with un-incorporated areas over the hill that we have much in common with. It has shown to have wide support here as it gives us representation that we badly need. Please consider endorsing that map!!

Lynnette Vega
La Honda, CA 94020

I am contacting you to voice my support for the Espinoza map concerning redistricting San Mateo County. It seems the fairest way to give the coastal communities under your jurisdiction a strong voice in their future. That voice has been sorely lacking over the past 10 years.

Laurie

Laurie McLean

We, my household supports the Espinoza map for the redistributing issue. The Espinoza map has the unincorporated areas of the county united in one District as our needs are very different from incorporated cities in the County.
Please vote this in. Thank you for your time and hard work

Sent from my iPhone
Linda Bea Miller

Dear Members of the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors,

Please find attached correspondence (link to attached letter) regarding the County’s ongoing redistricting process and the legal requirements that apply to that process.  If you have any questions or would like to continue this conversation further, please feel free to contact us at hkieschnick@aclunc.org and juliam@advancingjustice-alc.org.

Sincerely,

Hannah Kieschnick | she/her/hers

Staff Attorney

Democracy & Civic Engagement Program

As a life long resident of the Unincorporated San Mateo County (North Fair Oaks), I urge you to strongly consider the Unity Map. The Unity Map will best support North Fair Oaks Community, along with other communities of interest that surround us. This map was developed through a collaboration of organizations that were considering the needs of all communities of interest, regardless of voting status. The Unity Map will allow advancement of racial equity and representation. North Fair Oaks, Belle Haven and East Palo Alto needs are very different from the coastal communities. The Unity Map allows for a better representation of the diversity and needs of the county as a hole.

I urge the Board of Supervisors to strongly consider the Unity Map to support the needs of North Fair Oaks 15,000 residents, predominately Latino residents and other under-served communities of interest.

Thank you for your consideration.

A. Romero (resident)

Please support the Unity Map!

Hello and thank you for considering our input. I am emailing for both me and my husband, Donald J. Catterson.

We have lived in La Honda since 1981. We live in the community of Cuesta La Honda at 50 Canada Vista. Mailing address is PO Box 292, La Honda, CA, 94020.

We are concerned about the redistricting being considered and are happy that Cindy Crowe-Urgo has been providing us with information about what you are considering with the new redistricting since the new census is done.

We feel that we prefer our district to be the unincorporated coastal area of our wonderful San Mateo County.

The Espinoza map keeps all unincorporated areas in one district as their needs are completely different from incorporated cities.
All five of the districts are majority-minority districts in the Espinoza map and represent the changing demographics of our county and the increased growth of communities of color. There is no other map that we have seen where all five districts are majority-minority districts.
The other map the Unity map splits 7 cities in the County and does not give the unincorporated parts of the County a voice.

Our Board member is our direct and sole representation in the unincorporated areas. We need someone to be an advocate and not to be spread thin by districting us with an anchor city that already has a voice through a city or town council.

The Espinoza map honors the coastside and unincorporated areas of the County. Also the Espinoza map only splits Burlingame and the rest of the cities remain whole, which was also what cities in San Mateo County wanted. Incorporated cities do not want to be split.

Again, thank you for considering our views and we hope that the Espinoza map will the the final decision.

Betty L. Nogues
Donal J. Catterson
La Honda, CA 94020

The Espinoza map keeps all unincorporated areas in one district as their needs are completely different from incorporated cities.

All five of the districts are majority-minority districts in the Espinoza map and represent the changing demographics of our county and the increased growth of communities of color. There is no other map that I have seen where all five districts are majority-minority districts.

I noticed that the other map, the Unity map, splits 7 cities in the County and does not give the unincorporated parts of the County a voice. Our Board member is our direct and sole representation in the unincorporated areas. We need someone to be an advocate for us and not to be spread too thin by putting us with an anchor city that already has a voice through a city or town council. Unincorporated areas don’t have city or town council to count on for support.

The Espinoza map honors the coastside and unincorporated areas of the County. Also the Espinoza map only splits Burlingame and the rest of the cities remain whole, which was also what cities in San Mateo County wanted. Incorporated cities do not want to be split.

Please select the Espinoza map for the good of San Mateo County.

Best regards,

Dr. Trudy Schoneman
La Honda

Dear San Mateo County Board of Supervisors:

I attended two of the meetings of the Commission which was appointed to discuss possible San Mateo County 2021 Redistricting maps.

After reviewing the two maps recommended by the Commission, I enthusiastically support the best and most logical map for all of San Mateo County — the Espinoza map.

The integrity of the redistricting process is very important. The Espinoza map takes into consideration the requirements for fair and representative district lines by keeping communities of interest whole and diversifying districts to meet demographic changes. Most importantly, this map honors the significant public input from residents throughout San Mateo County to keep areas such as the Coastside and unincorporated areas together. Therefore, the Espinoza map should be the redistricting map that the Board of Supervisors adopts. And, by selecting the Espinoza map the Board of Supervisors will meet the needs of its constituents.

Sincerely,
Barbara Hooper
La Honda resident

I write as a resident of San Mateo County – in Menlo Park – to support the Unity Map.

I firmly believe, professionally and personally, that problems are best solved when the voices of those who are most impacted by the problems are leading the change.

In the context of county governance, we have an opportunity to elevate the voice and power of impacted communities by choosing district lines that give the greatest concentration and voice to historically marginalized communities of interest. The Board of Supervisors will make better decisions for everyone in the county if they hear loud and clear from those with the most dire and direct experience of today’s challenges.

The Unity Map was created with input from 12 organizations who work with, are led by, and represent some of the most marginalized and impacted communities in the county. The Unity Map itself results from the leadership of impacted communities and will give these historically marginalized communities a fair shot at equitable representation in the decade ahead.

Many public comments express a desire to keep cities intact. My opinion is that keeping marginalized communities of interest together is more important than keeping cities intact. More significant than my opinion is California law, which requires the drawing of new lines to preserve communities of interest before considering city boundaries.

A few commenters have expressed a preference for the Espinoza map over the Unity map based on community of interest concerns – notably some of the unincorporated communities. Perhaps there is a way forward that incorporates their concerns with the Unity Map. With or without further refinements, I urge you to move forward with the Unity Map.

Thank you,
Karen

I write to support the Unity map for redistricting San Mateo County. Importantly, it is the only map submitted that was created by a coalition of community-based organizations in the County and truly best represents a unique opportunity to provide equity in representation to all communities.

I write as an individual who is also a member of four of the community-based organizations that proposed this map.

The Unity Map also provides the best opportunity for historically under-represented communities of interest to have a voice on the Board of Supervisors. It keeps the cities of Menlo Park and Pacifica whole and within their current districts.

In the North County, it creates an Asian-majority district and community of interest. Along the Bay, the keeps communities of East Palo Alto, Belle Haven (Menlo Park), North Fair Oaks together along with incorporated and unincorporated portions of Menlo Park.

Overall, I believe the Unity Map accurately reflects the changing demographics of San Mateo County.
Although this map does not keep all cities together, I believe it is more important to honor communities of interests as described in the Fair Maps Act of 2019.
The Unity Map Coalition represents a radical change to how Board of Supervisor district lines are drawn, but I believe this radical change will better achieve equity for all of our population in San Mateo County.

Tim
—
Tim Clark
Portola Valley CA

I would prefer the UNITY/THRIVE map. Coastal Half Moon Bay (my town) has more in common with coastal Pacifica than it does with the several Peninsula town places with it on the Espinoza map
Thank you for sharing this input with the appropriate people.
Janice Solimeno

Hi,
I would like to share the input that I think underrepresented racial groups in SMC should have increased political representation on the board of supervisors and significant voting power in as many districts as possible.
I don’t know which maps would accomplish this, although it seems the Unity Map would be good (see https://www.rwcpulse.com/local-news/guest-opinion/opinion-divide-without-conquering-4712352?utm_source=Email&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Email&utm_source=Redwood+City+Pulse&utm_campaign=467c4e9bbe-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_681da414fe-467c4e9bbe-112742171) but I think this is important to consider.
This is important for equity, representation, and investment in the areas of our county that are not as well resourced and served.
Thank you,
Heather Woods
RWC

I was delighted to learn from the Thrive Alliance of Non-Profits there we now have several thoughtfully drafted proposals for redistricting maps. I am impressed with the care and equity lens the Unity Coalition put into creating its uniquely equitably Unity Map. I encourage the Board of Supervisors to adopt the Unity Map.

—
Ron Susek
Redwood City, CA 94062

Hi, I’m writing to express my strong support for the Unity Map as the map to be adopted for county redistricting. I know that some people consider keeping cities together, as in the Espinoza map, is important. But cities already have a city council to deal with city-wide or city-specific issues. As a resident of a diverse city (Redwood City) I think the Unity Map provides a much greater benefit by making sure that areas with common characteristics and interests are grouped together in a way that allows a broad cross section of county residents to be appropriately represented. Please adopt the Unity Map for a strong and representative Board.

Thank you for your time,
Carina Merrick

Hi, Commissioners

The Thrive map gives my neighborhood the best chance of fair representation in San Mateo County. City boundaries are less important than the economic and racial boundaries that have always worked against us. They should be recognized and allowed to work for us.

Sincerely

Nina Wouk
Belle Haven resident since 1986

Without going into lengthy detail, I believe Unity Coalition Map is the one the BoS should select. One critical reason to support the Unity map is that it is the only map submitted that was created by a coalition of community-based organizations in the County and truly best represents a unique opportunity to provide equity in representation to all communities within the constraints of the law.

Susan Feist,
San Carlos resident and member of SFPPP

Dear San Mateo County leadership,

We are writing to you today to add our support for the Espinoza district map.

We are residents and homeowners in La Honda. As a rural and unincorporated area, we support the Espinoza map because it keeps all unincorporated areas in one district. Our needs are completely different from incorporated cities. Before this opportunity to redistrict, our voices and needs have been dramatically under-represented. This is an opportunity to close that gap.

Thank you,
Jamie and James Walton
La Honda

In response to the San Mateo County Redistricting Committee Request for Comment: After reviewing proposed maps for revising the county supervisory district lines

I am in favor of the map proposed by the UNITY MAP COALTION as the best choice!

Honorable Supervisors Groom and Slocum,

I live in District 2 and get the District 4 Newsletter.

I recommend:
1. That you direct the Advisory Commission to include in their presentation to the Board of Supervisors, how these maps meet the major concerns/interests of the commission and input by the public. Commission James Laurence mentioned the top three concerns/interests were.
a. Keeping cities within one district.
b. Keeping the coast together.
c. Keeping the lower income areas in North Fair Oaks/Redwood City/Menlo Park together.
2. That they complete a table similar to the one below to compare the various maps. (Link to tables from email)

At their Oct 28, 2021 Supervisorial District Lines Advisory Commission meeting they are agreed to submit two maps.
• Unity Map (provided by Thrive Alliance): https://smcdistrictlines.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Unity-Map.pdf.
• Espinosa Map (provided by Rudy Espinoza): https://smcdistrictlines.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Comm-Espinoza.pdf

In my opinion the City Focus Maps should be considered.
• City Focus Map: https://www.dropbox.com/s/26ncr47afnlavfz/NDC%20City%20Focus%20Map.pdf?dl=0 [provided by Douglas Johnson (NDC)] • City Focus Map II: https://smcdistrictlines.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/NDC-City-Focus-II.pdf

Dear Advisory Commission,

As a Pacifica resident, I ask that you treat as a coastal town with interests aligning with the Coast south of us. We belong in District 3 as defined by the Unity Map Coalition.

Sincerely,

Margaret Goodale
Pacifica

Dear San Mateo County Redistricting Commission:

Thank you for the time and effort you have put into this important process.

Of the two maps currently under consideration, only the one submitted by Commissioner Espinoza (map #69539) adequately speaks for and addresses the concerns of those of us in unincorporated parts of San Mateo County. We are a ‘community of interest’ with very different needs than the incorporated community.

The unincorporated area, covers almost 75% of the land mass of San Mateo County. We have different exposures to climate change and are much more fire prone than the other side of the hill.

We are under the jurisdiction of the Board of Supervisors but because we are by population a minority, we have very little representation as it is. The map submitted by Commissioner Espinoza (#69539) is the only map that takes this under consideration. Incorporated areas have city councils that can make laws that supersede the County – only the unincorporated areas have no other representation.

Map #69539 keeps the unincorporated areas in one district. It takes into consideration the requirements for fair and representative district lines by keeping communities of interest whole and diversifying districts to meet demographic changes.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sue Henkin-Haas
San Gregorio, CA

Dear Commissioners:

I have looked at the maps and listened to several others and am agreeing that the best map seems to be San Mateo County is Map #69539. Limiting the impact of only splitting one city—Burlingame, make most sense.

This map #69539 looks like it has taken into consideration the requirements for fair and representative district lines by keeping communities of interest whole, diversifying districts to meet demographic changes, and, most importantly, honoring significant public input from residents throughout County to keep areas, such as the Coastside and unincorporated areas together.

Please make Map #69539 the only recommended map that moves forward to the Board of Supervisors.

Sincerely,
Ron

Community of Interest Submission: Coastside

Dear Commissioners:
Thank you for your time, work and attention to this important decision, and for the opportunity to provide input as a constituent of SMCounty. As a long time resident of La Honda with my husband, I support Commissioner Espinoza’s map #69539, as do many other members of our small community.

The integrity of the redistricting process is important. Map #69539 looks like it has taken into consideration the requirements for fair and representative district lines by keeping communities of interest whole, diversifying districts to meet demographic changes, and, most importantly, honoring significant public input from residents throughout San Mateo County to keep areas, such as the Coastside and unincorporated areas together. Therefore, Map #69539 should be the only recommended map that moves forward to the Board of Supervisors, and the Board of Supervisors should not hesitate to adopt this map.

Especially in the last few years, with drought, fire danger, evacuations, landslides, and power outages, among many other issues specific to the Coastside and rural areas, having clear representation on the Board for unincorporated areas, with no other local government representation, is more important than ever.

Thank you for your thoughtful consideration!
Sincerely, Maryann Chwalek

Hello**
First of all, I want to thank all of the volunteers helping with this gigantic process. I appreciate the time and concentration you’ve given to the redistricting issue..
Of the two maps currently under consideration, only the one submitted by Commissioner Espinoza (map #69539) adequately speaks for and addresses the concerns of those of us in un-incorporated parts of San Mateo County.
Many of us have written and spoken in support of this map and I respectfully ask that you accept it.
Sincerely,
Lynnette Vega
52 year resident of La Honda

Dear Commissioners:

After reviewing all the maps submitted to the Commission, the best, and most logical, map for all of San Mateo County is Map #69539. This map only splits one city—Burlingame.

The integrity of the redistricting process is important. Map #69539 looks like it has taken into consideration the requirements for fair and representative district lines by keeping communities of interest whole, diversifying districts to meet demographic changes, and, most importantly, honoring significant public input from residents throughout San Mateo County to keep areas, such as the Coastside and unincorporated areas together. Therefore, Map #69539 should be the only recommended map that moves forward to the Board of Supervisors, and the Board of Supervisors should not hesitate to adopt this map.

Sincerely,
Emma

I am a proponent of map 69539. I also feel that communities of interest are very important and they should you know have top priority. And I empathize with the unity map but we were told early on that one of the main objects of this exercise was to keep cities together and this 69539 did that. And it also took care of one of the biggest communities of interest and that’s the communities that are unincorporated which rely on the board of supervisors for governing and it is their only government. So my understanding is that having a having a say a vote as to who is representing you is pretty important and I think that a lot of the things that the unity map, unity people have suggested here you know are valid. But having a representation in government for all our all our needs is should take top priority on this. Thank you very much for everything you’ve done and we’ll see where this goes. Have a good evening

Thank you Sukhi. This is South San Francisco Vice Mayor Mark Nogales. Let me first say that this is not an easy job. I appreciate all the commissioners that have participated, that have provided comments. I appreciate everything that you’ve all said. I’ve also appreciated the comments from the public. It’s very obvious that there are there are maps that the community has supported. One is the unity map and also the the map 69539. I think to make things a lot easier for the commission, the focus should be potentially on those two maps because it seems to be a lot of support for those two maps. And to make this job a lot easier for everyone I think the focus on those two maps . In general I think both those maps cover a lot of the items that this commission has made a priority: Communities of interest, ensuring that minority majority districts are created. These are things I think the commission has set out to do in the beginning and i appreciate just everyone coming together trying to focus on trying to find a solution to this big question of how we can keep our communities forward. So I’ll just leave with that. I just want to say thank you again to everyone and I look forward to the next process. Thank you

Good evening. My name is Diane Leeds and while tonight i’m speaking primarily as an individual I was part of the unity map coalition and I’m also a member of San Francisco Peninsula People Power. What makes the unity coalition map unique is that it focused first on keeping communities of interest together in order to strengthen their voice and representation on common issues. We also tried to keep cities together where possible but again where city boundaries broke up communities of interest, we focused on communities of interest. For example in South San Francisco there’s two neighborhoods that are have a large Filipino-American population and it shares a stronger affinity with Daly City than with South San Francisco. Hence we we wanted to keep those groups together and as several people have mentioned earlier when you look at cities there’s big differences between the eastern sides of the city that are along the bay versus the ones that are in the hills. And that that the the communities or the portions of the cities that are along the bay side have a lot more in common because of concerns over sea level rise. While the parts of those cities in the hills are more concerned about wildfires. The other thing that the unity map does, it does keep the coast all together. It also includes a portion of the unincorporated areas. I am also a resident of Emerald Hills so um it’s nice since the board supervisors really is our only local governmental voice that we’re all kept together. I thank all the commissioners for your hard work. This this is not an easy task that you have ahead of you. Thank you

Thank you commissioners. As I said earlier my name is Yajaira and I am part of the unity map coalition. I appreciate your commitment to selecting a legally valid map. Having population balance is one piece of the legal valid map. You also must comply with ranking criteria in the correct order. By law keeping communities of interest intact is higher priority than keeping cities intact. I am concerned that your spreadsheet focuses on city splits without analyzing the community of interest splits. If you do not analyze how each map breaks up communities of interest how will you comply with the law> For example does each map respect the communities of interest along the bay shore coast? If you focus on city splits to narrow your list then later look at community interest you are at serious risk of improperly weighing cities above the community of interest. The law is clear. First to extend practical the geographic integrity of any local neighborhood or local community of interest shall be respected in a manner that minimizes the its division. Then and only after you’ve kept the COI’s whole do you consider keeping together the geographic integrity of the city or census designated place. By law COI’s must be given more weight than cities. There are COIs like bay shore coast and lower income communities along highway 101 that are hard to respect if prior prioritizing keeping cities whole. These COIs must be given more weight than keeping cities whole. As I’ve mentioned before my recommendation is to move forward with the unity map which respects 13 community-based organizations together. I appreciate all your time here. Thank you for your time

My name is Remy Rising. I live in Burlingame. I suppose I support Ray Larios from Burlingame and Rick Lohman from Montara for map 69539. Thank you very much. Thank you

Hello thank you for hearing me. I am Mariah (?). I am currently a resident of San Mateo City but a former resident of the city of Daly City. I am the program supervisor for the Daly City Peninsula Partnership, a social service agency, but I would like to provide my input today as an individual. I’m also speaking as a member of the unity map coalition. In working for this community-based organization it allows me to have a really deep understanding of the community of interest of Daly City, Colma and Broadmoor, which includes the Filipino community in North San Mateo County. Where over 30 percent population of Spanish speaking Latinx population and this would be drawn in the unity map coalition as map as an Asian American population majority district. Our area is incredibly diverse as far as language goes. We have a large number of renters living in multi-generational and multi-family 50 homes. There’s a shared desire for children to be successful and a shared concern for seniors in our community. We all share a need for truly affordable housing senior services, improved, education systems and school infrastructure. We all also seek an improvement in transportation and public parks. While this area holds high levels of population historically our community has felt a lack of investment in county resources. It is important for us to be kept together to allow our community’s voice to be heard. The district 5 unity map also brings together significant cultural and ethnic diversity. Many residents speak many languages other than English and are immigrants with shared interests around language access. Many residents of Daly City, Colma, Broadmoor, and the Western part of South San Francisco also have shared socio-economic challenges with the need for safety net services, housing affordability and investment and school enrichment programs. Thank you

Pam Jones, I’m a 47-year resident of the Belle Haven neighborhood in Menlo Park and I grew up in East Palo Alto. I appreciate the work of each member of the commission and the staff for getting us to this point. I realize it’s not just your time but an extraordinary amount of energy and most of all your commitment to representative democracy. I also want to thank everyone who submitted maps for taking the time and the commitment to make San Mateo County a place that is representative of the residents. To live here I fully support the unity map that was developed by community-based organizations from demographically diverse communities throughout the county. It doesn’t get any better than that. These are the experts in understanding the unique communities of interest. In each instance I urge you to place more emphasis on the will of the COI’s rather than city boundaries since communities of interest have a higher priority than keeping cities whole. Specifically at states maps should avoid splitting cities in parentheses after the above criteria which includes communities of interest. I’m truly grateful for the work of the community-based organizations that created the unity map. Thank you

Thank you. First of all I don’t agree with the unity map. But I thank Ray Larios uh from Burlingame for supporting our map, which is 69539. After reviewing all the maps submitted to the commission, the best and most logical map for San Mateo County is map 69539. This map only splits one city, Burlingame. The integrity of the redistricting uh process is important. Map 69539 has taken into consideration the requirements for fair and representative district lines by keeping communities of interest whole, diversifying districts to meet demographic changes and most importantly honoring significant public input from residents throughout San Mateo County to keep areas such as the coast side and unincorporated areas together. Therefore map 69539 should be the only recommended map that moves forward to the board of supervisors. I feel like we are representing minorities and we also are a community of interest and we can’t be left behind. You know I don’t like the unity map so that’s my opinion. Thank you

Good evening commissioner and chair, and commissioner members. My name is Julio Garcia with Rise, South San Francisco andI’m also a member of the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission Environmental Justice Advisory Group. I would like to provide today my support for the unity map. The unity map will put together frontline communities in a specific district that will cover North, Central and South San Mateo County. We have many factors that have led to the proportionate flooding and sea level rise vulnerability in low-income communities across the bay. And uh the most borderline populations are non-native english speakers, the elderly, the poor, the chronically ill,
uninsured, and the renters. Sometimes we don’t know what is going on because you know we don’t speak english. Sometimes we don’t know where to move because you know we are renters. And with uh the climate change that is going on and the plans that we have, I think we need to work together as a group, not work together as cities. So thank you very much and I am here again supporting the unity map coalition. Thank you

Good evening commissioners. It’s really an honor to speak to you. I want to, I want to echo what Petra said in terms of communities of interest and I echo the sentiment and I extend my whole hearted support of the unity map. But also want to be on the record and saying you know I do not support the 69539 map and that is while it does cohere North Fair Oaks, East Palo Alto and Belle Haven, it puts alongside the coast. So it makes me wonder, what do we have in common with Montara? With La Honda? We have much more in common with Redwood City and so I think while I appreciate the intention and effort put by it, I think it makes a glaring oversight when it comes to the South Bay. That being said I want to end on the positive note in extending my full 100% support for the for the unity map. You know we live in a democracy and we live in democracy majority rules and when you have a group that has brought together 13 different community organizations that span up and down the county that has a lot of weight to it. And i think while each of us have two minutes you guys got to give 20 minutes for that that effort the weeks that have been put in to get that solidarity. To get that holistic democratic perspective. And I encourage and I put my 100% support behind it. A lot of intentions have been placed by it. It makes a lot of sense when it comes to thinking not just city by city but regionally and so I have much confidence in it. I want to extend it. I wrote my own map but darn having having heard Petra and the Thrive people and the unity folks I put my hat behind theirs. That’s the end of my message. Thank you so much. It’s a tough time. It’s a difficult decision. But as I said in my op-ed today, you know, you guys are undoing history, so you got to think centuries. This is an opportunity that cannot be done again in a decade. Best of luck. I wish you all that you guys are going to get it done but I put I’m behind the unity map 100%. Have a good night.

