Public input in the redistricting process is welcome and necessary. We encourage all San Mateo County residents to participate by emailing or mailing us their feedback, submitting information about their Communities of Interest (COI), using our redistricting tool to draw and submit maps, and attending meetings and hearings. Please let your neighbors know that this process is underway. We appreciate your input and look forward to collaborating with you throughout the transparent process we have designed.

You can submit a public comment online, complete the Community of Interest survey, email comments to districtlines@smcgov.org, or contact the County Manager’s Office by phone at (650) 363-4123.

Public Comments Received
Anonymous, received 10/20 via Online Survey

Community of Interest Survey: Berkshire to Northumberland

Leo Delucchi, received 10/19 via Email

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

Joan Dower-Wilson, received 10/19 via Email

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

Thank you
Joan Dower-Wilson
Pacifica, CA. 94044

Ellen Natesan, received 10/19 via Email

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

Sue Digre, received 10/19 via via Email

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

Christine Boles, received 10/19 via Online Survey

Community of Interest Survey

Daniel Martinez, received 10/17 via Online Survey

Community of Interest Survey: Residential Wildlife District

Sabrina Brennan, Surf Equity, received 10/16 via Email

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

April Vargas, received 10/16 via Public Comment Online Submission

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

Sabrina Brennan, received 10/16 via Public Comment Online Submission

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

Allyson Gunsallus, received 10/15 via Public Comment Online Submission

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

Avery Lyford, received 10/14 via Email

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

Michelle Weil, received 10/14 via Email

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

Sue Digre, received 10/14 via Email

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)

Gina Latimerlo, received 10/14 via Email

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

Jessica Epstein, received 10/14 via Email

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

Thomas Weissmiller, received 10/13 via Email

Email comment linked here.

Christopher Bowman, received 10/13 via Email

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

Jen Hansen, received 10/13 via Online Survey

Community of Interest Survey: Linda Mar/BOC, Pacifica

Erin Macias, received 10/13 via Online Survey

Community of Interest Survey: Residential Wildlife District

Lorena Moreno, received 10/12 via in person

Community of Interest Survey: Marsh Manor-Redwood City

David Lopez, received 10/12 via in person

Community of Interest Survey: District 4 Buchanan Ct

Anonymous, received 10/12 via in person

Community of Interest Survey: Pacifica (San Mateo County)

Anonymous, received 10/12 via in person

Community of Interest Survey: Palm

Anonymous, received 10/12 via in person

Community of Interest Survey: Stambaugh-Heller

Janet Davis, received 10/12 via Email

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.

Gregg Dieguez, received 10/12 via Email

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

Cindy Abbott, received 10/11 via Public Comment Online Submission

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.

Grant Kern, received 10/11 via Public Comment Online Submission

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.

Leni Liakos, received 10/10 via in person

Community of Interest Survey: Montara

T. Weissmiller, received 10/10 via Email

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

Cindy Crowe-Urgo, received 10/9 via Public Comment Online Submission

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

Anonymous, received 10/9 via in person

Community of Interest Survey:  San Carlos (White Oaks)

Don Simmons, received 10/9 via Public Comment Online Submission

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.

Ann Mangold, received 10/9 via Email

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

Ulla Foehr, received 10/8/21 via Public Comment Online Submission

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

Jeffrey Selman, received 10/8/21 via Public Comment Online Submission

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.

Dana Gerstbacher, received 10/8/21 via Public Comment Online Submission

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

Tommy Liu, received 10/8/21 via Public Comment Online Submission

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.

David You, received 10/8/21 via Public Comment Online Submission

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

Colleen A. R. You, received 10/8/21 via Public Comment Online Submission

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!

Karen Coppock, received 10/8/21 via Public Comment Online Submission

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

Barry Rowland, received 10/8/21 via Public Comment Online Submission

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.

Sven Edlund, received 10/8/21 via Public Comment Online Submission

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

Dave Olson, received 10/8 via Online Survey

Community of Interest Survey: San Mateo Coastside

Doug Ricket, received 10/8/21 via Public Comment Online Submission

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.

Carilee Chen, received 10/8/21 via Public Comment Online Submission

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

Jennifer Hennings, received 10/8/21 via Public Comment Online Submission

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.

Arla LeCount, received 10/8 via Email

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

Rick Moen, received 10/8 via Email

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

Clemens Heldmaier, received 10/8 via Email

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

Magdalene Mui, received 10/7 via Public Comment

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.

Charles Catania, received 10/7 via Public Comment

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.

Mayor Juslyn Manalo, received 10/7 via Public Comment

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.

Cindy Corregos, received 10/7 via Public Comment

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.

April Vargas, received 10/7 via Public Comment

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.

Eric Black, received 10/7 via Public Comment

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.

Ray Buenaventura, received 10/7 via Public Comment

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.

Health McAvoy, received 10/7 via Public Comment

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.

Patricia Mile, received 10/7 via Public Comment

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.

Allison Gonzalez, received 10/7 via Public Comment

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.

Josh Powell, received 10/7 via Public Comment

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.

Patricia Mile, received 10/7 via Public Comment

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.

Kenneth Gerstle, received 10/7 via Public Comment Online Submission

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.”

Jo Ann Arneson, received 10/7 via Public Comment Online Submission

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

Nicola Weiskopf, received 10/7 via Public Comment Online Submission

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.

James Howard, received 10/7 via Public Comment Online Submission

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.

Eric Monsler, received 10/7 via Public Comment Online Submission

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.

Brian Bishop, received 10/7 via Public Comment Online Submission

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.

Tim Hoffman, received 10/7 via Public Comment Online Submission

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

Huan Phan, received 10/7 via Public Comment Online Submission

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

Kelly Huffman, received 10/7 via Public Comment Online Submission

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

Robby Taddei, received 10/7 via Email

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

Bruce R. Seaman, received 10/7 via Email

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

Tim Hoffman, received 10/7 via Email

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

Emma Ball, received 10/7 via Email

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

Anne Keller, received 10/7 via Email

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

San