Thank you commissioners, my name is Miriam Yupanqui and I grew up in East Palo Alto and now work in East Palo Alto as the Executive Director of Nuestra Casa. I would like to provide input today on the Belle Haven, North Fair Oaks and East Palo Alto areas as well as share my support for the unity map coalition proposal. The unity map reflects the East Palo Alto, North Fair Oaks and Belle Haven communities of interest and also respects communities of interest elsewhere in the county. Nuestra Casa is a community based organization that serves under-represented communities in the mid-peninsula. We develop programs that focus on community education, leadership development and advocacy to train individuals to become self-advocates. Our community members live in the areas of North Fair Oaks, Belle Haven and East Palo Alto. Our community is made up of working-class families who have been deprived of resources and opportunities. People in our communities need better education, economic and health care access opportunities. Many are renters and have struggled with housing stability. These areas have historically been under resourced. North Fair Oaks is still unincorporated while East Palo Alto was incorporated in the 1980s. Please keep our community of North Fair Oaks, Belle Haven, and East Palo Alto whole and with other areas that have similar socioeconomic needs and demographics. Please vote to recommend the unity map, which respects not only our community of interest but also respects our communities around the county including farm workers, immigrants, communities of color, people facing economic hardship, and people most impacted by environmental harms. Thank you for your time today and thank you for the opportunity for being here.

Tonight i’m here as part of the unity map coalition. I am from Foster City. My comments are my own and do not represent my city or the planning commission that I sit on. Please look deeply at that slide tonight that staff presented on communities of interest. Communities should be prioritized over city boundaries. The law is clear on prioritization of the legal elements for consideration of communities over cities. The unity map emphasizes communities of interest. It highlights equity, continuity, compactness and communities of interest. A map such as the minimum change map, built on historic inequities that didn’t include current standards such as communities of interest would greatly concern me. I am drawing your attention tonight to one community of interest that of the risk of sea level rise. These areas must work across city boundaries to mitigate risks. Please note the flood and fire risk maps as submitted via email comment, as they demonstrate these areas of concern have already been shown by the San Mateo County Office of Sustainability to sea level change and CalFire. Water does not honor map lines. A hole in the proverbial dike affects us all. Further, bayside communities are also subject to SFO airplane landing pattern noise. I live under it. Noise pollution makes these same areas environmentally impacted. If you look at the unity map which was created by a coalition of groups, you will see many communities represented and the bayside respected. Thank you for your service to our county. Good evening

Thank you, this is Rick Mullen of West Menlo. I commend to the commission’s attention recently produced map number 69539 as the one that best addresses our district lines conundrum with the best balance possible of equalizing populations, preserving contiguity and compactness, keeping intact communities of interest, helping answer underserved areas such as East Palo Alto, Belle Haven, and North Fair Oaks have a strong voice and keeping communities undivided. Though no such map can ever be perfect, this one is very good on balance in accordance with the commission’s agreed upon criteria. So I do suggest that 69539 be the one you recommend to the board of supervisors and urge them to approve it. Thank you for your hard work, it is appreciated

Good evening. I want to echo everybody’s thanks for doing this hard work. I’d also like to just basically say I completely agree with Heather Hopkins comment and with Petra, Petra’s comment. Just as background I am speaking for myself as a resident of the county but I am also chair of the Grove Foundation which supports Thrive and many many many of the organizations in that coalition. I firmly believe in, professionally and personally, that problems are best solved when the voices of those who are impacted by those problems are the ones that we center. Not just put at the table but actually follow. The best way to do that is to keep communities of interest in mind and particularly marginalized communities
and make sure that they have preference in this process. I too was very confused about all the talk about keeping cities intact . Cities have city councils so people in a city know where to go when they have a problem with their city. Communities of interest um need to know who to go to for the county issue issues. So I, I and again legally and just in terms of power, it is more important to keep communities of interest intact and particularly marginalized communities. So i hope that you’ll consider that. I think that one of the major things that the county is responsible for is public health, and the coast has an absolute common interest in access to health services because they’re isolated through the mountains from the population centers. So that’s another reason to keep the coast together. So again i just I’m not recommending a particular map although if I did it would be the unity map because of the process that was used which centered the voices of marginalized communities. And I do hope that you’ll keep communities of interest as your top priority. Thank you

Thank you very much. My name is Petra Silton and I’m with Thrive Alliance and I’m also part of the Unity Map Coalition. First of all thank you very much for your dedication. I do not envy you. This is absolutely tough. We hoped to make it easier by gathering 13 organizations that work throughout the community through different demographics, different geographics, to make sure that we could present a map that really represented the whole county. And we looked it through the community of interest etc and we really feel like the Unity Map does accomplish all of the things you’re setting out to. I am very disturbed by the fact that we keep talking about splitting cities when legally communities of interest are more important than cities. Specifically in our map we do keep communities of interest together that have expressed the desire to be together. As Heather just said about West Menlo Park also the coast side is kept together with the unincorporated areas but we do something different. Where we actually on purpose split some cities along the bayshore coast because we really feel that the bayshore coast, South San Francisco, San Mateo, Millbrae, Burlingame, Foster City from El Camino East have a lot more in common because of environmental justice issues, flooding sea level rise, than they do with the rest of their own cities up in the hills. So the hills have their own separate district because they have issues
with fire and open space that are very different from the coast side. So we really hope that you actually take a look at this map thinking about communities of interest and not city lines. And again this is the unity map there are 13 community organizations that have gotten together to present this to make sure that all of our interests are in one map. Thank you

Good evening, thank you, my name is Heather Hopkins. I’m a resident of West Menlo Park and I’m part of the map coalition through my organization Community Equity Collaborative. I submitted a written public comment noting my preference that unincorporated West Menlo Park not be kept in a separate district from Menlo Park proper. Um I feel more disenfranchised by being split from Menlo Park proper than than I would being separate from other unincorporated areas and I know that you want to keep all unincorporated areas together but I hope you’ll consider that. That all said, I do think the commission should prioritize primarily keeping together communities of interest that have been historically underrepresented rather than focusing on keeping cities together especially when those cities are affluent. I wanted to echo the sentiment of East Palo Alto council member Antonio Lopez who wrote in the Daily Journal this morning. That quote “to redraw maps with fault lines on affluent acres would will not alter a quality of life cemented by centuries of intergenerational power.” In other words please prioritize the needs of our historically disenfranchised communities over those sometimes louder more prevalent voices of affluent uh cities and communities who have historically enjoyed access to power. I hope you’ll choose a map that focuses on community interests um throughout the county and which create that those maps create as many majority minority districts as possible. Thanks so much for all of your time you’ve put into this process.

This is Rick Lohman. I live in the small unincorporated area of Montara, which is the northernmost community on the coast side. I also want to support option 69539. As other people, I want to support Ccommissioners Davis, Espinoza and Bledsoe and all of their comments. The unincorporated area is more than half of the county. It’s where everybody goes on the co on the weekends. We have no other representation other than our representative at the board of supervisors. The map 69539 has only one city which is split but like this is the prior speaker said it’s less than five percent deviation and it keeps almost all of the unincorporated areas together. That is optimal. There are three um options NDC city focus, NDC unsplit San Francisco one and two that tear Montara away from the coast and move it up to Pacifica. They also split my sanitary and water district in half. That’s a thousand people split into several different districts. There’s two other ones six one two two two and six three one three two which split the coastside in half. Those are all very sub-optimal in my opinion. So I support all the prior comments and would wholly support 69539 and thank you very much for all your work on this big problem. Thank you, goodbye

Thank you Sukhi. Hello everyone, my name is Ray Larios I’m a planning commissioner for the city of Burlingame. First and foremost I’d like to thank every one of you for the enormous work that you’ve been doing, with this very critical task. I myself have experience doing this kind of work. I, my background is in demography. I’m not an urban planner per se but I have worked in polling, campaigning etc and I’m very well attuned to the process. Now I want to go ahead and recommend very strongly the map 69539 and that is because this map achieves all the goals that you are setting out to do. One point or one caveat that I’d like to set aside is that all the districts don’t exactly have to be the same population. Sometimes what you want to do what you definitely want to do is look at the max population deviation. But sometimes there are districts that are experiencing enormous growth and development and so since this process is done every 10 years you want to leave some room for growth and certainly in some areas as in comparison to other areas. Now as a Burlingame resident and as a Burlingame Planning Commissioner, I was surprised to hear that this would be, this map would be a map that would result in no splits for other cities except for Burlingame. I welcome that change. I think it’s actually a good fit for a city like Burlingame. We are a very small city small but mighty, as we like to say. But I think that this map really sets out to do many things and it reaches many of the goals that you have been doing for for a very long time. So um with that said I’d just like to thank you all again. I would like to to really consider map six nine five three nine um and it’s gonna not only help meet your goals but it’s also gonna help our Latino population in this county and thank you again and I yield my time. Have a great evening

My name is Mina Richardson I’m in South San Francisco and I’m acutely interested in the way you’re presenting some of this and it’s difficult to follow because we, some of us haven’t seen all of the maps together and I, I just want to make a comment that I would like to see of course all as close as possible as the the the numbers are allowed to be. The disparity I don’t want to shorten you know or have the least a population that we are entitled to in our community and I do like the fact that we have a different type of map because we were split before. And it was, I would like to see much more closer knit with San Bruno, Colma and our neighboring communities because it was very difficult for the public in my community to understand who their representative was and in viewing these maps I saw that there was, it didn’t have the numbers on it and sort of, that was kind of confusing. So it would be nice if we had the number of the the maps that people were talking about and it showed up on the screen. And that’s all my comment and I appreciate the work that the commissioners are doing. And thank you.

I want to thank the previous speaker Julia Marks for making it clear that you do actually have, the commission has a little bit more time and I want to, as a member of the public, say that I appreciate what the commission’s doing and my expectation is the commission is going to speak for the residents to the board of supervisors. And the degree to which uh this process is rushed along and the comments of the commissioners are not taken seriously. I feel that I am not being well served by the county. So uh i agree with previous speakers also, that maps that do not comply should be eliminated to not only speed up the process but to keep the commission focused on maps that can actually be decided upon. And I appreciate the comments from Commissioners Bandrapalli, and also Espinoza because I know they the two of them particularly based on their comments tonight really want to do a credible and conscientious job of recommending maps that represent what’s best for the county and the public. Thank you

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak. I am Pam Jones, a resident of Menlo Park, California. I concur with Mr Lowman. Between now and Monday NDC should be able to flag all of the maps that do not comply. Then the commission can meet without NDC and discuss all of the maps that do comply. Thank you

Thank you so much. My name is Julia. I’ll keep this quite short but i wanted to clarify something regarding the timeline. I actually worked on the state statute that sets out the timelines for local redistricting. There is no legal deadline that stops you as the advisory commission from holding your meeting after November 1st. For example, you could hold your meeting on November 2nd or 3rd or 4th. Council indicated that the board wants to decide this on November 9th but that is discretionary. The deadline is December 15th for the board of supervisors to take their final vote. The ordinance creating the commission actually gives you until November 12th to make your recommendations to the board. So please keep that in mind when you’re taking your vote on this item. Thank you.

I’ll be very quick. I live in the unincorporated area. Ii recommend you toss all the maps that are population illegal. Just get rid of them. Let’s talk about the real maps. Let the public talk. Let’s start talking about the maps. Thank you very much, I’m done.

Good evening again Mr. Chair. My name is Commissioner Ray Satori of Daly City. My point is if this is for the it is about district of San Mateo. If it is broken why do we have to fix it. That’s number one. All I want is fair, just, right, for the proper representation of all the people here. I don’t believe in the software universal theory here but what we believe is fair just and right to everybody and i fully subscribe the idea of Commissioner Monzon. You should present at least five because it is very confusing to be presenting 20, 10. That that’s your job as a commissioner, that you were given the Monday to work this out. Present this at least three maps. That shouldn’t be confusing. Let us not be too too smart here, making sub-several political gerrymandering political uh things that you you want to present to yourself. What we want is see through it. That this is done on time. We have to prioritize this because the supervisor can also getting your recommendation. They are the final arbiter of this. They are the one who will approve this. It’s not you. You’re only there to so to give your recommendation to them. In the final analysis it will be a supervisor that will approve it. They can even many they want it based on their power. So I think like Daly City, why do you have to divide this? Why do they have to separate this or why do you have cut this off? This to me is just political, political gerrymandering. So i assume that your job as commissioner is to focus on what your mandate is. So I, I assume that finish this, make a recommendation. You are not the one point of project (?) it is the word of supervisor. Finally, thank you very much.

My name is Julie Shanson and I’m calling in today um from Belle Haven Action. We’re a non-profit in Menlo Park. I want to thank you for what you’re doing on behalf of democracy in San Mateo County. I want to echo the comments made by my colleagues to allow for additional meeting to be scheduled for the commission to thoroughly have time to review community input and the proposed maps that have been submitted by residents all over San Mateo County. It’s useful to group communities of interest together that includes the city of Menlo Park but it also includes our neighbors to the north and south of us. Thank you very much for your time.

Can you hear me now? Yes please please okay. Yeah I’m Paul Patterson and I live on South Mayfair. I’ve been here living here for 36 years and sometimes in elections things get very confusing. I really would like to see Daly City as a whole. Within the city limits stay as one district. That would be my preference and also some of my neighbors that i’ve had a chance to talk to. I think it’s just a lot easier when you have elections. When you have different boundaries it gets a little confusing. And so that’s my only comment. I just would urge you to try to keep Daly City as one district for voting. Thank you for your time.

Thank you yes um and my comment is not regarding a specific map um but more of a process comment. So good evening commissioners. First I wanted to say thank you so much for your service and all the time that you’ve been putting into this process. My name is julia marks and i’m a voting rights attorney at Asian Americans Advancing Justice – Asian Law Caucus. I’m just calling to briefly highlight the legal requirements for math (?) drawing. I know your line drawing consultants and county counsel have covered these concepts but they bear repetition since they’re so important and essential to this processs. First i just want to highlight that compliance with the constitution and federal voting rights act are of the utmost importance. Next as you know the districts must be contiguous, but right after contiguity the next most important criterion is respecting the integrity of communities of interest. Accordingly I suggest that you clearly identify what communities of interest you’ve heard about from the public and continually ask yourselves whether each map that you are considering keeps all of these communities of interest whole to the best of your ability. We appreciate that you’ve talked through multiple maps and we urge you to continue this conversation. These maps are going to be in effect for the next 10 years and we recommend that you look at additional arrangements and map architectures before coming to a
final decision. As an advisory commission made up of San Mateo’s residents you are uniquely positioned to think creatively and expansively about what San Mateo’s maps can and should look like. Thank you so much for your time and thoughtfulness in this process. Thank you

Yeah I still can only see you or me when I’m speaking, the same comment that Cindy had. Okay, thanks. No, Okay thank you.

I don’t need two minutes. I just can’t see anyone but you on the zoom. No, I can’t, there, oh no, now I’ve got just me now. I can see myself, my own screen. (Clerk: Okey I think I forgot to remove the spotlight, I’m sorry). Yeah, I wass trying to raise my hand to tellyou I can’t see anybody. Okay. Can I reserve the time to talk. (Clerk: No you don’t reserve the time).

Hi- good evening. My name is Ray Satori of Daly City. I am a member of the Pilipino Bayanihan Resource Center and we submitted our proposal through Robert Schuler for the map. I would just like to talk to that give presents here is move over to follow up, but we have suggested considering that I was the original one who sustained the redistricting of San Mateo County in about 2010. That was about almost 10 years ago when we sued San Mateo County for not following the Brown Act, the Constitution of the United States of America- you remember that. I’m just putting my presence here. Thank you very much.

Good evening commissioners, my name is Yajaira Ortega I’m the policy and advocacy associate for Thrive clients. I am a member of Unity (?) Coalition. Please note that our map is mislabeled on the draft map section in the website. It is currently labeled as Thrive San Mateo Proposed Map, but it is actually our Unity Map. Our process for Unity Maps was a community-driven process that represents many members of the community. The Unity Map could not have been made possible without the experts at the ACLU and Asian-American Advancing Justice who grounded this process of communities of interests. We have connected with over 13 community-based organizations as well as individual community leaders to discuss our communities of interests and create a single map that respects our community. As well as other priorities that members of the public has submitted to our advisory commission, as the coalition has rooted and pursued equity. Our aim is to uplift the needs of marginalized communities across San Mateo County and the County’s Redistricting Process. I know this is a difficult process, but we created this map that takes everything in account. This proposal respects the integrity of communities of interests, acknowledges the Commission’s desire to minimize city split, and most importantly uplifts voices of underrepresented communities across the county. The map reflects many diverse communities of San Mateo County- including communities made up of immigrants, farmworkers, and low-income people, and folks struggling with affordability and displacement. We also strove to maintain cities in census designated places to follow natural-artificial boundaries and to create a compact district. We urge the commission to recommend this map to the Board of Supervisors for consideration. Thank you for your time and service to the people of San Mateo. We look forward to continue working with you to ensure equitable maps for our county. Thank you.

Dear Commissioners:
Map #69539 is the best in terms of keeping communities of interest whole, diversifying districts to meet demographic changes, and splitting only ONE city, Burlingame.
Please be aware that the rural character of the Coastside area makes it absolutely unique in our predominantly urban County. So, very importantly, Map # 69539 prevents one incorporated City, Pacifica, from dominating or displacing the interests of the more rural Coastside. Pacifica shares many more INTERESTS, and enjoys proximity to the vast resources of San Francisco. Pacifica has proven to be NOT a good political ally with our rural areas, and the small communities of the Coastside. Unfortunately, though similar in many ways, the UNITY MAP lumps the Coastside with Pacifica.

Choose Map #69539!

Sincerely,
Terry Adams
La Honda, Ca 94020

Dear Commissioners,

This is a public comment to the public meeting Oct. 28, 2021 regarding drawing a new redistricting map. I am a resident of unincorporated greater La Honda and I am recommending that the commission adopts Map

The unincorporated coastal areas are a community of interest in that they share a number of unique issues: wildfire risk, fragile electric grid with increasingly frequent and unpredictable power outages, lack of transportation or public services, schools starving of revenue because of shrinking tax base, and most pressing of all water insecurity due to a fragmented water system of individual wells and small districts all competing for the same dwindling supply.

Map #69539 is the only map that takes into consideration the needs of the unincorporated coastal areas while honoring other communities of interest and minimizing splitting cities. The unity map would throw us together with the city Pacifica which would introduce a powerful voting block throwing off the balance of power. In unincorporated SMC.

I urge the commission to adopt Map ##69539.

Sincerely,

Eva Knodt

La Honda, CA

I appreciate the effort that Thrive – The Alliance of Nonprofits for San Mateo County put into the Unity map that is included in the list of draft maps on the District Lines website. I support that map and hope the commission will support it as well. A lot of thought was put into it by the nonprofit organizations and community members involved in that process, and it is clear that it meets priorities for redistricting, including:
1) population balance and compliance with 2020 population data (4.04% deviation from the ideal, which is far better than the 9.65% with current district lines and the 2020 Census results)
2) minimizing division of neighborhoods and communities of interest – in general, the map priorities communities of interest and keeps most cities intact. Those cities that are split are divided based on natural/physical boundaries in those areas.

In prior public comment that I submitted, I expressed concern that the City of Belmont had been split for the last 3 redistricting processes (30 years). My neighborhood (Sterling Downs, which is between Ralston Ave & Sterling View/San Mateo border, Old County & Hwy 101) is actually split in half by the supervisorial district line and in general most of the Belmont neighborhoods East of El Camino have been split from the rest of the city by the district lines during those 30 years. The Unity map would allow the City of Belmont intact to remain intact for the first time in 30 years, which is greatly appreciated.

Thanks to all of you for your thoughtful review of all the map submissions and public comment.

Thank you, Commissioners,
For your time and work on this crucial issue for our county.
Please recommend for adoption Map 69539,
as it keeps significant communities of interest together.
On a related issue, I’ve appreciated the commissioners who recognized that what SMC residents really need are 2 additional supervisors and districts to effectively represent areas like the coastside and mountain communities. So, I hope that process could begin, and I would like to help on that effort. Many areas need more representation (taxation has only increased, so there’s another reason) !
As I had mentioned in my statement at a previous meeting, our coastal area has many people who may not have been counted during the census and need to be considered and represented, like farmworkers, immigrants, and others who may have understandably feared participating in the census during the hostile Trump administration. Here’s to “better” government and times for all !
With appreciation,
Patty Mayall
La Honda, Ca.

Dear Commissioners:
I would like to voice my strong support for Draft Redistricting Map #69539. It’s clean, logical, and keeps the majority of communities of interest whole. My primary interest is in the Coastside and I believe this map fairly represents that community. The drafters also seem to have made a serious effort to respond to the public input received, which is greatly appreciated.

Sincerely, Arla LeCount

Dear Commissioners:

After reviewing all the maps submitted to the Commission, the best, and most logical, map for all of San Mateo County is Map #69539. This map only splits one city—Burlingame.

The integrity of the redistricting process is important. Map #69539 looks like it has taken into consideration the requirements for fair and representative district lines by keeping communities of interest whole, diversifying districts to meet demographic changes, and, most importantly, honoring significant public input from residents throughout San Mateo County to keep areas, such as the Coastside and unincorporated areas together. Therefore, Map #69539 should be the only recommended map that moves forward to the Board of Supervisors, and the Board of Supervisors should not hesitate to adopt this map.

Sincerely,

Anthony Marinese,
Head distiller, Jettywave Distillery
Resident of San Mateo County

Hello,
Here is the link to the map on the platform. https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/viewer?mid=1MrV4DdJLE05jzJ_IgsX6TX4ksRUoQUxw&ll=37.560621168447106%2C-122.27946898132325&z=11

Please this one available to the Commission
Respectfully,
Pam D Jones, resident of the Belle Haven neighborhood of Menlo Park

Dear Commissioners:

After reviewing all the maps submitted to the Commission, the best and most logical map for all of San Mateo County is Map #69539. This map only splits one city—Burlingame.

The integrity of the redistricting process is very important. Map #69539 takes into consideration the requirements for fair and representative district lines by keeping communities of interest whole and diversifying districts to meet demographic changes. Most importantly, this map honors the significant public input from residents throughout San Mateo County to keep areas such as the Coastside and unincorporated areas together. Therefore, Map #69539 should be the only recommended map that moves forward to the Board of Supervisors. And, by adopting Map #69539, the Board of Supervisors will meet the needs of its constituents.

Sincerely,
Barbara Hooper
La Honda resident

Dear Commissioners,

After reviewing all the maps submitted to the Commission, the best, and most logical, map for all of San Mateo County is Map #69539. This map only splits one city—Burlingame.

The integrity of the redistricting process is important. Map #69539 looks like it has taken into consideration the requirements for fair and representative district lines by keeping communities of interest whole, diversifying districts to meet demographic changes, and, most importantly, honoring significant public input from residents throughout San Mateo County to keep areas, such as the Coastside and unincorporated areas together. Therefore, Map #69539 should be the only recommended map that moves forward to the Board of Supervisors, and the Board of Supervisors should not hesitate to adopt this map.

Sincerely,
Owen McCormack

Dear Commissioners,

After reviewing all the maps submitted to the Commission, the best, and most logical, map for all of San Mateo County is Map #69539. This map only splits one city—Burlingame.

The integrity of the redistricting process is important. Map #69539 looks like it has taken into consideration the requirements for fair and representative district lines by keeping communities of interest whole, diversifying districts to meet demographic changes, and, most importantly, honoring significant public input from residents throughout San Mateo County to keep areas, such as the Coastside and unincorporated areas together. Therefore, Map #69539 should be the only recommended map that moves forward to the Board of Supervisors, and the Board of Supervisors should not hesitate to adopt this map.

Sincerely,
Amy Tang

Dear Commissioners:

After reviewing all the maps submitted to the Commission, the best, and most logical, map for all of San Mateo County is Map #69539. This map only splits one city—Burlingame.

The integrity of the redistricting process is important. Map #69539 looks like it has taken into consideration the requirements for fair and representative district lines by keeping communities of interest whole, diversifying districts to meet demographic changes, and, most importantly, honoring significant public input from residents throughout San Mateo County to keep areas, such as the Coastside and unincorporated areas together. Therefore, Map #69539 should be the only recommended map that moves forward to the Board of Supervisors, and the Board of Supervisors should not hesitate to adopt this map.

Sincerely,

Aneese

Dear Commissioners:

After reviewing all the maps submitted to the Commission, the best, and most logical, map for all of San Mateo County is Map #69539. This map only splits one city—Burlingame.

The integrity of the redistricting process is important. Map #69539 looks like it has taken into consideration the requirements for fair and representative district lines by keeping communities of interest whole, diversifying districts to meet demographic changes, and, most importantly, honoring significant public input from residents throughout San Mateo County to keep areas, such as the Coastside and unincorporated areas together. Therefore, Map #69539 should be the only recommended map that moves forward to the Board of Supervisors, and the Board of Supervisors should not hesitate to adopt this map.

Sincerely,

James Boon

Half moon grow director of cultivation

Dear Commissioners:

After reviewing all the maps submitted to the Commission, the best, and most logical, map for all of San Mateo County is Map #69539. This map only splits one city—Burlingame.

The integrity of the redistricting process is important. Map #69539 looks like it has taken into consideration the requirements for fair and representative district lines by keeping communities of interest whole, diversifying districts to meet demographic changes, and, most importantly, honoring significant public input from residents throughout San Mateo County to keep areas, such as the Coastside and unincorporated areas together. Therefore, Map #69539 should be the only recommended map that moves forward to the Board of Supervisors, and the Board of Supervisors should not hesitate to adopt this map.

Sincerely,
Marissa Johnson

Dear Commissioners,

We are disappointed that the Unity Map was not posted until late this afternoon when we submitted it on Monday in the appropriate format. I fear that not everyone has had a chance to look at it.

Here is the Unity Map in Google Maps to make it easier to read: https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/viewer?mid=1MrV4DdJLE05jzJ_IgsX6TX4ksRUoQUxw&ll=37.416431476910226%2C-122.26803086875589&z=11.

Sincerely,
Petra Silton

Petra Silton (she/her)
Director of Advocacy & Education, Thrive

Dear Commissioners:

After reviewing all the maps submitted to the Commission, the best, and most logical, map for all of San Mateo County is Map #69539. This map only splits one city—Burlingame.

The integrity of the redistricting process is important. Map #63539 looks like it has taken into consideration the requirements for fair and representative district lines by keeping communities of interest whole, diversifying districts to meet demographic changes, and, most importantly, honoring significant public input from residents throughout San Mateo County to keep areas, such as the Coastside and unincorporated areas together. Therefore, Map #69539 should be the only recommended map that moves forward to the Board of Supervisors, and the Board of Supervisors should not hesitate to adopt this map.

Sincerely,
Lynnette Vega
La Honda resident for 52 years

Dear Commissioners:

After reviewing all the maps submitted to the Commission, the best, and most logical, map for all of San Mateo County is Map #69539. This map only splits one city—Burlingame.

The integrity of the redistricting process is important. Map #69539 looks like it has taken into consideration the requirements for fair and representative district lines by keeping communities of interest whole, diversifying districts to meet demographic changes, and, most importantly, honoring significant public input from residents throughout San Mateo County to keep areas, such as the Coastside and unincorporated areas together. Therefore, Map #69539 should be the only recommended map that moves forward to the Board of Supervisors, and the Board of Supervisors should not hesitate to adopt this map.

Sincerely,

Dear Commissioners:
I have studied the various maps that have been presented and only one seems to meet all of the criteria for this important project.
Map #69539 is my choice
1. It splits only one city. Other maps split as many as six.
2. It is balanced in populations.
3. It keeps the unincorporated areas, a significant community of interest, in one district.
4. This map meets the needs of the significant number of inputs from the public mentioned in prior meetings.
5. It meets the goal of fair demographic distribution of our important minority groups.

I request that this map be the sole map presented to the Board of Supervisors for its certification

Thank you for your work on this important project.

Sincerely

Ric Lohman
Montara, CA

Dear Commissioners,

My name is James Coleman. I am a resident and sitting council member for the city of South San Francisco District 4.

I am writing in support of maps 69539 and 68792 as both respect the boundaries of many cities as well as various communities of interest throughout the county. Both maps create two majority-minority districts and would be representative of the large Asian and Latino populations of our diverse county.

Best,
James

Dear Commissioners:

After reviewing all the maps submitted to the Commission, the best, and most logical, map for all of San Mateo County is Map #69539. This map only splits one city—Burlingame.

The integrity of the redistricting process is important. Map #63539 looks like it has taken into consideration the requirements for fair and representative district lines by keeping communities of interest whole, diversifying districts to meet demographic changes, and, most importantly, honoring significant public input from residents throughout San Mateo County to keep areas, such as the Coastside and unincorporated areas together. Therefore, Map #69539 should be the only recommended map that moves forward to the Board of Supervisors, and the Board of Supervisors should not hesitate to adopt this map.
Sincerely,
Vicki Rupe
Resident of Loma Mar

It is unfair to ask Belmont to continue to be split between two districts. Belmont has been split for the last ten years. It is time for another community to take a turn.

Dear Commissioners:

I wanted to first thank you all for carrying out this difficult,
demanding, and important work, under intense time pressure. Having
attended some of the Zoom sessions, I have come to appreciate the
complexity.

In the draft maps produced to date, there has been, in my view, one
clear standout, #69539 (https://districtr.org/plan/69539), which I
understand to have been submitted recently by Commissioner Espinosa. By
achieving a low population deviation among the five districts, splitting
only one city (cf. the existing four), keeping all significant
unincorporated areas and coastal regions south of Montara Mountain in
District 3, meeting the aspiration of EPA and North Fair Oaks residents
to be in one district along with eastern Menlo Park, maintaining a
reasonable and diverse ethic balance, and in general doesn’t divide
neighbourhoods and communities of interest, #69539 strikes me as
striking the optimal compromise.

I therefore encourage the Commission to recommend map #69539, and no
others to our Board of Supervisors.

Once again, my thanks for all your hard work.

Best Regards,
Rick Moen

Dear Commissioners:

After reviewing all the maps submitted to the Commission, the best, and most logical, map for all of San Mateo County is Map #69539. This map only splits one city—Burlingame.

The integrity of the redistricting process is important. Map #63539 looks like it has taken into consideration the requirements for fair and representative district lines by keeping communities of interest whole, diversifying districts to meet demographic changes, and, most importantly, honoring significant public input from residents throughout San Mateo County to keep areas, such as the Coastside and unincorporated areas together. Therefore, Map #69539 should be the only recommended map that moves forward to the Board of Supervisors, and the Board of Supervisors should not hesitate to adopt this map.

Sincerely,

Cindy Crowe-Urgo

Dear Commissioners:

After reviewing all the maps submitted to the Commission, the best, and most logical, map for all of San Mateo County is Map #69539. This map only splits one city—Burlingame– it creates two majority-minority districts (5 & 1) and creates a half white/half POC district (2). It diversifies District 3, keeping the Coastside and the majority of the unincorporated areas whole, and keeps NFO, Belle Haven, and East Palo Alto together, thus, allowing significant communities of interest to stay together.

The integrity of the redistricting process is important. Map #63539 looks like it has taken into consideration the requirements for fair and representative district lines by keeping communities of interest whole, diversifying districts to meet demographic changes, and, most importantly, honoring significant public input from residents throughout San Mateo County to keep areas, such as the Coastside and unincorporated areas together. Therefore, Map #69539 should be the only recommended map that moves forward to the Board of Supervisors, and the Board of Supervisors should not hesitate to adopt this map.

Sincerely,

Laurie McLean
Citizen of La Honda

Link to Full Letter with Maps

Dear San Mateo County District Lines Advisory Commission,

On behalf of the Asian Law Caucus, thank you for posting our comment/letter online. I actually just noticed an error in the maps we attached and would like to submit this corrected version instead. Apologies for any inconvenience caused. (Link to attached letter and maps)

Best,
Sietse Goffard

—
Sietse Goffard
Senior Voting Rights Coordinator
Advancing Justice – Asian Law Caucus

Violet Saena
Resident of Sunnyvale

Hello, my name is Violet Saena a formal resident of East Palo Alto, and I am a Founder and Executive Director with Climate Resilient Communities. I would like to provide input today on the areas of East Redwood City, North Fair Oaks, the Belle Haven neighborhood of Menlo Park, and the City of East Palo Alto. I am also calling in as a member of the San Mateo County Unity Mapping Coalition. These communities are important to me because I am a formal resident of East Palo Alto and my extended family of more than 20 people still resides there.

Climate Resilient Communities (CRC) works primarily with communities in East Palo Alto, Belhaven, North Fair Oaks and Redwood City. We have been active within the community for 6 YEARS, seeking to elevate community voices in the fight for climate justice in the Peninsula. Our organization provides capacity building to some of the most marginalized areas of the county, educating low income communities on the issues of climate change and sea level rise.

The communities we serve primarily live within the boundaries of East Palo Alto, Belle Haven, East Redwood City and North Fair Oaks. As the demographics of Menlo Park and Redwood City differ greatly across the city, I would like to share the following boundaries for the Belle Haven and East Redwood City COIs, see maps below.

Communities within these areas have specific policy needs that are different than those of communities in the hills, having a stronger need for policy investment in environmental justice.

As a relatively new city that was recently unincorporated, East Palo Alto experiences challenges such as a limited water supply. As a community of interest residents have direct exposure to the bay thus face challenges of sea level rise and flash flooding. Communities here also experience climate vulnerabilities such as high heat waves and smoke from wildfires.

North Fair Oaks is very similar. Demographically it’s an unincorporated city that is majority Latinx. One major issue we’ve seen has been high heat waves due to low levels of canopy coverage. Residents in North Fair Oaks are ill equipped for heat waves, with the majority of housing structures lacking central cooling.

Our COIs for East Redwood City experience similar conditions to North Fair Oaks. According to the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), East Redwood City is one of most polluted areas in the state. Residents of these parts of Redwood City have structural concerns for public health.

In summary, I am calling in to ask the commission to keep these areas whole and together. As a coastal community, they all have similar needs of climate justice.

Thank you for hearing from me today.

North Fair Oaks; East Redwood City COIs (East Redwood City captured by 2 parts)

East Palo Alto; Belle Haven Neighborhood COIs

CalEnviroScreen mapping state levels of pollution
https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/report/calenviroscreen-40

Violet Saena|Executive Director
Climate Resilient Communities

Supervisorial District Lines Advisory Commission
County of San Mateo

Dear Commissioners:

I live in the very small community of La Honda. I lived in Burlingame for more than 20 years when I was young, and I know San Mateo County well.

It is critical that the Redistricting of the County now in process be done in a manner that gives various areas the proper representation. The Public Map 69539 supports the Coastal Community in the most logical and appropriate way by keeping those unincorporated areas together.

Please realize how Public Map 69539 is by far the best Redistribution solution.

Sincerely,

Lucy White

Hello, my name is Julio Garcia, and I am the Director of Rise South City . I would like to provide input today on District 1 in San Mateo County. I am also calling in as a member of the Unity Map Coalition.

The Unity Map will put together frontline communities in two specific districts that will cover North and South San Mateo County, many factors have led to disproportionate flooding and sea level rise vulnerability for low-income communities across the Bay Area and the nation. A 2019 study by the National Academy of Sciences on urban flooding in the US revealed the populations that are most vulnerable to flooding are nonwhite, nonnative English speakers, elderly, poor, chronically ill, uninsured, and renters. Adapting to sea level rise will require a broad range of planning, policy, community, and project decisions that promote the protection of people, infrastructure, and natural systems. In such a diverse and engaged region, adaptation will also require balancing many interests and needs, ranging from the health of the most vulnerable residents and the San Mateo Bay ecosystem to local economic growth and jobs, services, housing, and recreational opportunities.

Our organization works primarily with Low Income Front Line Communities in South San Francisco. We have been active within the community for the last year, but have been working with the East Palo Alto, North Fair Oaks and East Menlo Park Communities for the last 20+ years], Rise South City Mission is committed to creating dialogues with our frontline communities about climate change & social equity issues and to learn about the different intersectional systems that underpin it and help develop local solutions for transformational reform. We promote community resilience, economic equity, and climate stability.

Our community primarily lives within the boundaries of census blocks 060816022004, 060816022002, 060816021003, 060816019012, & 060816020005 as visualized below.

Our community is made up of 37.9% Asian, 33.9% Hispanic, and 20.2% White. 57.3%. with a poverty rate of 6.91%. The median rental costs in recent years comes to $2,105 per month. The median age in South San Francisco is 40.4 years, 39.1 years for males, and 41.8 years for females. 40% of South San Francisco residents were not born in the United States, compared to San Mateo County, where about 35% of residents are foreign-born, Foreign-born households include both documented and undocumented residents. These frontline communities meet specific thresholds of people of color (who have been historically marginalized), people below the poverty line (who suffer disproportionate impacts from freeway pollution), and zero-vehicle households (that cannot take advantage of automobile access from freeways). In fact, according to CalEnviroscreen 4.0, the EPC surrounding Downtown South San Francisco and adjacent to US-101 is already in the 96th percentile of most polluted census tracts in California.

I am calling in today to ask the commission to keep my community whole. It’s important that we are drawn together because Climate Change will affect all of our climate change communities together so we can tackle issues about climate adaptations with low income communities

Thank you for hearing from me today.

In considering the Unity Map Coalition Map Coalition Draft map, for the bayside communities of interest at environmental risk of sea level rise and for the hill communities at risk of fire and erosion please consider the following helpful maps to demonstrate the geographic boundaries of these communities.

Bayside Sea Level Rise COI – *San Mateo County* has created this map, of note it very much shows the areas at greatest risk have a natural border along El Camino & the Train Tracks (a natural high point, rail roads pre-date all of us and they chose the BEST land) https://seachangesmc.org/vulnerability-assessment/

Hill Fire – Cal Fire, if you zoom in clearly shows a concentrated risk area mostly along the hills. https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/

If you look at these two maps you may find them very informative about how the government already groups these areas.

As a reminder COI concerns is supposed to be great than whole city lines which in and of themselves were drawn in another time sometimes to divide and separate communities. Please consider a contiguous sea level rise district as in the Unity Map Coalition Map representing the people East of El Camino or the Railroad to the water most at risk.

Regards and best wishes in you difficult task.

Evan Adams
Foster City

Link to attached letter

Dear Commissioners,

My name is Miriam, and I grew up in East Palo Alto and now work in East Palo Alto as the Executive Director of Nuestra Casa. I would like to provide input today on the Belle Haven, North Fair Oaks, and East Palo Alto areas, as well as share my support for the Unity Map Coalition proposal. The Unity Map reflects the East Palo Alto, North Fair Oaks, and Belle Haven communities of interest, and also respects communities of interest elsewhere in the county.

Nuestra Casa is a community-based organization that serves under-represented communities In the Mid-peninsula. We develop programs that focus on community education, leadership development, and advocacy to train individuals to become self-advocates.

Our community members live within the areas of North Fair Oaks, Belle Haven, and East Palo Alto. Our community is made up of working-class families, who have been deprived of resources and opportunities. People in our communities need better education, economic, and healthcare opportunities. Many are renters and have struggled with housing stability.

These areas have historically been under-resourced. North Fair Oaks is still unincorporated, while East Palo Alto was incorporated in the 1980s. While Belle Haven is technically part of Menlo Park, it has more in common with East Palo Alto demographically. Both Belle Haven and East Palo Alto were highly segregated due to redlining in the region. We need opportunities and services today to help undo this history of discrimination.

Please keep our community in North Fair Oaks, Belle Haven, and East Palo Alto whole, and with other areas that have similar socio-economic needs and demographics. Please vote to recommend the Unity Map, which respects not only our community of interest but also respects other communities around the county, including farmworkers, immigrants, communities of color, people facing economic hardship, and people most impacted by environmental harms. Thank you for hearing from me today.

Miriam Yupanqui

Dear San Mateo County District Lines Advisory Commission,

On behalf of the Asian Law Caucus, I would like to submit the attached letter as public comment on the supervisorial redistricting process. Thank you very much for considering our input. (link to attached letter)     NOTE: Attached Updated letter and maps sent

Warm regards,
Sietse Goffard

—
Sietse Goffard
Senior Voting Rights Coordinator
Advancing Justice – Asian Law Caucus

Stacey Davidson
Resident of East Palo Alto

Hello, my name is Stacey Davidson, and I am a Senior Program Manager with Bay Area Community Health Advisory Council (BACHAC). I would like to provide input today on my community in East Palo Alto.

Our organization works heavily in East Palo Alto and the Belle Haven Area. We have been active within the community for 25 years. BACHAC works to eliminate health disparities through innovative models of health education and services across diverse communities.

Beyond the workplace, our family also has deep personal roots in the area. We have lived here for 30+ years, worked in the community, volunteered in the community and held leadership positions. We attended church in the area for 15 years.

Our community is made up of many different ethnic backgrounds, including Latinx, Pacific Islander, African American, and Asian American. Despite our ethnic diversity, our community has historically rallied together around our shared needs for housing affordability, senior services, quality healthcare, and transportation. We have shared policy needs around new communal spaces like the Bloomhouse Project and boosting economic opportunity in the area.

I ask the commission to keep my community whole. It’s important that we are drawn together because we would like our community to have strong and accountable representation in our local government.

I also would like to express my support for the Unity Map Coalition’s map, because it keeps my community whole and keeps us in a district that will represent our needs fairly.

Thank you for hearing from me today.

Stacey Davidson,
Senior Event/Program Manager
Bay Area Community Health Advisory Council (BACHAC)

Samuel Tavera
Resident of East Palo Alto, CA

Hello, my name is Samuel Tavera, and I am the Office Manager with One East Palo Alto. I would like to provide input today on a variety of Pacific Islander, Latino and African American communities found across San Mateo County. I am also writing as a member of the Unity Map Coalition.

Our organization works primarily with East Palo Alto and Belle Haven Families and extends our work to inform San Mateo County agencies on the needs of those we serve. We have been active within the community for over 21 years providing services in crime reduction, mental health/wellness, substance abuse, youth employment, leadership development, immigration, housing, and civic engagement for East Palo Alto and Belle Haven families.

I have been raised in East Palo Alto my whole life, and currently I serve as a Minister and Youth Pastor at the East Palo Alto Apostolic Assembly Church. Now I am married, and am raising my 1 year old daughter in this amazing community.

East Palo Alto and Belle Haven are home to many Pacific Islanders, Latinos, and African Americans. Our community is close-knit and supportive. We support each other and rally together to address our needs.

Many of our community members are historically under-represented and under-served. Under-representation is such an issue in our area, many community organizations came together to do census outreach, knowing people were hesitant to respond or feared negative consequences. There is a history of low census participation here.

We face many challenges in East Palo Alto and Belle Haven. Our community is being displaced and housing is unstable. We have many homeless students in our schools, and many people are homeless, depending on the safe RV parking program. People in our community often have to work multiple jobs, which can jeopardize their health and wellness. Health equity is a big concern. Additionally, many residents of East Palo Alto and Belle Haven are immigrants and people who speak languages other than English, who need translations and language assistance.

We’d like to be kept in a district with parts of Redwood City where people face similar economic challenges and where there are Pacific Islander and Latino communities.

I am writing to ask the commission to respect the integrity of our communities. Please keep my community whole and with similar communities nearby. Please choose the Unity Map Coalition proposal, which respects our community of interest and other communities of interest in San Mateo County. It’s important that we are not broken up by district lines.

Thank you for hearing from me today.

Community of Interest: Daly City, Encompassed: Colma Town and Broadmoor Communities

Community of Interest: Unincorporated West Menlo Park

Gentlemen:

Thank you for the work accomplished on redistricting.

As a long term coastside resisdent (33 year), representation in county government of values importantly to us is important. There are two redistricting maps which I believe help accomplish this. The NDC Coast map and the Public Map 69539 are both good representations of the Coastside community.

The needs of rural coastside communities is different than the more dominant urban and suburban communities in other parts of the County, and deserve a voice.

Thanks for your consideration.

Matt Pitchon

My name is Diane Leeds and I wish to comment both as a resident of Emerald Hills as well as a member of San Francisco Peninsula People Power. (SFPPP) SFPPP has been doing voter outreach to under-represented communities in San Mateo County since 2018. One of our challenges in getting people in certain communities registered to vote and also voting, has been countering the feeling that their voice doesn’t count because they don’t see themselves or their community represented on the Board of Supervisors.

The Unity Coalition map was created by a coalition of more than 12 community based organizations that work directly with these under-represented communities. We really tried to focus first on identifying and grouping Communities of Interest together – which map quite closely to those communities that have lower voter turnout. We were also realistic and tried to keep cities together as well so long as we weren’t splitting COI’s. I feel that this map best meets the interests of our under-represented communities within the legal constraints of having districts that are contiguous and of similar population size. We need to finally get broader representation on the Board of Supervisors and ensure greater equity for all of our people.

I have attended most of the Redistricting Commission’s meetings and feel that the Unity Coalition map meets most of the comments that the public has provided to the commission while also ensuring that we are meeting the legal criteria that must be followed.

Finally, as a resident of un-incorporated Emerald Hills, the Board of Supervisors IS our only local governmental body. It is very important that, as much as is legally possible, to keep unincorporated areas together, and hopefully ensure that the Coastal communities have a sufficient voice in the district, and not those of us in the more affluent parts of the unincorporated areas.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide input into this very important process.

With respect,

Diane Leeds
Emerald Hills Resident

Community of Interest Survey: Bay Facing Coast with Sea Level Rise Risk

Hello Commissioners,

I recommend following the district plan laid out by the NDC Coast Map. Coast residents have a different climate and infrastructure needs than incorporated highly populated cities to the east of 280. Divisions into districts should not be driven by population, but by similar needs, interests and geography. A new District 5 would offer specific representation for an underserved population.

I live in La Honda, and we have a VOLUNTEER fire department that handles hundreds of calls along the coast. Those calls include fire, medical emergencies, traffic accidents, road blocks. We, the residents, have to raise money to purchase equipment for the fire station. Why don’t we have more support?

Lenore Urbani

Greetings,

Please find my proposed map for the redistricting of the county.

https://districtr.org/plan/70088?fbclid=IwAR2juapmT6XSlOvKvj7xXwajAQgyo-B4KQ3HLoJtDSLjV0bpFv6TAZJZ_Is

Best,

Antonio

The attached Unity Map is the result of a community-driven process of 13 community organizations that provided input to a professional demographer. (link to Unity Map) The CBOs will be providing public comment in support of this map as it aligns with their Communities of Interest.

I am attaching both the PDF and the shapefile formats.

Please reach out to me with any questions.

Petra Silton (she/her)
Director of Advocacy & Education, Thrive

Dear Members of the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors and Members of the Supervisorial District Lines Advisory Commission:

Please find attached correspondence (linked correspondence) regarding the County’s ongoing redistricting process. We thank you for your service and for your efforts to plan and execute a fair and transparent redistricting process. In the enclosed correspondence, we highlight certain legal requirements regarding this process and urge the Commission to schedule at least one more public hearing before making its final map recommendations to the Board.

If you have any questions or would like to continue this conversation further, please feel free to contact us at hkieschnick@aclunc.org and juliam@advancingjustice-alc.org.

Sincerely,

Hannah

Hannah Kieschnick she/her/hers
Staff Attorney
Democracy & Civic Engemenet Program
American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, Northern California

Community of Interest Survey: Coastside

Dear SMC District Lines Advisory Commission,

Please find the attached letter from Daly City Mayor Juslyn Manalo requesting that Daly City remain in one supervisorial district and not be divided in the redistricting process. (link to letter)

Sincerely,

Stephen Stolte
Assistant City Manager
City of Daly City

Good morning,

Please find the City of South San Francisco’s comments on the County of San Mateo’s redistricting process. (link to letter)

Thank you,

Christina Fernandez

Christina Fernandez, MPA | (she/her/hers)
Assistant to the City Manager | Chief Sustainability Officer
City of South San Francisco

Thank you very much this is Charles Catania from Woodside iIm on Remy’s telephone. One of the kind of a disturbing revelation here is the fact that NDC had some maps that were presented to them and they didn’t do anything about it for this meeting. Especially, since we have little time here to do anything and Mr. Silverman who’s obviously with the county is getting in the way of connecting the commission with the board of supervisors which I think the board of supervisors needs to address this issue. So I think Mr. Silverman, this is directed towards you I think you should talk to the board of supervisors because this is an important process and they need to make a special meeting if it’s needed.

Thank you.

Good Evening, thank you commissioners my name is Pam Jones. I live in the Belhaven neighborhood which is a portion of the city of Menlo Park but we are more like East Palo Alto and North Fair Oaks which is why the original map was drawn the way it was at any rate we still need to be kept together. I do have concerns about the way Menlo Park is split because it actually creates a district that has extremely wealthy people living there when you look at Atherton, Woodside being in that that community. I also want to point out that on your website the map that you have at San Mateo County current district’s official demographics that it is actually a 2010 decennial census map, which can be very confusing when a person is trying to create their own maps. Again, I want to
thank the commission and I hope that we absolutely need to have more meetings there’s ample time it’s unfortunate that it will inconvenience some people other than the commission and the residents who have been asking for this.

Thank you.

My name is Terry Adams I’m Eva Knott’s husband we share a computer but I’m going to speak for us. Here do you hear me, yes okay, first of all thank you very much for the opportunity to speak and thank you to the commission for all your very difficult work on this. I notice that the commission is grappling with redistricting based on criteria have to do with population distribution and density and on the integrity of cities, but I’m wondering what about access to resources for instance, the distribution of fire apparatus in the cities and in the unincorporated areas, access to law enforcement distance to hospitals, clinics, schools yeah and also it could be average income average property tax in different areas schools? So I wonder it was a choice made somewhere along the lines to not address the idea of resources and put it strictly on the basis of individual accounts of people or how will the commission ever address those issues I think it pertains to what Cindy Ergo was saying about our feeling a little bit out of the road out here on the Coastside. So thank you very much and thanks again to the commission for your hard work this is very difficult.

Thank you.

Good Evening, Commissioners and chair thank you all specifically for your time devoted into this role that you are all have been working on for for a long time. I do understand that this is a very difficult but very important and intentional decisions that you guys will be making. I want to highlight that while we certainly want to maintain city integrity as much as possible, we also need to focus that an underlying priority needs to also be the possibility that people of color actually have an opportunity to be competitive in this county. The minimum change maps maintain the underlying racist implications of the current maps and continue to lock out communities of color in this majority minority county. Many of us have seen the data in particular lead to pandemic and we often ask what else can we do to those communities EPA, North Fair Oaks, San Bruno, South San Francisco well this is this is a time where we could really put that to work. We need to recognize that outside the outside influence of any community that is really grouped in wealthy affluent cities. I don’t have to list them for you you all know which communities and cities I’m speaking about enough is enough what is what is it that why are we keeping that as a community of interest and that constitutes itself as enough of a community interest to not even touch it. The only thing that binds them is their wealth and these maps come at the expense of those without the wealth. I really ask you to think about that as you start choosing and voting and on recommend recommending maps to the Board of Supervisors.

Thank you.

My name is Sue Hankin Haas and I live in San Gregorio which is an unincorporated Coastside community. I support keeping all unincorporated areas of the San Mateo coast in a single supervisory district and I support adding other unincorporated areas to our district. We are already a pop by population a minority in the county, if you divide us up we will be even a smaller minority. Less able to represent ourselves the unincorporated area covers almost 75 percent of the land mass of San Mateo County. We are a unique community with very different needs than the incorporated communities. We have different exposures to climate change and are much more prone to are much more fire prone than the other side of the hill. Unincorporated areas already receive less services than incorporated areas, you can literally see the difference in services when you walk down Shelby lane in North Fair Oaks where one side of the street is unincorporated and the other side is incorporated. The incorporated side has sidewalks and curves and the unincorporated side does not unincorporated areas are disenfranchised and dividing them will only reduce services even further. The most significant issue that unincorporated communities have in common is that the Board of Supervisors are the direct representatives to residents living in unincorporated San Mateo County .The Board of Supervisors is the main governing body that decides building codes zoning rules and creates mandates which apply only to unincorporated residents. If the unincorporated areas have no power to elect a supervisor then they have no say. I support keeping all unincorporated areas of the San Mateo coast in district 3 and I support adding other unincorporated areas to our district.

Thank you.

Good Evening everyone, Thank you commissioners thank you everyone for taking the time to listen to the concerns of the community. My name is Antonio Lopez Councilman for the city of East Palo Alto. Let’s be really clear and mindful about what we’re here we’re here to undo decades and even centuries of inequity racial divide discrimination and it is at the behest of this commission to ensure that the future of this of this county remain progressive, remain racially united and I’m concerned looking at some of these maps that cities like East Palo Alto and North Fair Oaks and East Menlo Park cities that historically have ties are divided and so you know let me also iterate that I understand there’s also the fact that we’re gonna have to divide somewhere ,so let me make the bold but sincere claim that if we’re going to do that let’s look at the wealthier areas of the world to do because from an equity standpoint in 2021 we have to privilege the unprivileged understanding that’s what history has shown us to give justice to give voice, to give representation. I think it’s time for allyship and solidarity to take place and I can think of no better example and opportunity if I’m hearing my brother from San Francisco and San Bruno say we’re being divided let’s look at those areas that have historically have benefited and flourished and give them the opportunity to support us in this once in a decade time. Thank you very much i wish you all the best of luck I ask that you not just have East Palo to our heart our humble city but North Fair Oaks, East Menlo Park, Belle Haven and keeping South San Francisco and San Bruno together. You have an arduous task. I wish all the best of luck thank you very much.

Thank you

Thank you commissioners I know this is not an easy decision but as someone who lives in South San Francisco I can tell you that we have two county supervisors, two assembly members and two state senators. So South San Francisco over the years have been split. They have not been a full district in the county and in the state level and I think if we’re talking about equity and inclusion we need to recognize that South San Francisco needs to be drawn as one and as I was looking at the maps in terms of the city focus map I’m sorry in terms of the minimal changes Westboro area is actually split and if you look Westboro is if we’re talking about communities of interest that is a large Filipino population and if you were able just to finish that map then all of South San Francisco would be as one and so I’m asking that you please review the maps and consider the fact that over the years, you know we as a city have not been able to be as one whole district and I think it, I understand you have to make tough decisions but I think it’s also imperative that you keep cities together as much as you can, but keep communities of interest together especially in South San Francisco where if you’re going to draw and divide the Westboro area and draw that into two areas now you’re splitting two communions of interest and I just want us to be a fair process and I appreciate the work that you’re doing but please as you look at this consider the actions that you’re doing in terms of the cities that have been split already and I understand that there’s concerns for splitting new cities because they haven’t been split before but I think we need to have a real conversation saying, you know are there new cities there that we have to split up? Ensure that other cities that have been split can now be together so I appreciate again the opportunity.

Thank you very much.

First of all this has been a different meeting than the last meeting there’s been a lot more discussion a lot more people that are involved than before. I would like to see commissioner Rudy Espinoza’s map and I’m hoping that he’s gonna be able to present that. I appreciate there’s a timeline and we really want to stay one and I’m gonna reemphasize that we have no representation like the cities, so when you talk about cities being split ,okay but they have their town council, they have their mayors we have nothing and so it’s really important to ook at us. Also the west to east that one of the commissioners was talking about that was thrown out yeah, it was thrown out because it made no sense i don’t know who came up with that map but I think you need to do that. You need to kind of clear things out and get down to the you know what really matters and what the needs are especially for communities of interest like the unincorporated areas. So i’m hoping you will take that into consideration because that’s all the representation we have and I appreciate all your time and you know the fact that you know you’re here and thank you very much. I hope that we can see some maps that we can talk about and move on so thank you.

Good evening commissioners, My name is Yahayra Ortega and I am the Policy Advocate Associate from Thrive Alliance. Before I begin we want to thank you all for volunteering your time for this vital process. I’m here today to respectfully request more time for this community process. As you may be aware Thrive Alliance has been shouting from the rooftops trying to engage more community members well we did it! We are working with 13 other local organizations who plan to propose a map next week, we want to be sure there is still time for discussion of this and any other proposals. Therefore, we ask you please add one more commission meeting to continue discussing map proposals and extend the map submission deadline please consider that providing additional time for this community engagement will increase faith in the process and will help lead to better map.

Thank you.

Thrive Alliance respectfully requests that you add one more meeting to continue discussing map proposals. There are still many communities that have not engaged in the process. It is important to hear from more San Mateo residents about their communities of interest and how they are impacted by the map proposals.

It would be helpful to see more map proposals from the public. We are working with 13 nonprofit organizations who plan to propose a map next week. We want to be sure there is still time for discussion of this and any other proposals. This is a once-in-a-decade process and we encourage you to think creatively and consider a wide range of maps. With COVID, economic challenges of the past year, and the recent recall election, it’s been challenging to engage people in this process. Providing additional time for community engagement will increase faith in this process and help lead to better maps.

We recognize your hard work and don’t like to request another meeting, bu we have heard from over 13 CBOs that would like to participate in the process but have not yet had the time to do so.

Thank you,

Petra Silton, Director of Advocacy & Education, Thrive Alliance

Dear District Lines Advisory Commission,

I am pleased to see three very different options in this first round of draft maps, but am concerned the two maps that differ from the status quo present tradeoffs that are not mutually exclusive.

Please request an alternate version of a map that preserves the coastside in one district while not dividing the county’s largest city.

I strongly support the concept of the “NDC Coast” map and am adamantly opposed to the “City Focus” map because it divides the coast. Should the “Minimal Change” map continue as an option, I hope further changes will be considered in the south east part of District 3.

I have been very concerned about the historic lack of representation the coast has had in local governance, and I was disappointed to see that continue even on this advisory commission. Currently San Carlos has 66% of the representation on the commission for District 3, but makes up less than 20% of the total population for that district.

The coast is particularly unique as compared to the rest of San Mateo County. The issues affecting the coast differ dramatically from San Carlos and other cities on the bayside. The coast needs a strong advocate who lives on the coast and has direct experience and passion for the issues that impact this sensitive area including: the ocean/environment, coastal erosion, tourism, limited roads and access points, immigrant/farmworker workforce, land under California Coastal Commission discretion, knowledge of the isolated communities, etc.

Many coastside residents live in more dispersed areas, with more limited access to public services. It is the LARGEST area of unincorporated County land. Cities have council members who advocate on their residents’ behalf, but much of the coast does not and its SOLE representation is its county supervisor.

No state or federal representatives live on the coast. Supervisor Horsley is the only elected official in San Mateo County to live even remotely close to the coast.

I appreciate the concept of striving to keep cities whole as much as possible. However, please do not let that be to the detriment of the coastside.

Thank you for your time and service to this important effort.

Dear Redistricting Committee,

Please keep District 3 whole.
Here are just a few reasons:
The Coastside has special interests such as agriculture, Open Space, and tourism that the rest of the county does not, and yet- a huge percentage of the county visits the Coastside. We need to stay whole so we work with “Our” Supervisor, as we have done with Supervisor, Don Horsley.

Thank you for your time and consideration,

Jill Smith
Pescadero Resident

Community of Interest Survey: North Fair Oaks

Community of Interest Survey: North Fair Oaks

Community of Interest Survey: North Fair Oaks

Community of Interest Survey: North Fair Oaks

Community of Interest Survey: North Fair Oaks

Community of Interest Survey: North Fair Oaks

Community of Interest Survey: North Fair Oaks

Community of Interest Survey: North Fair Oaks

Community of Interest Survey: North Fair Oaks

Community of Interest Survey: North Fair Oaks

Community of Interest Survey: North Fair Oaks

Community of Interest Survey: North Fair Oaks

Community of Interest Survey: North Fair Oaks

Community of Interest Survey: North Fair Oaks

Community of Interest Survey: Nort FHCO

Community of Interest Survey: North Fair Oaks

Community of Interest Survey: North Fair Oaks

Community of Interest Survey: North Fair Oaks

Community of Interest Survey: North Fair Oaks

Community of Interest Survey: North Fair Oaks

Community of Interest Survey: North Fair Oaks

Community of Interest Survey: North Fair Oaks

Community of Interest Survey: Nort FHCO

Community of Interest Survey: North Fair Oaks

Community of Interest Survey: North Fair Oaks

Community of Interest Survey: North Fair Oaks

Community of Interest Survey: North Fair Oaks

Community of Interest Survey: North Fair Oaks

Community of Interest Survey: North Fair Oaks

Community of Interest Survey: North Fair Oaks

Community of Interest Survey: North Fair Oaks

Community of Interest Survey: North Fair Oaks

Thank you, commissioners, for your work on this important process.

I live in unincorporated West Menlo Park and I am writing to express my preference for the “NDC Coast” map for the following reasons:
– It balances population among districts
– It groups the coastal cities all in one district
– It does not lump inland (and populous) areas like Menlo Park, West Menlo Park and San Carlos into the same district as the coastside, as these are very different communities of interest
– It groups all Menlo Park residents together in the same district
– It keeps the communities of East Palo Alto, Belle Haven and North Fair Oaks in the same district and includes a portion of Redwood City, which allows this community of interest to have more fair representation than many of the other maps

Hi, thank you for serving on the Advisory Commission. The City of Belmont appears to have been divided into multiple districts over the past 30 years which doesn’t seem equitable. Belmont is already a smaller city than the neighboring cities and should be represented under one elected official. Please seriously consider keeping Belmont under 1 district.

Community of Interest Survey: Berkshire to Northumberland

Hi. I live in the Fairmont area of Pacifica. Will these changes impact me???????

Please keep all of Pacifica under Coast side San Mateo County.

Thank you
Joan Dower-Wilson
Pacifica, CA. 94044

As a Pacifica resident, I would like to see all of Pacifica kept together and kept part of the Coastside district.

Please keep all of the coastal city of Pacifica in the SAME District Coastal District. We have 9 miles of ocean shore. Please appreciate that we are a coastal city. In 2013 we lobbied hard to keep all Pacificans in the same coastal district. We appreciate that.
Thank you.
Sue Digre

Community of Interest Survey

Community of Interest Survey: Residential Wildlife District

Dear Supervisorial District Lines Advisory Commission,
Please see the attached letter (PDF file).
Please support the inclusion of one coastline district that includes Daly City, Pacifica, Montara, Moss Beach, El Granada, Miramar, Half Moon Bay, Kings Mountain, Woodside, Portola Valley, San Gregorio, La Honda, Loma Mar, Pescadero and Ano Nuevo State Park.
Thank you,
Sabrina Brennan
Founder, Surf Equity & Sport Equity
Co-Founder, Committee for Equity in Women’s Surfing

Community of Interest Survey: Midway Village

Community of Interest Survey: Bayshore

Community of Interest Survey: Brisbane/Bayshore

Community of Interest Survey: Bayshore Community

Community of Interest Survey: Bayshore

Hello Commissioners and Staff: Thank you for your work on redistricting. I’ve spoken with several SMC residents over the last week who had no idea that the redistricting process was underway or that the public comment period ends today. They had questions about the notification process and how public outreach has been conducted. I had no answers to share and am curious about the Commission and Staff public engagement strategy thus far. Any information you can provide will be greatly appreciated.

In reviewing the maps on the site, I have these comments:
Map 51492 — I do not support this map because East Palo Alto needs to remain part of Dist 4
Map 51501 — It appears that the District numbers have been changed on this map with no explanation. I find this confusing so I do not support it as presented.
Map 52056 — I do not support this map because Daly City is a unique community of interest and should remain in Dist 5.
Map 57388 — I do not support this map because it divides the coastal communities and unincorporated mountain/rural communities of interest.
Coast Map — I do not support this map because Daly City is a unique community of interest and should remain in Dist 5.
City Focus — I do not support this map because it divides the coastal communities and unincorporated mountain/rural communities of interest.
NDC Minimum Change Map is the best map of all those submitted but it appears that by putting all of Belmont into District 2, the population numbers would become more equal across districts.
According to the totals accompanying this map, Dist 3 has 4578 more residents than Dist 2. Depending on the number of Belmont residents currently in Dist 3, switching them to Dist
2 could address two essential issues: equalizing the population numbers between these two districts and responding to the many requests from Belmont residents that their city and its
contiguous unincorporated areas be joined together rather than split up. As you know, the vast majority of public input you’ve received favors keeping the coastal and unincorporated
mountain/rural communities together and unifying Belmont. Please follow these directives from SMC residents.

Thank you for your serious consideration of these comments,

April Vargas
Montara Resident

Please provide the deadlines for public input/comments/letters.

The website does not provide public comment deadlines: https://smcdistrictlines.org

The website does not provide information that expalines how to draw alternative maps and submit alternative maps: https://smcdistrictlines.org/draft-maps/

What is the deadline for submitteing alternative maps?

Very disapointing website.

Thank you,
Sabrina

Dear Commissioners:

As a resident of La Honda, after having attended the October 7th meeting, I would like to conditionally support Commissioner Olbert’s request for a map that maximizes the Coastal Community of Interest’s desire and interest in better representation through the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors.

Understanding that District Three should have a population of 153,083 and that California has codified district line considerations in the following order of importance: contiguousness, communities of interest, keeping cities together, identifiable boundaries, and compactness, the more significant consideration than keeping cities together is assigning to District Three small portions of non-coastal communities and Incorporated San Mateo County populations that have more in common with the unincorporated and coastal zone than they do to their city centers. In the absence of identifying a clear, defined community interest, a city on its own has less of a right of being districted together than the coastal community. The populations from non-coastal or incorporated San Mateo communities that may be included in the coastal zone would share similar interests: ruralness, connection to the coast, larger lots, and less dense populations. This may include the hills of the Peninsula cities, Portola Valley, Los Altos, Half Moon Bay, Pacifica, Woodside, coastal San Bruno and Daly City, and communities along and around Skyline.

I would also like to reiterate that maximizing representation in the county is especially important to residents of small coastal communities because they do not have the resources and budgets of their larger, more urban neighbors on the Bay.

Thank you, Commissioners for your time and service.

Warmest Regards,
Allyson Gunsallus

Please put Belmont in ONE district. Don’t split us.

San Mateo County Redistricting Committee:

The Midcoast Community Council (MCC) is an elected Advisory Council to the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors, representing the Coastside from Montara to Miramar.

At the October 13, 2021 meeting, the Council voted (7-0) to approve the attached letter regarding the redistricting process as it relates to our community.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

—
Michelle Weil
Chair, Midcoast Community Council
michelleweilmcc@gmail.com

In 2013, Pacifica worked extremely hard to keep the entire city of Pacifica in one COASTSIDE District. In 2018, Pacifica created Districts within the City and we were extremely careful to make sure each District touched the Ocean Shore to the West and the Hills to the east so that we could all comprehend our ocean , shore and hill issues. Regrettably not everyone in Our County realizes that Pacifica is indeed a coastal city . We are 9 miles long along the ocean shore. Thank you very much. Come visit. Sue Digre, termed out City Council Member 16 years ( 2018)

I am writing to encourage the county to have the entire city of Belmont be contained within one district. We are a small, tight-knit community and would be better served if we were all in one district with one supervisor.

I live in the Homeview district of Belmont, and our needs are much more similar to those living in central Belmont than they are to those living in Half Moon Bay. It’s time to reunite our city on the districting maps.

Thank you,
Gina Latimerlo

Please put Belmont under one Board of Supervisors district. We are small and should be able to speak with on Supervisor about community concerns. By splitting us Belmont loses its voice.

Thank you,

Jessica Epstein
Sterling Downs Neighborhood
Belmont CA

Email comment linked here.

Dear staff:

I’ve been using the DistrictR.org app. mapping tool on line for the past few days, but when I returned from dinner and clicked the link to the countywide map, the map appeared with census blocks, but no mapping apps. appeared. My computer suggests that the program is “loading”, but there’s no evidence that that is indeed what is happening.

I presume the problem is on your end, but would appreciate it if your IT guy could look into the issue and resolve it expeditiously and that you let me know the status, so I can continue my research.

Also, I noted that the consultant NDC (Doug Johnson) is not using 2020 census population data but projected estimates based on the 2015-2019 American Community Survey. I was at the statewide data base office in Oakland last week, and they had the adjusted county wide population for San Mateo County (after reallocating inmate populations at 765,417, while his total projected 2020 population for the county is 768,535. If members of the public are going to submit plans for review by the advisory committee and the Board of Supervisors, it would be helpful if they were based on the actual census data — not projected populations, particularly in light of the +/- 1% and +/- 5% variance from the mean population for district.

Please advise. Thanks. My laptop sent out my incompleted email inadvertently a few minutes ago. Please disregard that email, as this is the completed email. Thanks.

Christopher L. Bowman

Community of Interest Survey: East Palo Alto

Community of Interest Survey: East Palo Alto

Community of Interest Survey: San Mateo-East Palo Alto

Community of Interest Survey: San Mateo-East Palo Alto

Community of Interest Survey: East Palo Alto

Community of Interest Survey: East Palo Alto

Community of Interest Survey: Linda Mar/BOC, Pacifica

Community of Interest Survey: Residential Wildlife District

Community of Interest Survey: Marsh Manor-Redwood City

Community of Interest Survey: District 4 Buchanan Ct

Community of Interest Survey: Pacifica (San Mateo County)

Community of Interest Survey: Palm

Community of Interest Survey: Stambaugh-Heller

One factor that is supposed to be taken into account is common interest.

District 4:
I believe that E. Palo Alto and N. Fairoaks need to be kept in one district since they have the same pressing interests: need for low income housing, gentrification, social and environmental equity. Both areas have a majority of undocumented people living there. Many are Hispanic or South Pacific people. Many residents are not fluent in English. Both areas have problems with crime and both lack good schools and sufficient child care. East Palo Alto and NFO are both being taken over by developers and office buildings that are displacing residents and housing the homeless. These are not the same issues that are present for example in Menlo Park or Atherton.The fact that they appear to be under represented is not particularly relevant since both areas have populations that did not respond that well to the census for a variety of reasons. (East Menlo Park has similar issues but they have a City council member from that district who is responsible for matters in EMP) The EPA/NFO district needs a supervisor who is bi- or multi-lingual and can identify with the problems of that district.
District 3:
The current make up consists of largely unincorporated areas many parts of which have no city council to represent them. It comprises a huge geographical area and while there are differences between the inland and the coastal areas, both areas are much more rural than other districts and the problems existing are not the same as those in unincorporated RWC. Many of District 3 residents have no city council and people have to rely on the county departments which are not always responsive or efficient. There are sub-organizations such as the Harbor district and the MP Fire District that serve parts of the county while other areas have to rely on Cal fire. Prominent issues in District 3 are Open Space/Parks & Trails, Agriculture including farm labor housing, Tree protection, Traffic, Fire protection, Water rescue, Watershed protection, Stanford rapacious development, wildlife protection, and Pollution.
This is not to say that these issues are not important in other districts but they predominate in District 3. If Districts 3 and 4 were realigned the supervisors for those districts would be at a disadvantage in dealing with the full scope of the problems.

Dear Commissioner,

I am a member of the MCC, but speaking here only for myself and the constituents who have contacted me regarding the redistricting efforts underway.

I request that the redistricting process keep the Midcoast area, as well as the San Mateo Coast from Pacifica south to the Santa Cruz County border, in a single Supervisorial district. This entire area shares characteristics and concerns which must be addressed by a coordinated, integrated governance approach, not only for preservation of the character of the region, but for the health and safety of residents and visitors.

I would like to see our area in a district similar to that in the NDC Min Change or the NDC Coast maps by Douglas Johnson. We understand that some adjustments are necessary to better balance the population in the districts, but these maps serve the important purpose of keeping our coastside community in a single district for more responsive and focussed governance.

Maps such as Public Map 57388 would divide our coastside community of interest, and unnecessarily split a substantial portion of the unincorporated County. The NDC City Focus map is even worse, splitting the Midcoast area I represent into separate districts, greatly diluting the voice of our community. Issues such as traffic, wildfire prevention and evacuation, and other infrastructure and disaster preparation would be dangerously fragmented and delayed in planning and resolution if they required educating, convincing, and coordinating across multiple Supervisors. There is already enough fragmentation of governance across multiple agencies; more is not only undesirable, it is dangerous.

Should you need more information on the issues faced by the Midcoast area, or on the comments I have received which strongly advocate for integrated governance thereof, please do not hesitate to contact me .

Gregg A. Dieguez
Midcoast Community Council Member – Speaking as an INDIVIDUAL
Founder: MIT Club of Northern Calif.
Montara, CA 94037

Thank you for providing the opportunity for public input. As a 25 year resident of Pacifica, I recognize that the City of Pacifica sometimes isn’t considered as part of the “coastside”, (as some consider that to only to be south of the Devil’s Slide). Pacifica has more commonalities and interests with the coastside than with communities to the north or east, particularly important issues such as limited public transportation, sea level rise and coastal erosion, concerns with wildfires and loss of natural wildlife habitat and open space. We need representation by someone who understands these shared concerns for the full span of the San Mateo County coastside along the Pacific Ocean. Please include ALL of Pacifica in District 3, as we are today. It’s very important to not split the city into different districts. Thank you.

Keep the San Mateo County Coast as a unique and distinct district outside the Peninsula cities that have individual representation within the county. By breaking up the rural coastal cities and towns you dilute our voices and democratic process; essentially marginalizing the interests of those of us that live and reside in an area where people come to recreate and enjoy our natural beauty.

Community of Interest Survey: Montara

Please help.
I am trying to draw a map that keeps cities/towns in one Supervisorial District. I can see the cities and current supervisorial boundaries on the Interactive Review Map. When trying to draw a map, I cannot identify city/town boundaries.

Currently San Bruno and South San Francisco are in Districts 1 & 5, Belmont in 2 & 3, and Redwood City and Menlo Park are in 3 & 4.

I believe that each city/town should be in one Supervisorial District to the maximum extent possible, followed by school districts. If cities/towns need to be in two districts, the Supervisorial Districts should follow city/town district boundaries to the maximum extent possible. Cities that have Districts are:
• Half Moon Bay (4 districts)
• Redwood City (7 districts)
• South San Francisco (5 districts)

Cities in the process of going to District Elections:
• Burlingame
• Millbrae
• San Mateo

Thomas Weissmiller
San Mateo, CA

Dear Commissioners: Thank you for being part of the redistricting commission and doing an important job of ensuring that all San Mateo County residents are represented. I appreciated you listening to our comments at the meeting on October 6th. As you know, every 10 years, after the census, political lines get redrawn to better represent changes in the population. This year is no exception, and I want to voice my concern that Commission has been considering ways to break up both the Coastside and the contiguous unincorporated areas of San Mateo County. Ideas include annexing towns like El Granada or Moss Beach into Half Moon Bay or drawing East-West district lines that will divide the Coast and unincorporated areas into unrelated districts. These early plans tend to dilute the representation of the unincorporated areas by joining us up with inland communities. The fact is the San Mateo County coast, from Pacifica to Pescadero, and most of the unincorporated areas in the county, such as West Menlo Park, Ladera, Stanford Weekend Acres, the Sequoia Tract, Palomar Park, La Honda, Kings Mountain, San Mateo Highlands, and North Fair Oaks, to name a few, have much more commonalities than differences, not the least of which is our love for more rural areas and our desire for direct-representative government. The most significant issue that the unincorporated communities have in common is that the Board of Supervisors is, in fact, the direct representatives to residents living in unincorporated San Mateo County. The Board of Supervisors is the main governing body that decides building codes, zoning rules, and creates mandates which apply only to unincorporated residents, and much more. They are also the governing body which unincorporated residents rely on to address issues that arise in these communities. Dividing up the unincorporated areas of the County into several larger districts would result in less representation for our unincorporated residents. A prime example of the vulnerability faced by the unincorporated area, which covers almost 75% of the land mass of San Mateo County, is the makeup of the commission itself. It’s important to note that only 1 of the 15 appointed commissioners, or 6%, comes from unincorporated San Mateo County. Eight of the 15 commissioners, more than 50%, come from the four largest cities in San Mateo County. The selection process for commissioners has already put the largest contiguous area, the unincorporated area in San Mateo County, at a clear disadvantage for representation by the commission and, potentially, by the Board of Supervisors. Because of the uniqueness of our unincorporated communities, we do not want to be divided nor have a diluted voice in our direct-representative government. I am proposing that the unincorporated areas in District 3 remain whole and if needed add other unincorporated areas to our district to meet the district population goals. Based on the meeting on October 7th it is my understanding that the East-West map has been removed. Will there be a chance to view final maps before a decision is made? Will the maps be ready to discuss at the next meeting on October 21st? Best Regards, Cindy Crowe-Urgo La Honda

Community of Interest Survey:  San Carlos (White Oaks)

Having been a 20 + year resident in San Mateo county in Burlingame, Brisbane, Half Moon Bay, and Belmont the map is not taking into account cultural differences and interests. North Peninsula, Mid Peninsula and Coastside are different and should be represented as such. Not combined. Based on experience an El Granada resident has less in common with a Belmont resident than splitting up the Coty of Belmont. We can do better to be more reflexive of communities.

Dear Restricting Commissioners:

I support keeping all unincorporated areas of the San Mateo coast in a single Supervisorial District.

The unincorporated areas are a unique and valuable asset in our county.

Splitting these areas among the supervisorial districts would limit the voice of this important political constituency.

I request that you vote to keep these areas in a single district.

Sincerely,
Ann C. Mangold
El Granada, CA 94018

Good evening, I’m listening to the conversation about redrawing boundaries, and I’d like to advocate for keeping Belmont unified in one district. After decades of being split between districts, I feel it’s time that Belmont be wholly represented by one supervisor and allowed to speak with one voice. Thank you for your time and your service, Ulla Foehr Belmont resident

I see that some of the proposed County maps for supervisor districts for this decade are once again proposing toppling Belmont between two districts, and to make the split even more extreme than the last decade. This is inequitable to the residents of Belmont who are having their voice severely diluted. We are already a small city surrounded by larger cities, and by further dividing Belmont, the residents are being further disadvantaged in terms of our representation at the County level. I encourage the district lines to be drawn such that Belmont remain in one district.

Hello, I live in Sterling Downs. It is unfair to ask Belmont to continue to be split between two districts. Belmont has been split for the last ten years. It is time for another community to take a turn. It makes sense geographically to include it with San Mateo county rather than the coast and San Carlos etc. Thank you for your time. Dana Gerstbacher

I have been a Belmont resident since 2009 and I can’t believe that Belmont has been split between two supervisorial districts (D2 and D3) since the districts were redrawn in 1991. it is unfair to ask Belmont to continue to be split between two districts. It is time for another community to take a turn.

I am opposed in splitting Belmont in two different Districts. Belmont is a small city and doesn’t need to be divided.

I am unequivocally against splitting Belmont between two supervisorial districts. Belmont has been split for a decade. It is time for another community to take a turn!

Thank you for the opportunity to voice in on the future structure of the Supervisorial Districts. According to San Mateo County, the following criteria must be adhered to when considering district maps: To the extent practicable, the geographic integrity of local neighborhoods, communities of interest, cities, and census designated places must be respected in a manner that minimizes their division. To the extent practicable, district boundaries must be drawn to encourage geographic compactness. District boundaries should be easily identifiable and understandable by County residents. Splitting the city of Belmont into two Districts does not adhere to any of the above principles. Belmont is a small city and splitting it into two different Districts means that it is less likely to get attention from the elected Supervisor. Grouping parts of Belmont, a central county city near the Bay, with the furthermost northern and southern cities on the coast does not represent “geographic compactness.” As a resident of the County, I cannot understand or easily identify the District to which my home belongs. Furthermore, with the focus on transit-oriented housing policies, Belmont has much more in common with San Mateo and other cities on the Caltrain/101/El Camino transport corridor than it does to cities on the Coast. Belmont – and the area near Caltrain where I live – should not be separated from the rest of the transportation corridor as policies made in those other areas will directly and impact this part of Belmont. I strongly request that the borders be redrawn such that Belmont, in its entirety, is in a single Supervisorial District. Thank you very much. Karen Coppock

I am unable to make the meeting tonight but wanted to put in my 2c. It is unfair to ask Belmont to continue to be split between two districts. Belmont has been split for the last ten years. It is time for another community to take a turn.

I live in the Belmont neighborhood of Sterling Downs. I object to the district line running through my neighborhood. By splitting us in two, you dilute our voice on issues that may concern us. And furthermore, my half of the neighborhood is part of District 3 which is primarily coastal. We are the only portion of the district that differs from the rest: no agricultural areas, open space issues, etc. Our concerns go with the territory: development along the CalTrain corridor, traffic on Hwy 101and feeder streets that weren’t intended to be.used as such. How am I to have confidence the District supervisor will care about my issues? Our small “bubble” attached with the coasdtal district should be include in District 2 with San Mateo/Foster City. Thank you for considering my concern. Sven

Community of Interest Survey: San Mateo Coastside

Please keep Belmont in a single supervisory district. The town has been split into two districts for more than a decade, and it’s unfair to keep splitting Belmont up. It’s time for a different community to take a turn with the split.

Hello, I live in the Sterling Downs neighborhood of Belmont, which includes the area west of Highway 101 to Old County Road and the area north of Ralston to the San Mateo border. Shortly after we moved to the neighborhood in 2007, we learned of a political and often socioeconomic divide in the Belmont community between the “Hills” west of El Camino & the train tracks and the “Flats” east of the train tracks & Old County Road. Being in a separate Supervisorial district certainly doesn’t help that division. As a neighborhood, we’ve been organizing ourselves and grown our neighborhood association over the years to engage more actively with city issues and ensure that we are included as an important part of the Belmont community. It is disheartening that the Supervisorial district lines that split Belmont starting in 1991 may further split Belmont up to also separate out our Belmont neighbors South of Ralston. Belmont is a small city, and after nearly 30 years, it is important that our community finally have a chance to be reunited as one so that we can work together as whole city with one Supervisor rather than continue to have our city-wide concerns split among two Supervisors. I have not had a chance to play with the district maps that were shared yet by the County, but I hope to revisit those maps later tonight to propose other alternatives that might be considered so that the City of Belmont no longer has to be split between district lines. It is very important to me that our neighborhood and the rest of the neighborhoods in the “Flats” be included in the same Supervisorial district as the other neighborhoods in the City of Belmont. As far as which district makes the most sense to me in terms of sharing similar issues and interests, our neighborhood has a lot more in common with the San Mateo & Foster City communities along the 101 Corridor, including our San Mateo neighbors who drive through our neighborhood daily to get to their homes in Laurie Meadows and who are so close that their kids are zoned to attend our neighborhood school (Nesbit) in the Belmont Redwood Shores School District, than we do with the rest of the Coastside & communities that are heavily situated along Highway 280 in District 3. Sincerely, Cari Pang Chen, Belmont

Please do not split Belmont between two supervisory districts. Belmont has been split between two districts for more than a decade and it’s unfair to continue forcing the town to split. It’s time for a different city to take a turn. Thanks for taking action to reunite our city.

Dear San Mateo County Redistricting Commission:

Thank you for being part of the redistricting commission and doing an important job of ensuring that all San Mateo County residents are represented. As you know, every 10 years, after the census, political lines get redrawn to better represent changes in the population. This year is no exception, and I want to voice my concern that Commission has been considering ways to break up both the Coastside and the contiguous unincorporated areas of San Mateo County.

Ideas include annexing towns like El Granada or Moss Beach into Half Moon Bay or drawing East-West district lines that will divide the Coast and unincorporated areas into unrelated districts. These early plans tend to dilute the representation of the unincorporated areas by joining us up with inland communities. The fact is the San Mateo County coast, from Pacifica to Pescadero, and most of the unincorporated areas in the county, such as West Menlo Park, Ladera, Stanford Weekend Acres, the Sequoia Tract, Palomar Park, La Honda, Kings Mountain, San Mateo Highlands, and North Fair Oaks, to name a few, have much more commonalities than differences, not the least of which is our love for more rural areas and our desire fordirect-representative government.

The most significant issue that the unincorporated communities have in common is that the Board of Supervisors is, in fact, the direct representatives to residents living in unincorporated San Mateo County. The Board of Supervisors is the main governing body that decides building codes, zoning rules, and creates mandates which apply only to unincorporated residents, and much more. They are also the governing body which unincorporated residents rely on to address issues that arise in these communities. Dividing up the unincorporated areas of the County into several larger districts would result in less representation for our unincorporated residents.

A prime example of the vulnerability faced by the unincorporated area, which covers almost 75% of the land mass of San Mateo County, is the makeup of the commission itself. It’s important to note that only 1 of the 15 appointed commissioners, or 6%, comes from unincorporated San Mateo County. Eight of the 15 commissioners, more than 50%, come from the four largest cities in San Mateo County. The selection process for commissioners has already put the largest contiguous area, the unincorporated area in San Mateo County, at a clear disadvantage for representation by the commission and, potentially, by the Board of Supervisors. Because of the uniqueness of our unincorporated communities, we do not want to be divided nor have a diluted voice in our direct-representative government. I am proposing that the unincorporated areas in District 3 remain whole and if needed add other unincorporated areas to our district to meet the district population goals.

Very truly yours,

Arla LeCount
La Honda

Dear Commissioners:

I appreciate the Supervisorial District Lines Advisory Commission’s thoughtful approach so far to this difficult issue. However, I’ve seen a disturbing trend in many recent comments of wishing to split up the current coherent set of unincorporated communities in District 3 and annex them, in one of a couple of different proposed ways, to districts dominated by the county’s major cities.

In many functional ways, in my view, District 3’s unincorporated areas comprise a community of interest, as that term is used in California’s redistricting criteria: Recent and near-future wildfire problems, electic power outages, unplanned-for stresses upon rural highways, and water supply issues, to name a few areas, are political issues where District 3’s unincorporated areas have common concerns that would be far less well represented if many of those areas were detached from District 3 and merged into other districts.

Living as I do in unincorporated West Menlo Park, my County Supervisor (currently Mr. Horsley) is really my only conduit to influence on local government. West Menlo and the other incorporated parts of our district, such as Ladera, North Fair Oaks, Sequoia Tract, Stanford Weekend Acres, La Honda, etc. are already practically an afterthought in county planning. Splitting these more-rural, less-populated unincorporated areas among multiple supervisorial districts would certainly worsen that problem, and thus be contrary to the spirit of California’s redistricting criteria.

Best Regards,
Rick Moen
W. Menlo Park

Dear Redistricting Commissioners:

The Montara Water and Sanitary District (MWSD) supports keeping all unincorporated areas in a single Supervisorial District. The unincorporated areas are an unique and valuable asset in our county and best represented by a single Supervisor.

Splitting these areas among the supervisorial districts would limit the voice of this important political constituency.  The MWSD requests that you vote to keep these areas in a single district.

On behalf of the Board of Directors of the MWSD,

Clemens Heldmaier
General Manager
Montara Water and Sanitary District

Hi- thank you, I just want to thank the Chair and the Commissioner for your hard work. This is a quite informative meeting and then this is new information to me, so I’d like to know at the end of the day after you collect all the comments and input and suggestions. You have the first five priorities and how are they going to make the decision? Is there a particular wieght heavier than the other? How you’re going to make this transparent so we understand your thought process? How it’s going to be decided? Thank you.

I also- I’m interested inkeeping all the unincorpirated areas together because the Board of Supervisors are all for all intents of purposes the Town Council and decision makers for all people in the united corporate areas. They create laws that create ordinances that govern the unincorporated areas only and they are form of government; all these other municipalities and people on the Bay side who are in cities have a Town Council they can go to in order to voice their concerns about what’s going on in the community and what they need, but the unincorporated only have the Board of Supervisors. And if the unincorporated areas have no power to elect a Supervisor, then they have no say, so I feel that all the unincorporated areas Bayside and on the Coast should be put together so they can have some control over representation for their needs. Thank you.

Thank you. First and foremost, to all the Commissioners who took the time to volunteer in this role – your work is truly integral to this process, you know. Daly City should remain whole, it’s very clear that there’s communites of interest, there is a very hgih population of Asian Pacific Islanders within this area. more than half of Daly City’s pooulation is of Asian descent. Also, it’s actually 56% of Daly City’s population with a big percentage being Filipinos. It’s very important that we keep Daly City whole and move with the minimal change. Thank you very much.

I really appreciate the Commission. I just found out a few days ago about this whole redrawing because we were not notified as San Mateo County Residents that this was happening, and I lived in La Honda for 45 years and we have not been represented. I agree with Patty Mayal (?) and Heather Mcavoy what they said is so true and we really need representation and we don’t want to be lumped in with inland cities that have their own government. We have no governmemt our sole government is the Board of Supervisors who we elect is our representative and we need to be looked as a special, and like you know, communities of interest. That’s what we are, we have very unique needs living where we live in La Honda, Pescadero, San Gregorio, the unincorporated areas; so I’m hoping that the maps will be drawn so that we have a voice and have our needs met. We lost electricity – we recently had many power outages and we were represented; and that was addressed but we really need help. And I’m hoping that you will think about the fact that we are unique and we don’t want to be lumped in with paces that don’t really understand our unique ideas in this area, so that’s where I’m coming from and thank you all. I really appreciate. I was very enlightened by the fact that a lot of you felt the same way, the Commissioners you know, that the community needs to be heard and that were important. Thank you.

Hi, my name is April Vargas I live in Montarra and I want to start by thanking all of you commissioners for the work that you’re doing. For the staff, it does seem like a very tight timeline and I appreciate the fact that we all need to come together and do what’s best because we’re going to be living with this for several years. I wanted to thank and agree with comments so far that from Commissioner Bledsoe and Espinoza, Patty Mayal (?), Heather Mcavoy, and Eric Black from La Honda. One thing as an unincorporatrd resident that is important is governmemt as we’ve talked about and one thing that we did in the unincorporated area on the coast well over 20 years ago was we formed a Mid-Coast Community Council that includes the communities from Montarra through Miramar, so when I saw some maps looked like it was going to split the current coastal unincorporated areas that’s a terrible idea because we only have an advisory council to the board. And, that’s our one of our main liasions so we don’t want to break that up also what’s been said about the communites of interest in terms of rural, in terms of natural resources, in terms of traffic, toursim are all really important. This is my first time attending and so far the minimum change map at this moment seems like a good option, but I will take the time to do more research but again, thank you and please do not seperate the Coastal Communities: Pacfica all the way down to Pescadero also on the mountain communities. Thank you very much.

Thank you, so my full name is Eric Black and I’m not sure why only my first name name was showing. I am also a La Honda resident and like Heather Mcavoy I am a member of the CSA 7 Citizens Advisory Committee. One thing I want to point out is that communities of interest are not necessarily geographically delineated it is easy to draw lines around people, but that is not necessarily how we are connected as a society. I’ve been- I have lived here on the coast side for 38 years and the coast side community is quite different from what we call flalanders or city dwellers down in the more populated parts of the Peninsula. The rural areas here are very very different in terms of how we live, how we connect, and what we need – and, it is perhaps very important for our representation in government to take that into account geographic delineations are not necessarily the right way to do it. Perhaps the best way to draw a map would be by community of interest no matter what they are , and I’m not sure how to do that. It’s a very hard problem and thank you for taking this on.

Yes, good evening everyone again and thank you for allowing me to speak on this, a very important issue, especially for District 5. I want to first commend Commissioner – I believe his name is Manzon for rally bringing this back to what really is at stake here which is uh representation for the people. I know that there is obviously that the technical side to it and the need to satisfy the numbers and that’s why you’re having such a robust and thorough discussion, but I like the way he phrased it and how the people really have to be interested, and so I would encourage first that the County still needsto do more outreach. I know you’ve already done some, but you could always do better and it shouldn’t stop just because the meetings are going on and we should get more creative on how we’re going to outreach to more people and then with respect to the specific maps and what if what has been actually proposed? I have discussed this with a lot of my felllow community members and I can tell you that the map is totally unacceptable. Is the coastal map that goes all the way down to I believe La Honda, the one that looks more acceptable is the minimum change map that’s been proposed. You have to understand that in the North County in Daly City in particular we have a community of interest we have a Filipino population in particular who has migrated to the city – who has had a tremendous effect on the city, the culture, the community, and so it’s a very strong population and we see that the minimum change back seeks to preserve that and ensures that there’s no real dilution of our votes and our voting power. So, thank you for offering these comments. I hope you continue success in your deliberations, thank you.

Thank you commissioners for your service and your time. My name is Heather Mcavoy, I’m a 35-year old residen of La Honda – a former trustee of the La Honda-Pescadero Unified School District, former member of the San Mateo County Comittee for School District Organization, and currently the Vice Chair of the Customer Advisory Committee for County Service Area Number 7. The Coastal and mountain communities of La Honda, Skylonda, Loma Mar, Pescadero, San Gregorio, Half Moon Bay, El Granada, Moss Beach, and Montara are a community if interest. We have issues in common such as agriculture, farm worker, housing, rural schools, coastal forest, watershed management, managing tourism, and traffic including those who ride motorcycles on our rural roads, natural resources in open space. In spite of our large geographic area, we already do not have a strong voice due to our sparce population. I advocate for maintaining a district that includes all of those coastal and mountain rural communitiesso that our voices and our needs are not further diluted. I woud also like to note that the maps presented by the demographer in her presentation don’t show the whole County and the communities of San Gregorio, Loma Mar, and Pescadero are not shown. That’s discouraging as these areas already feel somewhat invisible in County politics. Thank you so much for your time.

Thank you for all the time and the dedication you are giving to this crucial issue. I live in the unincorporaed area of San Mateo County since 1989. I’ll tell you why this is so important to us because we have been unrepresented for decades, underrepresented for decades, we have needed our own Supervisor on the Coast-side. A case in point is a 2010 election when our coastal representative first one to run, April Vargas, won the popular vote on the coastside, but couldn’t defeat Don Horsley on the Peninsula where there was more population he had a run-off electiom and she couldn’t get over 50% of the vote. So, he’s been in there forever and he did not reach out to any of the communities out here to even try to let us know this was going on, so in reaching out to other communities like you need to everywhere, get more public input. What is the process? Are you on the Google groups? Are you reaching out to immigrant poulations like in our South Coast, the migrant workers, the farm workers? The Census was taken during a hostile environment under the Trump administration – we know that affected the Census numbers. Is there a way if knowing and reaching out to folks in these populations, so we do have their input and their numbers? Thank you so much, if I can be of any help please let me help and I’ll put comments in writing also. Thank you all, I hope there- I wish there was more time because it’s important, thank you.

Thank you , thank you Chair Lawrence and Commissioners for your time – and also. Commissioners Espinoza and Bledsoe for reflecting the interests of the Coastal community. I’m a resident of La Honda and I actually wanted to follow back on a comment from Commissioner Chan about the population of the unincorporated coast. I was wondering if this part you could make the spreadsheet of populations available to the public so that we might also be able to see the pooulations in the Districts and the unincorporated part of San Mateo County. And them coming back to Commissioner Olbert’s point about splitting cities, and I think this may reflect the interests of Belmont as well. I’m curious if I could understand a little better what the interests are for cities versus communities of interest, especially when those citites have their own governments that’s something that you know, I think from what I understand there’s issues that are pertinent to cities, but that communities of interest are more valuable for this discussion. And I’m just curious like, what types of interests could possibly be important to cities for purposes of the Districts. Thank you.

Thank you commissioners for volunteering your time for this incredibly important work. I appreciate the seriousness with which you’re approaching this and the profound impact that ths will have on San Mateo for years to come here tonight. I’m a resident of Belmont and I wanted to speak because Belont has been split for the last 20 or 30 years between different Supervisors. Belmont’s not that big of a city and I realized that there are many roles to follow in building this map, and it’s incredibly challenging; but if at all possible would like to see Belmont remain together this go around. Thank you.

I can’t see I’m on my cell-phone, so the tem two is that regarding the maps or not? I’ll call for public comment when that item comes up for discussion.

UNITE BELMONT, WE ARE ONE! “It is unfair to ask Belmont to continue to be split between two districts. Belmont has been split for the last ten years. It is time for another community to take a turn.”

It is unfair for Belmont to be split into two districts. One district please!

It is unfair to ask Belmont to continue to be split between two districts and have our school district split between 3 districts. Belmont has been split for the last 30 years. Please draw the maps so Belmont can have a common voice.

Dear Commission Members, Of the several plans submitted, I have noticed that the majority continue to draw districting lines through the city of Belmont. Belmont is a relatively small city in San Mateo County, and has no natural districting lines that I am aware of. For the last 20 years, this city has been split into one or more supervisorial districts. Given the size of this city, that makes little to no sense, and dilutes out the voice of it’s citizens. It is well beyond time to include the entire city of Belmont into one supervisorial district.

Hello, I would like to strongly protest against any set of district boundaries that split the city of Belmont. As one of the smaller municipalities, it is important that we have one representative to best understand and convey our local concerns at the County level.

Re: County Supervisor Boundaries I am a resident of Belmont. Our town has been split into supervisorial districts D2 and D3 for twenty years. Some of the current maps make the current split of the town even more unfair, especially the “NDC Min Change” map. Belmont has done its turn being split. It is time for another town to take a turn and Belmont to be represented by one supervisor.

Dear Commisioners, My name is Tim Hoffman, and I live on Miller Avenue in Belmont. Thank you for your service to our communities, and for your consideration of my input today. Since at least the 1990 Census redistricting, Belmont has been bifurcated into two SMC supervisorial districts. During the 90s the divider was Ralston Ave.; in the 00s a portion south of Belmont Creek that was placed into the same district in San Carlos; and today we have the rather jagged division that exists today in the northern portion of Belmont. For at least 30 years, Belmont has shouldered the burden of serving as an arbitrary dividing line in order to equalize district populations. Continuing (and exacerbating, as proposed in the NDC Min Change map, e.g.) this split needlessly impacts Belmont yet again for another decade to come. While Belmont’s relatively small size somehow may lend itself to easier carving than other communities, Belmont’s years of service as a split city should end. I note that Belmont is already split into two Sequoia Union HSD districts. Respectfully, I request that communities other than Belmont now take a turn to serve in multiple districts. I have drawn the map below as just one suggestion as how to do so. https://districtr.org/plan/60476 Thank you again for your consideration. Tim Hoffman

As a long time resident of Belmont, CA, and former Trustee of the Belmont Redwood Shores School District. I understand that for Supervisory District line purposes, Belmont has been split between 2 districts for some time. Are there natural reasons why Belmont should remain split or are the reasons somewhat subjective? If subjective, should other, currently contiguous communities, take on the burden of being split in this new map? Thank you Huan

To whom it may concern, I have seen the proposed district lines and once again Belmont has been split between two Supervisors. I am a long time resident of Belmont, and Belmont has been split for 10 years now. It’s time for another city to take on the burden of multiple supervisors as Belmont has done its part. Thank you! Kelly Huffman

Dear San Mateo County Redistricting Commission:

Thank you for being part of the redistricting commission and doing an important job of ensuring that all San Mateo County residents are represented. As you know, every 10 years, after the census, political lines get redrawn to better represent changes in the population. This year is no exception, and I want to voice my concern that the Commission has been considering ways to break up both the Coastside and the contiguous unincorporated areas of San Mateo County.

Ideas include annexing towns like El Granada or Moss Beach into Half Moon Bay or drawing East-West district lines that will divide the Coast and unincorporated areas into unrelated districts. These early plans tend to dilute the representation of the unincorporated areas by joining us up with inland communities. The fact is the San Mateo County coast, from Pacifica to Pescadero, and most of the unincorporated areas in the county, such as West Menlo Park, Ladera, Stanford Weekend Acres, the Sequoia Tract, Palomar Park, La Honda, Kings Mountain, and San Mateo Highlands, to name a few, have much more commonalities than differences, not the least of which is our desire to live in more rural areas and have a direct-representative government with County government.

The most significant issue that the unincorporated communities have in common is that the Board of Supervisors is, in fact, the direct representatives to residents living in unincorporated San Mateo County. The Board of Supervisors is the main governing body that decides building codes, zoning rules, and creates mandates which apply only to unincorporated residents, and much more. They are also the governing body which unincorporated residents rely on to address issues that arise in these communities. Dividing the unincorporated areas of the County and combining us with several larger cities would result in less representation for unincorporated residents.

A prime example of the vulnerability faced by the unincorporated area, which covers almost 75% of the land mass of San Mateo County, is the makeup of the commission itself. It’s important to note that only 1 of the 15 appointed commissioners, or 6%, comes from unincorporated San Mateo County. Eight of the 15 commissioners, more than 50%, come from the four largest cities in San Mateo County. The selection process for commissioners has already put the largest contiguous area, the unincorporated area in San Mateo County, at a clear disadvantage for representation by the commission and, potentially, by the Board of Supervisors. Because of the uniqueness of our unincorporated communities, we do not want to be divided nor have a diluted voice in our direct-representative government. I am proposing that the unincorporated areas in District 3 remain whole and, if needed, add other unincorporated areas to our district to meet the district population goals.

Robert Taddei – San Mateo unincorporated area resident

Dear Restricting Commissioners:

As a resident of Half Moon Bay and property owner in El Granada, I support keeping county unincorporated areas in a single Supervisorial District.

In particular, the area from Montara south to Pescadero with La Honda represent a community with common interests, and the unincorporated areas plus Half Moon Bay are unique and valuable assets in our county.

Splitting these areas among the supervisorial districts would limit the voice of this important political constituency.

I request that you vote to keep these areas in a single district.

Sincerely,

Bruce R. Seaman
Miramar, Half Moon Bay

As I shared in my emailed public comment to you today (10/7), below please find my suggested map, which attempts to balance relative populations within actual city boundaries and/or adjoining neighborhoods, and with communities other than Belmont now having a potential for a split across multiple districts.

https://districtr.org/plan/60476

Regards,

Tim Hoffman
Miller Ave., Belmont

Dear San Mateo County Redistricting Commission:

Thank you for being part of the redistricting commission and doing an important job of ensuring that all San Mateo County residents are represented. As you know, every 10 years, after the census, political lines get redrawn to better represent changes in the population. This year is no exception, and I want to voice my concern that the Commission has been considering ways to break up both the Coastside and the contiguous unincorporated areas of San Mateo County.

Ideas include annexing towns like El Granada or Moss Beach into Half Moon Bay or drawing East-West district lines that will divide the Coast and unincorporated areas into unrelated districts. These early plans tend to dilute the representation of the unincorporated areas by joining us up with inland communities. The fact is the San Mateo County coast, from Pacifica to Pescadero, and most of the unincorporated areas in the county, such as West Menlo Park, Ladera, Stanford Weekend Acres, the Sequoia Tract, Palomar Park, La Honda, Kings Mountain, and San Mateo Highlands, to name a few, have much more commonalities than differences, not the least of which is our desire to live in more rural areas and have a direct-representative government with County government.

The most significant issue that the unincorporated communities have in common is that the Board of Supervisors is, in fact, the direct representatives to residents living in unincorporated San Mateo County. The Board of Supervisors is the main governing body that decides building codes, zoning rules, and creates mandates which apply only to unincorporated residents, and much more. They are also the governing body which unincorporated residents rely on to address issues that arise in these communities. Dividing the unincorporated areas of the County and combining us with several larger cities would result in less representation for unincorporated residents.

A prime example of the vulnerability faced by the unincorporated area, which covers almost 75% of the land mass of San Mateo County, is the makeup of the commission itself. It’s important to note that only 1 of the 15 appointed commissioners, or 6%, comes from unincorporated San Mateo County. Eight of the 15 commissioners, more than 50%, come from the four largest cities in San Mateo County. The selection process for commissioners has already put the largest contiguous area, the unincorporated area in San Mateo County, at a clear disadvantage for representation by the commission and, potentially, by the Board of Supervisors. Because of the uniqueness of our unincorporated communities, we do not want to be divided nor have a diluted voice in our direct-representative government. I am proposing that the unincorporated areas in District 3 remain whole and, if needed, add other unincorporated areas to our district to meet the district population goals.

Emma Ball- San Mateo unincorporated area resident

Dear San Mateo County Redistricting Commission:

Thank you for being part of the redistricting commission and doing an important job of ensuring that all San Mateo County residents are represented. As you know, every 10 years, after the census, political lines get redrawn to better represent changes in the population. This year is no exception, and I want to voice my concern that the Commission has been considering ways to break up both the Coastside and the contiguous unincorporated areas of San Mateo County.

Ideas include annexing towns like El Granada or Moss Beach into Half Moon Bay or drawing East-West district lines that will divide the Coast and unincorporated areas into unrelated districts. These early plans tend to dilute the representation of the unincorporated areas by joining us up with inland communities. The fact is the San Mateo County coast, from Pacifica to Pescadero, and most of the unincorporated areas in the county, such as West Menlo Park, Ladera, Stanford Weekend Acres, the Sequoia Tract, Palomar Park, La Honda, Kings Mountain, and San Mateo Highlands, to name a few, have much more commonalities than differences, not the least of which is our desire to live in more rural areas and have a direct-representative governmentwith County government.

The most significant issue that the unincorporated communities have in common is that the Board of Supervisors is, in fact, the direct representatives to residents living in unincorporated San Mateo County. The Board of Supervisors is the main governing body that decides building codes, zoning rules, and creates mandates which apply only to unincorporated residents, and much more. They are also the governing body which unincorporated residents rely on to addressissues that arise in these communities. Dividing the unincorporated areas of the County and combining us with several larger cities would result in less representation for unincorporated residents.

A prime example of the vulnerability faced by the unincorporated area, which covers almost 75% of the land mass of San Mateo County, is the makeup of the commission itself. It’s important to note that only 1 of the 15 appointed commissioners, or 6%, comes from unincorporated San Mateo County. Eight of the 15 commissioners, more than 50%, come from the four largest cities in San Mateo County. The selection process for commissioners has already put the largest contiguous area, the unincorporated area in San Mateo County, at a clear disadvantage for representation by the commission and, potentially, by the Board of Supervisors. Because of the uniqueness of our unincorporated communities, we do not want to be divided nor have a diluted voice in our direct-representative government. I am proposing that the unincorporated areas in District 3 remain whole and, if needed, add other unincorporated areas to our district to meet the district population goals.

Very truly yours,
Anne Keller
Half Moon Bay, CA 94019

Please find the link to the redistricting map I would like the redistricting committee and the County Board of Supervisors to consider.

https://districtr.org/plan/60426

Dear San Mateo County Redistricting Commission:

Thank you for being part of the redistricting commission and doing an important job of ensuring that all San Mateo County residents are represented. I would like to voice my concern that the Commission has been considering ways to break up both the Coastside and the contiguous unincorporated areas of San Mateo County.

Ideas include annexing towns like El Granada or Moss Beach into Half Moon Bay or drawing East-West district lines that will divide the Coast and unincorporated areas into unrelated districts. These early plans tend to dilute the representation of the unincorporated areas by joining us up with inland communities. The fact is the San Mateo County coast, from Pacifica to Pescadero, and most of the unincorporated areas in the county have much more commonalities than differences, not the least of which is our desire to live in rural and semi-rural areas and have a direct-representative government with County government.

The most significant issue that the unincorporated communities have in common is that the Board of Supervisors is, in fact, the direct representatives to residents living in unincorporated San Mateo County. The Board of Supervisors is the main governing body that decides building codes, zoning rules, and creates mandates which apply only to unincorporated residents, and much more. They are also the governing body which unincorporated residents rely on to address issues that arise in these communities. Dividing the unincorporated areas of the County and combining us with several larger cities would result in less representation for unincorporated residents.

A prime example of the vulnerability faced by the unincorporated area, which covers almost 75% of the land mass of San Mateo County, is the makeup of the commission itself. It’s important to note that only 1 of the 15 appointed commissioners, or 6%, comes from unincorporated San Mateo County. Eight of the 15 commissioners, more than 50%, come from the four largest cities in San Mateo County. The selection process for commissioners has already put the largest contiguous area, the unincorporated area in San Mateo County, at a clear disadvantage for representation by the commission and, potentially, by the Board of Supervisors. Because of the uniqueness of our unincorporated communities, we do not want to be divided nor have a diluted voice in our direct-representative government. I am proposing that the unincorporated areas in District 3 remain whole and, if needed, add other unincorporated areas to our district to meet the district population goals.

Thank you for your time,
Annette Saunders

Dear Dear San Mateo County Redistricting Commission:

Thank you for being part of the redistricting commission and doing an important job of ensuring that all San Mateo County residents are represented. As you know, every 10 years, after the census, political lines get redrawn to better represent changes in the population. This year is no exception, and I want to voice my concern that the Commission has been considering ways to break up both the Coastside and the contiguous unincorporated areas of San Mateo County.

Ideas include annexing towns like El Granada or Moss Beach into Half Moon Bay or drawing East-West district lines that will divide the Coast and unincorporated areas into unrelated districts. These early plans tend to dilute the representation of the unincorporated areas by joining us up with inland communities. The fact is the San Mateo County coast, from Pacifica to Pescadero, and most of the unincorporated areas in the county, such as West Menlo Park, Ladera, Stanford Weekend Acres, the Sequoia Tract, Palomar Park, La Honda, Kings Mountain, and San Mateo Highlands, to name a few, have much more commonalities than differences, not the least of which is our desire to live in more rural areas and have a direct-representative government with County government.

The most significant issue that the unincorporated communities have in common is that the Board of Supervisors is, in fact, the direct representatives to residents living in unincorporated San Mateo County. The Board of Supervisors is the main governing body that decides building codes, zoning rules, and creates mandates which apply only to unincorporated residents, and much more. They are also the governing body which unincorporated residents rely on to address issues that arise in these communities. Dividing the unincorporated areas of the County and combining us with several larger cities would result in less representation for unincorporated residents.

A prime example of the vulnerability faced by the unincorporated area, which covers almost 75% of the land mass of San Mateo County, is the makeup of the commission itself. It’s important to note that only 1 of the 15 appointed commissioners, or 6%, comes from unincorporated San Mateo County. Eight of the 15 commissioners, more than 50%, come from the four largest cities in San Mateo County. The selection process for commissioners has already put the largest contiguous area, the unincorporated area in San Mateo County, at a clear disadvantage for representation by the commission and, potentially, by the Board of Supervisors. Because of the uniqueness of our unincorporated communities, we do not want to be divided nor have a diluted voice in our direct-representative government. I am proposing that the unincorporated areas in District 3 remain whole and, if needed, add other unincorporated areas to our district to meet the district population goals.

Elizabeth Benney – San Mateo unincorporated area resident / business owner

Dear San Mateo County Redistricting Commission:

Thank you for being part of the redistricting commission and doing an important job of ensuring that all San Mateo County residents are represented. As you know, every 10 years, after the census, political lines get redrawn to better represent changes in the population. This year is no exception, and I want to voice my concern that the Commission has been considering ways to break up both the Coastside and the contiguous unincorporated areas of San Mateo County.

Ideas include annexing towns like El Granada or Moss Beach into Half Moon Bay or drawing East-West district lines that will divide the Coast and unincorporated areas into unrelated districts. These early plans tend to dilute the representation of the unincorporated areas by joining us up with inland communities. The fact is the San Mateo County coast, from Pacifica to Pescadero, and most of the unincorporated areas in the county, such as West Menlo Park, Ladera, Stanford Weekend Acres, the Sequoia Tract, Palomar Park, La Honda, Kings Mountain, and San Mateo Highlands, to name a few, have much more commonalities than differences, not the least of which is our desire to live in more rural areas and have a direct-representative government with County government.

The most significant issue that the unincorporated communities have in common is that the Board of Supervisors is, in fact, the direct representatives to residents living in unincorporated San Mateo County. The Board of Supervisors is the main governing body that decides building codes, zoning rules, and creates mandates which apply only to unincorporated residents, and much more. They are also the governing body which unincorporated residents rely on to address issues that arise in these communities. Dividing the unincorporated areas of the County and combining us with several larger cities would result in less representation for unincorporated residents.

A prime example of the vulnerability faced by the unincorporated area, which covers almost 75% of the land mass of San Mateo County, is the makeup of the commission itself. It’s important to note that only 1 of the 15 appointed commissioners, or 6%, comes from unincorporated San Mateo County. Eight of the 15 commissioners, more than 50%, come from the four largest cities in San Mateo County. The selection process for commissioners has already put the largest contiguous area, the unincorporated area in San Mateo County, at a clear disadvantage for representation by the commission and, potentially, by the Board of Supervisors. Because of the uniqueness of our unincorporated communities, we do not want to be divided nor have a diluted voice in our direct-representative government. I am proposing that the unincorporated areas in District 3 remain whole and, if needed,add other unincorporated areas to our district to meet the district population goals.

Very truly yours,

Wendy Jensen

Dear San Mateo County Redistricting Commission:

Thank you for being part of the redistricting commission and doing an important job of ensuring that all San Mateo County residents are represented. As you know, every 10 years, after the census, political lines get redrawn to better represent changes in the population. This year is no exception, and I want to voice my concern that the Commission has been considering ways to break up both the Coastside and the contiguous unincorporated areas of San Mateo County.

Ideas include annexing towns like El Granada or Moss Beach into Half Moon Bay or drawing East-West district lines that will divide the Coast and unincorporated areas into unrelated districts. These early plans tend to dilute the representation of the unincorporated areas by joining us up with inland communities. The fact is the San Mateo County coast, from Pacifica to Pescadero, and most of the unincorporated areas in the county, such as West Menlo Park, Ladera, Stanford Weekend Acres, the Sequoia Tract, Palomar Park, La Honda, Kings Mountain, and San Mateo Highlands, to name a few, have much more commonalities than differences, not the least of which is our desire to live in more rural areas and have a direct-representative government with County government.

The most significant issue that the unincorporated communities have in common is that the Board of Supervisors is, in fact, the direct representatives to residents living in unincorporated San Mateo County. The Board of Supervisors is the main governing body that decides building codes, zoning rules, and creates mandates which apply only to unincorporated residents, and much more. They are also the governing body which unincorporated residents rely on to address issues that arise in these communities. Dividing the unincorporated areas of the County and combining us with several larger cities would result in less representation for unincorporated residents.

A prime example of the vulnerability faced by the unincorporated area, which covers almost 75% of the land mass of San Mateo County, is the makeup of the commission itself. It’s important to note that only 1 of the 15 appointed commissioners, or 6%, comes from unincorporated San Mateo County. Eight of the 15 commissioners, more than 50%, come from the four largest cities in San Mateo County. The selection process for commissioners has already put the largest contiguous area, the unincorporated area in San Mateo County, at a clear disadvantage for representation by the commission and, potentially, by the Board of Supervisors. Because of the uniqueness of our unincorporated communities, we do not want to be divided nor have a diluted voice in our direct-representative government. I am proposing that the unincorporated areas in District 3 remain whole and, if needed, add other unincorporated areas to our district to meet the district population goals.

Marissa Johnson- San Mateo unincorporated area resident

Dear San Mateo County Redistricting Commission:

Thank you for being part of the redistricting commission and doing an important job of ensuring that all San Mateo County residents are represented. As you know, every 10 years, after the census, political lines get redrawn to better represent changes in the population. This year is no exception, and I want to voice my concern that the Commission has been considering ways to break up both the Coastside and the contiguous unincorporated areas of San Mateo County.

Ideas include annexing towns like El Granada or Moss Beach into Half Moon Bay or drawing East-West district lines that will divide the Coast and unincorporated areas into unrelated districts. These early plans tend to dilute the representation of the unincorporated areas by joining us up with inland communities. The fact is the San Mateo County coast, from Pacifica to Pescadero, and most of the unincorporated areas in the county, such as West Menlo Park, Ladera, Stanford Weekend Acres, the Sequoia Tract, Palomar Park, La Honda, Kings Mountain, and San Mateo Highlands, to name a few, have much more commonalities than differences, not the least of which is our desire to live in more rural areas and have a direct-representative government with County government.

The most significant issue that the unincorporated communities have in common is that the Board of Supervisors is, in fact, the direct representatives to residents living in unincorporated San Mateo County. The Board of Supervisors is the main governing body that decides building codes, zoning rules, and creates mandates which apply only to unincorporated residents, and much more. They are also the governing body which unincorporated residents rely on to address issues that arise in these communities. Dividing the unincorporated areas of the County and combining us with several larger cities would result in less representation for unincorporated residents.

A prime example of the vulnerability faced by the unincorporated area, which covers almost 75% of the land mass of San Mateo County, is the makeup of the commission itself. It’s important to note that only 1 of the 15 appointed commissioners, or 6%, comes from unincorporated San Mateo County. Eight of the 15 commissioners, more than 50%, come from the four largest cities in San Mateo County. The selection process for commissioners has already put the largest contiguous area, the unincorporated area in San Mateo County, at a clear disadvantage for representation by the commission and, potentially, by the Board of Supervisors. Because of the uniqueness of our unincorporated communities, we do not want to be divided nor have a diluted voice in our direct-representative government. I am proposing that the unincorporated areas in District 3 remain whole and, if needed, add other unincorporated areas to our district to meet the district population goals.

Best,

Adam Jensen

Dear San Mateo County Redistricting Commission:

Thank you for being part of the redistricting commission and doing an important job of ensuring that all San Mateo County residents are represented. As you know, every 10 years, after the census, political lines get redrawn to better represent changes in the population. This year is no exception, and I want to voice my concern that the Commission has been considering ways to break up both the Coastside and the contiguous unincorporated areas of San Mateo County.

Ideas include annexing towns like El Granada or Moss Beach into Half Moon Bay or drawing East-West district lines that will divide the Coast and unincorporated areas into unrelated districts. These early plans tend to dilute the representation of the unincorporated areas by joining us up with inland communities. The fact is the San Mateo County coast, from Pacifica to Pescadero, and most of the unincorporated areas in the county, such as West Menlo Park, Ladera, Stanford Weekend Acres, the Sequoia Tract, Palomar Park, La Honda, Kings Mountain, and San Mateo Highlands, to name a few, have much more commonalities than differences, not the least of which is our desire to live in more rural areas and have a direct-representative government with County government.

The most significant issue that the unincorporated communities have in common is that the Board of Supervisors is, in fact, the direct representatives to residents living in unincorporated San Mateo County. The Board of Supervisors is the main governing body that decides building codes, zoning rules, and creates mandates which apply only to unincorporated residents, and much more. They are also the governing body which unincorporated residents rely on to address issues that arise in these communities. Dividing the unincorporated areas of the County and combining us with several larger cities would result in less representation for unincorporated residents.

A prime example of the vulnerability faced by the unincorporated area, which covers almost 75% of the land mass of San Mateo County, is the makeup of the commission itself. It’s important to note that only 1 of the 15 appointed commissioners, or 6%, comes from unincorporated San Mateo County. Eight of the 15 commissioners, more than 50%, come from the four largest cities in San Mateo County. The selection process for commissioners has already put the largest contiguous area, the unincorporated area in San Mateo County, at a clear disadvantage for representation by the commission and, potentially, by the Board of Supervisors. Because of the uniqueness of our unincorporated communities, we do not want to be divided nor have a diluted voice in our direct-representative government. I am proposing that the unincorporated areas in District 3 remain whole and, if needed, add other unincorporated areas to our district to meet the district population goals.

Thank you,

Craig Carroll
CEO
Half Moon Bay Brewing Company

Dear San Mateo County Redistricting Commission:

Thank you for being part of the redistricting commission and doing an important job of ensuring that all San Mateo County residents are represented. As you know, every 10 years, after the census, political lines get redrawn to better represent changes in the population. This year is no exception, and I want to voice my concern that the Commission has been considering ways to break up both the Coastside and the contiguous unincorporated areas of San Mateo County.

Ideas include annexing towns like El Granada or Moss Beach into Half Moon Bay or drawing East-West district lines that will divide the Coast and unincorporated areas into unrelated districts. These early plans tend to dilute the representation of the unincorporated areas by joining us up with inland communities. The fact is the San Mateo County coast, from Pacifica to Pescadero, and most of the unincorporated areas in the county, such as West Menlo Park, Ladera, Stanford Weekend Acres, the Sequoia Tract, Palomar Park, La Honda, Kings Mountain, and San Mateo Highlands, to name a few, have much more commonalities than differences, not the least of which is our desire to live in more rural areas and have a direct-representative government with County government.

The most significant issue that the unincorporated communities have in common is that the Board of Supervisors is, in fact, the direct representatives to residents living in unincorporated San Mateo County. The Board of Supervisors is the main governing body that decides building codes, zoning rules, and creates mandates which apply only to unincorporated residents, and much more. They are also the governing body which unincorporated residents rely on to address issues that arise in these communities. Dividing the unincorporated areas of the County and combining us with several larger cities would result in less representation for unincorporated residents.

A prime example of the vulnerability faced by the unincorporated area, which covers almost 75% of the land mass of San Mateo County, is the makeup of the commission itself. It’s important to note that only 1 of the 15 appointed commissioners, or 6%, comes from unincorporated San Mateo County. Eight of the 15 commissioners, more than 50%, come from the four largest cities in San Mateo County. The selection process for commissioners has already put the largest contiguous area, the unincorporated area in San Mateo County, at a clear disadvantage for representation by the commission and, potentially, by the Board of Supervisors. Because of the uniqueness of our unincorporated communities, we do not want to be divided nor have a diluted voice in our direct-representative government. I am proposing that the unincorporated areas in District 3 remain whole and, if needed, add other unincorporated areas to our district to meet the district population goals.

Resident of an unincorporated town in San Mateo,
Esteban Torres-Flores

Dear San Mateo County Redistricting Commission,

Thank you for being part of the redistricting commission and doing an important job of ensuring that all San Mateo County residents are represented. As you know, every 10 years, after the census, political lines get redrawn to better represent changes in the population. This year is no exception, and I want to voice my concern that the Commission has been considering ways to break up both the Coastside and the contiguous unincorporated areas of San Mateo County.

Ideas include annexing towns like El Granada or Moss Beach into Half Moon Bay or drawing East-West district lines that will divide the Coast and unincorporated areas into unrelated districts. These early plans tend to dilute the representation of the unincorporated areas by joining us up with inland communities. The fact is the San Mateo County coast, from Pacifica to Pescadero, and most of the unincorporated areas in the county, such as West Menlo Park, Ladera, Stanford Weekend Acres, the Sequoia Tract, Palomar Park, La Honda, Kings Mountain, and San Mateo Highlands, to name a few, have much more commonalities than differences, not the least of which is our desire to live in more rural areas and have a direct-representative government with County government.

The most significant issue that the unincorporated communities have in common is that the Board of Supervisors is, in fact, the direct representatives to residents living in unincorporated San Mateo County. The Board of Supervisors is the main governing body that decides building codes, zoning rules, and creates mandates which apply only to unincorporated residents, and much more. They are also the governing body which unincorporated residents rely on to address issues that arise in these communities. Dividing the unincorporated areas of the County and combining us with several larger cities would result in less representation for unincorporated residents.

A prime example of the vulnerability faced by the unincorporated area, which covers almost 75% of the land mass of San Mateo County, is the makeup of the commission itself. It’s important to note that only 1 of the 15 appointed commissioners, or 6%, comes from unincorporated San Mateo County. Eight of the 15 commissioners, more than 50%, come from the four largest cities in San Mateo County. The selection process for commissioners has already put the largest contiguous area, the unincorporated area in San Mateo County, at a clear disadvantage for representation by the commission and, potentially, by the Board of Supervisors. Because of the uniqueness of our unincorporated communities, we do not want to be divided nor have a diluted voice in our direct-representative government. I am proposing that the unincorporated areas in District 3 remain whole and, if needed, add other unincorporated areas to our district to meet the district population goals.

Thank you!
—

Olivia Noble
Chief of Staff | Passio Inc.

Dear San Mateo County Redistricting Commission:

Thank you for being part of the redistricting commission and doing an important job of ensuring that all San Mateo County residents are represented. As you know, every 10 years, after the census, political lines get redrawn to better represent changes in the population. This year is no exception, and I want to voice my concern that the Commission has been considering ways to break up both the Coastside and the contiguous unincorporated areas of San Mateo County.

Ideas include annexing towns like El Granada or Moss Beach into Half Moon Bay or drawing East-West district lines that will divide the Coast and unincorporated areas into unrelated districts. These early plans tend to dilute the representation of the unincorporated areas by joining us up with inland communities. The fact is the San Mateo County coast, from Pacifica to Pescadero, and most of the unincorporated areas in the county, such as West Menlo Park, Ladera, Stanford Weekend Acres, the Sequoia Tract, Palomar Park, La Honda, Kings Mountain, and San Mateo Highlands, to name a few, have much more commonalities than differences, not the least of which is our desire to live in more rural areas and have a direct-representative government with County government.

The most significant issue that the unincorporated communities have in common is that the Board of Supervisors is, in fact, the direct representatives to residents living in unincorporated San Mateo County. The Board of Supervisors is the main governing body that decides building codes, zoning rules, and creates mandates which apply only to unincorporated residents, and much more. They are also the governing body which unincorporated residents rely on to address issues that arise in these communities. Dividing the unincorporated areas of the County and combining us with several larger cities would result in less representation for unincorporated residents.

A prime example of the vulnerability faced by the unincorporated area, which covers almost 75% of the land mass of San Mateo County, is the makeup of the commission itself. It’s important to note that only 1 of the 15 appointed commissioners, or 6%, comes from unincorporated San Mateo County. Eight of the 15 commissioners, more than 50%, come from the four largest cities in San Mateo County. The selection process for commissioners has already put the largest contiguous area, the unincorporated area in San Mateo County, at a clear disadvantage for representation by the commission and, potentially, by the Board of Supervisors. Because of the uniqueness of our unincorporated communities, we do not want to be divided nor have a diluted voice in our direct-representative government. I am proposing that the unincorporated areas in District 3 remain whole and, if needed, add other unincorporated areas to our district to meet the district population goals.

Thanks
James boon – San Mateo unincorporated area resident / business owner

Dear San Mateo County Redistricting Commission:

Thank you for being part of the redistricting commission and doing an important job of ensuring that all San Mateo County residents are represented. As you know, every 10 years, after the census, political lines get redrawn to better represent changes in the population. This year is no exception, and I want to voice my concern that the Commission has been considering ways to break up both the Coastside and the contiguous unincorporated areas of San Mateo County.

Ideas include annexing towns like El Granada or Moss Beach into Half Moon Bay or drawing East-West district lines that will divide the Coast and unincorporated areas into unrelated districts. These early plans tend to dilute the representation of the unincorporated areas by joining us up with inland communities. The fact is the San Mateo County coast, from Pacifica to Pescadero, and most of the unincorporated areas in the county, such as West Menlo Park, Ladera, Stanford Weekend Acres, the Sequoia Tract, Palomar Park, La Honda, Kings Mountain, and San Mateo Highlands, to name a few, have much more commonalities than differences, not the least of which is our desire to live in more rural areas and have a direct-representative government with County government.

The most significant issue that the unincorporated communities have in common is that the Board of Supervisors is, in fact, the direct representatives to residents living in unincorporated San Mateo County. The Board of Supervisors is the main governing body that decides building codes, zoning rules, and creates mandates which apply only to unincorporated residents, and much more. They are also the governing body which unincorporated residents rely on to address issues that arise in these communities. Dividing the unincorporated areas of the County and combining us with several larger cities would result in less representation for unincorporated residents.

A prime example of the vulnerability faced by the unincorporated area, which covers almost 75% of the land mass of San Mateo County, is the makeup of the commission itself. It’s important to note that only 1 of the 15 appointed commissioners, or 6%, comes from unincorporated San Mateo County. Eight of the 15 commissioners, more than 50%, come from the four largest cities in San Mateo County. The selection process for commissioners has already put the largest contiguous area, the unincorporated area in San Mateo County, at a clear disadvantage for representation by the commission and, potentially, by the Board of Supervisors. Because of the uniqueness of our unincorporated communities, we do not want to be divided nor have a diluted voice in our direct-representative government. I am proposing that the unincorporated areas in District 3 remain whole and, if needed, add other unincorporated areas to our district to meet the district population goals.

Sincerely,
Natalie Baldaccini, Half Moon Bay

Dear San Mateo County Redistricting Commission:

Thank you for being part of the redistricting commission and doing an important job of ensuring that all San Mateo County residents are represented. As you know, every 10 years, after the census, political lines get redrawn to better represent changes in the population. This year is no exception, and I want to voice my concern that the Commission has been considering ways to break up both the Coastside and the contiguous unincorporated areas of San Mateo County.

Ideas include annexing towns like El Granada or Moss Beach into Half Moon Bay or drawing East-West district lines that will divide the Coast and unincorporated areas into unrelated districts. These early plans tend to dilute the representation of the unincorporated areas by joining us up with inland communities. The fact is the San Mateo County coast, from Pacifica to Pescadero, and most of the unincorporated areas in the county, such as West Menlo Park, Ladera, Stanford Weekend Acres, the Sequoia Tract, Palomar Park, La Honda, Kings Mountain, and San Mateo Highlands, to name a few, have much more commonalities than differences, not the least of which is our desire to live in more rural areas and have a direct-representative government with County government.

The most significant issue that the unincorporated communities have in common is that the Board of Supervisors is, in fact, the direct representatives to residents living in unincorporated San Mateo County. The Board of Supervisors is the main governing body that decides building codes, zoning rules, and creates mandates which apply only to unincorporated residents, and much more. They are also the governing body which unincorporated residents rely on to address issues that arise in these communities. Dividing the unincorporated areas of the County and combining us with several larger cities would result in less representation for unincorporated residents.

A prime example of the vulnerability faced by the unincorporated area, which covers almost 75% of the land mass of San Mateo County, is the makeup of the commission itself. It’s important to note that only 1 of the 15 appointed commissioners, or 6%, comes from unincorporated San Mateo County. Eight of the 15 commissioners, more than 50%, come from the four largest cities in San Mateo County. The selection process for commissioners has already put the largest contiguous area, the unincorporated area in San Mateo County, at a clear disadvantage for representation by the commission and, potentially, by the Board of Supervisors. Because of the uniqueness of our unincorporated communities, we do not want to be divided nor have a diluted voice in our direct-representative government. I am proposing that the unincorporated areas in District 3 remain whole and, if needed, add other unincorporated areas to our district to meet the district population goals.

Erica Pacheco- San Mateo unincorporated area resident

Dear San Mateo County Redistricting Commission:

Thank you for being part of the redistricting commission and doing an important job of ensuring that all San Mateo County residents are represented. As you know, every 10 years, after the census, political lines get redrawn to better represent changes in the population. This year is no exception, and I want to voice my concern that the Commission has been considering ways to break up both the Coastside and the contiguous unincorporated areas of San Mateo County.

Ideas include annexing towns like El Granada or Moss Beach into Half Moon Bay or drawing East-West district lines that will divide the Coast and unincorporated areas into unrelated districts. These early plans tend to dilute the representation of the unincorporated areas by joining us up with inland communities. The fact is the San Mateo County coast, from Pacifica to Pescadero, and most of the unincorporated areas in the county, such as West Menlo Park, Ladera, Stanford Weekend Acres, the Sequoia Tract, Palomar Park, La Honda, Kings Mountain, and San Mateo Highlands, to name a few, have much more commonalities than differences, not the least of which is our desire to live in more rural areas and have a direct-representative government with County government.

The most significant issue that the unincorporated communities have in common is that the Board of Supervisors is, in fact, the direct representatives to residents living in unincorporated San Mateo County. The Board of Supervisors is the main governing body that decides building codes, zoning rules, and creates mandates which apply only to unincorporated residents, and much more. They are also the governing body which unincorporated residents rely on to address issues that arise in these communities. Dividing the unincorporated areas of the County and combining us with several larger cities would result in less representation for unincorporated residents.

A prime example of the vulnerability faced by the unincorporated area, which covers almost 75% of the land mass of San Mateo County, is the makeup of the commission itself. It’s important to note that only 1 of the 15 appointed commissioners, or 6%, comes from unincorporated San Mateo County. Eight of the 15 commissioners, more than 50%, come from the four largest cities in San Mateo County. The selection process for commissioners has already put the largest contiguous area, the unincorporated area in San Mateo County, at a clear disadvantage for representation by the commission and, potentially, by the Board of Supervisors. Because of the uniqueness of our unincorporated communities, we do not want to be divided nor have a diluted voice in our direct-representative government. I am proposing that the unincorporated areas in District 3 remain whole and, if needed, add other unincorporated areas to our district to meet the district population goals.

Dustin Cline – San Mateo unincorporated area resident

Dear San Mateo County Redistricting Commission:

Thank you for being part of the redistricting commission and doing an important job of ensuring that all San Mateo County residents are represented. As you know, every 10 years, after the census, political lines get redrawn to better represent changes in the population. This year is no exception, and I want to voice my concern that the Commission has been considering ways to break up both the Coastside and the contiguous unincorporated areas of San Mateo County.

Ideas include annexing towns like El Granada or Moss Beach into Half Moon Bay or drawing East-West district lines that will divide the Coast and unincorporated areas into unrelated districts. These early plans tend to dilute the representation of the unincorporated areas by joining us up with inland communities. The fact is the San Mateo County coast, from Pacifica to Pescadero, and most of the unincorporated areas in the county, such as West Menlo Park, Ladera, Stanford Weekend Acres, the Sequoia Tract, Palomar Park, La Honda, Kings Mountain, and San Mateo Highlands, to name a few, have much more commonalities than differences, not the least of which is our desire to live in more rural areas and have a direct-representative government with County government.

The most significant issue that the unincorporated communities have in common is that the Board of Supervisors is, in fact, the direct representatives to residents living in unincorporated San Mateo County. The Board of Supervisors is the main governing body that decides building codes, zoning rules, and creates mandates which apply only to unincorporated residents, and much more. They are also the governing body which unincorporated residents rely on to address issues that arise in these communities. Dividing the unincorporated areas of the County and combining us with several larger cities would result in less representation for unincorporated residents.

A prime example of the vulnerability faced by the unincorporated area, which covers almost 75% of the land mass of San Mateo County, is the makeup of the commission itself. It’s important to note that only 1 of the 15 appointed commissioners, or 6%, comes from unincorporated San Mateo County. Eight of the 15 commissioners, more than 50%, come from the four largest cities in San Mateo County. The selection process for commissioners has already put the largest contiguous area, the unincorporated area in San Mateo County, at a clear disadvantage for representation by the commission and, potentially, by the Board of Supervisors. Because of the uniqueness of our unincorporated communities, we do not want to be divided nor have a diluted voice in our direct-representative government. I am proposing that the unincorporated areas in District 3 remain whole and, if needed, add other unincorporated areas to our district to meet the district population goals.

Regards,

Aneese Bishara –
San Mateo unincorporated home owner, resident, and business owner

Dear San Mateo County Redistricting Commission:

Thank you for being part of the redistricting commission and doing an important job of ensuring that all San Mateo County residents are represented. As you know, every 10 years, after the census, political lines get redrawn to better represent changes in the population. This year is no exception, and I want to voice my concern that the Commission has been considering ways to break up both the Coastside and the contiguous unincorporated areas of San Mateo County.

Ideas include annexing towns like El Granada or Moss Beach into Half Moon Bay or drawing East-West district lines that will divide the Coast and unincorporated areas into unrelated districts. These early plans tend to dilute the representation of the unincorporated areas by joining us up with inland communities. The fact is the San Mateo County coast, from Pacifica to Pescadero, and most of the unincorporated areas in the county, such as West Menlo Park, Ladera, Stanford Weekend Acres, the Sequoia Tract, Palomar Park, La Honda, Kings Mountain, and San Mateo Highlands, to name a few, have much more commonalities than differences, not the least of which is our desire to live in more rural areas and have a direct-representative government with County government.

The most significant issue that the unincorporated communities have in common is that the Board of Supervisors is, in fact, the direct representatives to residents living in unincorporated San Mateo County. The Board of Supervisors is the main governing body that decides building codes, zoning rules, and creates mandates which apply only to unincorporated residents, and much more. They are also the governing body which unincorporated residents rely on to address issues that arise in these communities. Dividing the unincorporated areas of the County and combining us with several larger cities would result in less representation for unincorporated residents.

A prime example of the vulnerability faced by the unincorporated area, which covers almost 75% of the land mass of San Mateo County, is the makeup of the commission itself. It’s important to note that only 1 of the 15 appointed commissioners, or 6%, comes from unincorporated San Mateo County. Eight of the 15 commissioners, more than 50%, come from the four largest cities in San Mateo County. The selection process for commissioners has already put the largest contiguous area, the unincorporated area in San Mateo County, at a clear disadvantage for representation by the commission and, potentially, by the Board of Supervisors. Because of the uniqueness of our unincorporated communities, we do not want to be divided nor have a diluted voice in our direct-representative government. I am proposing that the unincorporated areas in District 3 remain whole and, if needed, add other unincorporated areas to our district to meet the district population goals.

Sincerely,

Mishelle Westendorf,
President, Realtor- California Relocation Network

Dear San Mateo County Redistricting Commission:

Thank you for being part of the redistricting commission and doing an important job of ensuring that all San Mateo County residents are represented. As you know, every 10 years, after the census, political lines get redrawn to better represent changes in the population. This year is no exception, and I want to voice my concern that the Commission has been considering ways to break up both the Coastside and the contiguous unincorporated areas of San Mateo County.

Ideas include annexing towns like El Granada or Moss Beach into Half Moon Bay or drawing East-West district lines that will divide the Coast and unincorporated areas into unrelated districts. These early plans tend to dilute the representation of the unincorporated areas by joining us up with inland communities. The fact is the San Mateo County coast, from Pacifica to Pescadero, and most of the unincorporated areas in the county, such as West Menlo Park, Ladera, Stanford Weekend Acres, the Sequoia Tract, Palomar Park, La Honda, Kings Mountain, and San Mateo Highlands, to name a few, have much more commonalities than differences, not the least of which is our desire to live in more rural areas and have a direct-representative government with County government.

The most significant issue that the unincorporated communities have in common is that the Board of Supervisors is, in fact, the direct representatives to residents living in unincorporated San Mateo County. The Board of Supervisors is the main governing body that decides building codes, zoning rules, and creates mandates which apply only to unincorporated residents, and much more. They are also the governing body which unincorporated residents rely on to address issues that arise in these communities. Dividing the unincorporated areas of the County and combining us with several larger cities would result in less representation for unincorporated residents.

A prime example of the vulnerability faced by the unincorporated area, which covers almost 75% of the land mass of San Mateo County, is the makeup of the commission itself. It’s important to note that only 1 of the 15 appointed commissioners, or 6%, comes from unincorporated San Mateo County. Eight of the 15 commissioners, more than 50%, come from the four largest cities in San Mateo County. The selection process for commissioners has already put the largest contiguous area, the unincorporated area in San Mateo County, at a clear disadvantage for representation by the commission and, potentially, by the Board of Supervisors. Because of the uniqueness of our unincorporated communities, we do not want to be divided nor have a diluted voice in our direct-representative government. I am proposing that the unincorporated areas in District 3 remain whole and, if needed,add other unincorporated areas to our district to meet the district population goals.

Regards,

Edward Wilkinson – San Mateo County unincorporated area resident and business owner.

Dear San Mateo County Redistricting Commission:
Thank you for being part of the redistricting commission and working to ensure that all San Mateo County residents are represented in County government.

As a resident of the unincorporated Miramar area of the Coastside I am deeply concerned to learn that the Commission is considering ways to break up both the Coastside and the contiguous unincorporated areas of San Mateo County, which will significantly dilute our voice in our representative government! I am writing to request that that the unincorporated areas in District 3 remain whole and, if needed, that other unincorporated areas be added to our district to meet the district population goals.

It’s my understanding that you are considering ideas such as Half Moon Bay annexing unincorporated areas like El Granada or Moss Beach or drawing East-West district lines that will divide the Coast and unincorporated areas into unrelated districts. These early plans will dilute the representation of the unincorporated areas by joining us up with inland communities and will deprive us of our direct representative within the County government.

Our San Mateo County coast, from Pacifica to Pescadero, and most of the unincorporated areas in the county, such as West Menlo Park, Ladera, Stanford Weekend Acres, the Sequoia Tract, Palomar Park, La Honda, Kings Mountain, and San Mateo Highlands, share many more commonalities than differences, not the least of which is our desire to live in more rural areas and have a direct-representative in County government.

Most significantly, these unincorporated communities are directly represented by a member of the Board of Supervisors. The Board of Supervisors is the body that decides our building codes, zoning rules, and creates mandates which apply only to unincorporated residents, and much more. It is also the governing body which we rely on to address issues that are unique to our communities.

Dividing the unincorporated areas of the County and combining us with several larger cities that we have few issues in common with would significantly dilute our voice in the County government.

A prime example of the vulnerability faced by the unincorporated area, which covers almost 75% of the land mass of San Mateo County, is the makeup of the commission itself. Only 1 of the 15 appointed commissioners, or 6%, comes from unincorporated San Mateo County!! Eight of the 15 commissioners, more than 50%, come from the four largest cities in San Mateo County.

The selection process for commissioners has already put the largest contiguous area, the unincorporated area in San Mateo County, at a clear disadvantage for representation both on the commission and, potentially, by the Board of Supervisors.

Because of the uniqueness of our unincorporated communities, we do not want to be divided nor have a diluted voice in our direct-representative government. I am urgently requesting that the unincorporated areas in District 3 remain whole and, if needed, other unincorporated areas be added to our district to meet the district population goals.

The right to have a voice in our government is fundamental to a democratic society. To redraw districts in such a way as to severely dilute the voice of our and other unincorporated areas would be a gross injustice.

I trust that you will reconsider any decision to split up our Coastside and combine us with larger cities or communities with whom we have very little in common.

Thank you.

Very truly yours,

Anne C. Martin
Resident, Miramar area of Unincorporated Coastside

Dear Redistricting Commissioners:

Please keep all unincorporated areas in a single Supervisorial District.
The Coastside unincorporated areas and the city of Half Moon Bay should be in the same district due to the commonality of the issues they face.
The Coastside is a very special part of the county – please do not split up the Coastside unincorporated neighborhoods..
I request that you vote to keep the unincorporated areas in a single district.

Sincerely,
Frank Gerrity
Half Moon Bay

Dear Redistricting Commissioners:

I support keeping all unincorporated areas in a single Supervisorial District.
The Coastside unincorporated areas and the city of Half Moon Bay should be in the same district due to the commonality of the issues they face.
The Coastside is unique and is a valuable asset in the county.
Splitting these areas among the supervisorial districts would limit the voice of this important political constituency.
I request that you vote to keep these areas in a single district.

Sincerely,
Doreen Gerrity
Half Moon Bay

Dear Redistricting Commissioners:

I support keeping all unincorporated areas in a single Supervisorial District.
The unincorporated areas are an unique and valuable asset in our county.
Splitting these areas among the supervisorial districts would limit the voice of this important political constituency.
I request that you vote to keep these areas in a single district.

Sincerely,
Diana Purucker
Montara, CA

Dear Redistricting Commissioners:

I think all unincorporated areas west of Interstate 280 and in the southwest of the County should be in a single Supervisor’s District. The unincorporated areas are a unique and valuable asset for San Mateo County and should be represented by a single Supervisor who will need to be mindful of those constituents. Concerns on the Coast and the parklands areas are not the same as on the Bayside.
Splitting these areas among supervisorial districts would limit the voice of these constituents and allow the relatively few votes in these areas to be basically ignored, as they were for so many years prior to district elections.
I request that you vote to keep these areas in a single district.

Sincerely,

Matthew R. Clark
El Granada, CA

Dear Redistricting Commissioners:

I support keeping all unincorporated areas in a single Supervisorial District.
The unincorporated areas are an unique and valuable asset in our county.
Splitting these areas among the supervisorial districts would limit the voice of this important political constituency.
I request that you vote to keep these areas in a single district.

Sincerely,

Ric Lohman
Montara, CA

Dear Redistricting Commissioners:

I support keeping all unincorporated areas in a single Supervisorial District.
The unincorporated areas are truly unique and valuable assets in our county. Splitting these areas among the supervisorial districts would limit the voice of this important political constituency.
I request that you vote to keep these areas in a single district.

Sincerely,
Deborah & Jeffrey Pierce

Dear Friends:

Every 10 years, after the census, political lines get redrawn to better represent changes in the population. This year is no exception, but the San Mateo County Redistricting Commission, whose members are appointed by the Board of Supervisors, has been considering ways to break up the unincorporated areas of San Mateo County.

Ideas include annexing towns like El Granada or Moss Beach into Half Moon Bay or drawing East-West district lines that will divide the Coast and unincorporated areas into unrelated districts. These early plans tend to dilute the representation of the unincorporated areas by joining us up with inland communities. The fact is the San Mateo County coast, from Pacifica to Pescadero, and most of the unincorporated areas in the county, such as West Menlo Park, Ladera, Stanford Weekend Acres, the Sequoia Tract, Palomar Park, have much more commonalities than differences. Likewise, issues like farming, fishing and highway traffic are much more of a concern on the Coastside than in Redwood City, or Burlingame, for instance.

The most significant issue that the unincorporated communities have in common is that the Board of Supervisors is, in fact, the direct representatives to residents living in unincorporated San Mateo County. The Board of Supervisors is the main governing body that decides building codes, zoning rules, and creates mandates which apply only to unincorporated residents, and much more. They are also the governing body which unincorporated residents rely on to address issues which arise in these communities. A good example of a concern which this governing body should address is the problem with all the power outages, which the south coast is experiencing. Dividing up the unincorporated areas into several districts means your vote in supervisorial races will be diluted.

The Commissioners who have been appointed by the Supervisors to determine the new district lines are holding their meeting on this topic Thursday, October 7 at 6:30. It’s a Zoom meeting which you can attend, and they’ll be accepting letters and comments from constituents. It’s important to note that only 1 of the 15 appointed commissioners comes from unincorporated San Mateo County– about 6%. Eight of the 15 commissioners come from the four largest cities in San Mateo County– more than 50%.

Protect your right to vote for direct local representation in county government. Be sure that concerns in our unincorporated neighborhoods don’t get diluted by redistricting. Attend the Zoom meeting and send along this letter to let the Supervisors know you want to maintain the uniqueness of our community and stand united to prevent being divided and having a diluted voice in our government. Your voice matters!

Very truly yours,
Virginia

Please add this letter to the meeting proceedings

Gerrymandering the Coastside

Every 10 years, after the census, political lines get redrawn to better represent changes in the population. This year is no exception, but the San Mateo County Commissioners have been considering ways to break up the unincorporated parts of Coastside SM County.

Ideas include annexing towns like El Granada or Moss Beach into Half Moon Bay, or drawing East/West lines that will divide the Coast into unrelated districts. These early plans tend to dilute our representation by joining us up with inland communities.

The fact is, the unincorporated San Mateo County coast, from Pacifica to Pescadero have much more commonalities than differences. Environmental concerns, like sea water rise, have more impact here than they do in the Bayside cities. Likewise, issues like farming, fishing and highway traffic are much more of a concern on the Coastside than in Redwood City, or Burlingame for instance.

The Commissioners are holding their initial meeting on this topic Thursday, October 7 at 6:30. It’s a Zoom meeting which you can attend and they’ll be taking letters of support from constituents.

Protect your right to vote for local representation. Be sure that Coastside concerns don’t get diluted by redistricting. Attend the Zoom meeting and send along this letter to let the Supervisors know you want to maintain the uniqueness of our community and stand united to prevent incorporation into other entities.

Very truly yours,

Steven Slomka

The unincorporated areas of San Mateo County comprise the biggest geographical area of the county yet we are virtually unrepresented in the redistricting committee.  I do not like what is proposed and do not think that that which is currently proposed is equitable.

Community of Interest Survey:  resident of San Mateo County

Community of Interest Survey: Pacifica

Dear Commission Thanks for your time to review our district lines. For us at the Coastide, it has been significant to have our lines drawn as they are to be included and supported by a greater San Mateo County effort. I strongly urge you to keep our lines as they have been as it has been to our benefit to be included in decisions and with Supervisors that are engaged in our county from not just a limited perspective but integrated the coastside into one of the most wealthiest and active areas of the county. I have heard from many Latino constituents that we are happy with our district and a change could further disrupt the all the work we have built to establish relationships, education. and reduce isolation of the Coastside- rather we are in community throughout our current district lines and this matters. Best, Dr. Belinda Hernandez Arriaga

Community of Interest Survey: Shelter Creek Condominium Complex

Community of Interest Survey: San Mateo

Community of Interest Survey: NFO

Community of Interest Survey: D. Torres

Community of Interest Survey: Burlingame

Community of Interest Survey: Hillsdale

I live in a neighborhood that has lots of trees and heavy shrubs No commercial It is very hilly I live in a neighborhood that has lots of trees and heavy shrubs No commercial It is very hilly

But seriously, why are we doing this again? It seems the last time this happened was around the time FB came in. At the time, it didn’t feel like a resident-friendly action – more like power jockeying. I don’t have a lot of confidence in it. What necessitates it this time and who stands to benefit? I would be delighted to be wrong about my apprehension.. Thank you.

My name is Leslie Fong and I have lived in SSF for about 14 years. I love this city because of the community, diversity, libraries, city staff and all the people commitment to make our SSF better, progressive and forward thinking.

The staff at the SSF Library are awesome, dedicated, committed, creative, community focus that all the events they offer are well attended and the resident attend it for personal enrichment, be educated on financial planning, crafts, sewing classes, computer classes, kid friendly events, book sales, trivia challenge and other numerous events to name it all.

I really enjoy attending all that SSF Library has to offer and I can learn different points of view, share mutual interest with other residents, help kids with craft making and learn new skills to engage your mind.

I wouldn’t want to live anywhere else, it has enriched my life and I look forward to other events, clases, etc.

Thank you. Leslie Fong

You are racist communists, aren’t you?

Please keep the Belle Haven Community (Census district 6117) together in the same district. It’s bounded by 101, Willow Road and Bayfront Expressway. It’s more like North Fair Oaks and East Palo Alto in racial, ethnic and socioeconomic makeup than the rest of Menlo Park.

Hello, I really can’t speak to the other districts, but I do live in District 3. Reviewing the 2016 boundaries, District 3’s borders seem to be properly chosen, considering it’s relatively lower population and density compared to the “over the hill” districts. I do not have access to population updates from the 2020 census for San Mateo County. Maybe you could post some information on the population increases in the different districts and give us any inklings as to where the districts borders may be changed.

The City of East Palo Alto has changed in a positive way although we are still at risk of being redlined again. Our district consists of all races of people from other countries and we had no crime documented in 2017. Zero crime after a mass gentrification took place. The funding for the many nonprofits is at risk if the line between East Menlo Park is separated from East Palo Alto, or if Redwood City, Belle Haven, and our surrounding Cities are broken up. This will cause a ripple in our district. I have not been able to capture the funding that I deserve for reasons unknown after 8 years of service to the community of East Palo Alto, The funding I do get from CZI is bundled with the surrounding Cities I mentioned and if they are no longer in my district, I don’t know if RTV will lose that funding resource. Please keep our surrounding cities together. Thank you

In the redistricting process, I urge you to maintain the integrity of the underserved communities in the county so that they can remain whole with a sense of community and a unified voice in the county and beyond. I work with the Umoja Health South San Mateo County group (https://www.bachac.org/umoja-health-san-mateo), which has been instrumental in increasing vaccine rates in East Palo Alto, North Fair Oaks, and Belle Haven over the past six months. I have also been involved with residents from these communities as friends and with other projects for years. The people in these communities deserve a greater voice and more representation, not less. I encourage you to make promoting their representation a high priority in the redistricting effort. Thank you, Barbara Weinstein

I’d love to provide public comment at tonight’s meeting.

To whom it may concern, Below are two draft redistricting maps that I would like to submit:

https://districtr.org/plan/51492

https://districtr.org/plan/51501

Thank you, Rob Bartoli

Hi, this is Hector Camacho, thank you so much for the presentation and the mapping tools they’re really helpful when using/ looking at these lines. Not so much questions because I realized this is a public hearing, but what would be helpful when helping members of the community draw the lines is if there were a tool to draw in current city boundaries and school district boundaries? I know there’s an option to put in the current district boundaries which is helpful, but I think for residents to be able to see kind of where exactly those lines fall we have a sense of where our cities end, but I think it’s helpful in the visiual if that’s a possibility. There was also in the presentation a comment about that third set of criteria, one of which was trying to maintain supervisory districts or not maintain, but at least try, you know, keep the core of those areas as much as possible. I was curious about that criteria because I think to council member Buenaventura’s comment, you know when last minutes are made that kind of throws a curveball in the whole process and so if the five districts were drawn in a way that was not really conducive to what the goals of the communities were then why does that third goal exist? I’m also looking specifically at a city like South San Francisco that represents or is the fourth largest city in this county and is split into two districts which some woukd say is a benefit for the city, but I would disagree when you’re lumped with a city of 100,000 people there’s very little impact that community can have and when a third of a city’s population is pulled into a behemoth of a district that just completely changes voting dynamics and dilutes the voting power of a community like South San Francisco. Then, in the other district the other two thirds of the city, the economic dynamics, make it that a lot of the wealth and power is concentrated in the southern part of that district, District 1, and so I think those factors have to be taken into consideration when you’re splitting up a city as large as South San Francisco. Again, it’s the fourth largest city in this county and its voting power has been diluted, so thank you so much for your service to all the members of the commission. Thank you.

Thank you, Sukhi. I want to thank the presenter I think that was a very informative presentation to the committee. I have three questions or comments however you want to take them if you could think about answering them. The first is on the data that was received from the Census is there a way to disaggregate that data and specifically what I’m referring to is the Asian population, and if there is a way to dissect or disaggregate the data to identify the specific Asian groups from Filipino, Korean, Veitnamese, and groups like that? The second question is when it comes to identifying or defining a community of interest; is an ethnic minor- now, I’m mindful of the laws (the federal and state laws) about not favouring a particular group, but is a community of interest that could be defined as a minority ethnic community in and of itself? The third question I have is I believe and I’m not going to swear to it, but at the last supervisorial discussion of district lines before the supervisors were presented with several options that the committee agreed to- but what I do recall is that the supervisors during the final meeting modified or adjusted those options on the spot and that was voted in. In other words, the plans that were submitted weren’t accepted as submitted, but they were modified without going back to the committee again for consideration and discussion so that there’s more input into what the supervisor is ultimately modified. So my question is there a way to protect and ensure that the committee, if there are modifications made at the last minute, still has the opportunity to weigh in and give feedback on those last minute modifications or is it pretty much at the Board of Supervisor’s discretion and it can be adopted without further review by the committee? Thank you.

Thank you, Sukhi, and good evening to the members of this body. I want to first thank you all for engaging in this kind of work. I know this is going to be quite tedious, sometimes controversial, but I expect and hope that we all come to a result that is acceptable for the community and especially for Daly City. I want to emphasize our concern of making sure that Daly City is intact and that there are no efforts to dillute the population, the vote, or the borders that constitute this district, so I just wanted to express our concern for the Daly City community for district 5- to make sure that we are represented and that there are no efforts that will result in the dilution of our efforts, our communities, our voting power. Thank you very much.

This is Thomas Weismiller, the City of San Mateo. My recommendations on the redistricting is to not split any cities or towns in San Mateo County. Currently, we have five cities that have two supervisoral districts: San Bruno and South San Francisco are districts 1 and 5, Belmont is districts 2 and 3, Redwood City and Menlo Park are different 3 and 4. I think it’d be better if we kept each city within one supervisoral district to the national extent possible, thank you.

Good afternoon, I believe that the redistricting process of District 4 should help a community secure meaningful representation at the table. It is important to have community members who are elected for us live, work, and be from the community. It is important to have people who share common social, cultural, racial, economic, geographic concerns. A good redistricting process will be open and transparent in all ways and will create videos, jpegs, and info graphs of the process. It’s important to also host forums and record them for members that cannot attend. It’s also important to allow community members to ask questions and continue to give input all throughout the process. This participation is vital being that re-districting only happens every 10 years. The redistricting of District 4 will be very important for the next coming years being that District 4 is a culturally diverse district that is the youngest in the area. Thank you for receiving my public comment.

RECOMMENDTIONS FOR REDISTRICTING IN SAN MATEO COUNTY:
1. That each city and town be entirely within one Congressional, State Senate, State Assembly and Supervisorial District to the maximum extent possible.
2. That if necessary to divide a city into two supervisorial districts, that boundaries follow city district boundaries.
3. That unincorporated San Mateo County be in one Supervisorial District except Broadmoor.
4. That Broadmoor, a tiny enclave surrounded by Daly City be part of the same Supervisorial District as Daly City.

I call the homes on Johnston, Arroyo Leon etc and Purrissima The Village Proper.

It doesn’t matter when three quarters of you are screaming liberals

It’s almost impossible to use those mapping tools in your Nextdoor post. The first one: the big white block won’t get out of the way of the map no matter what you do. The second one you have to create a new account before it will even let you see the map. Go back to the developer and get your money, I mean taxpayers money, back.

Whoever left the flyer about the zoom hearing dated 8/25 taped it to my house and it took off the paint. PLEASE do not tape things to homes/properties. Now I have repair that I did not have before.. Rude and inconsiderate.

Thank you so much, appreciate the opportunity. In drawing districts, it was advised that the Commissioners, community, and I mean… (technical problems with mic). Given the fact that the commissioners are being asked to consider communities of interest. It seems that District 4 seems to be the smallest from what I can see; and the objective is to have the Districts, for the most part, of equal size, so District 4 would have to draw upon another district. That district it might draw upon, the area it might draw upon, might not have the same common interest. For example, going into Atherton, so what would be advised in a situation like that to try to get a district of equal size where the option would have to be to go into another community that might not have the same interests?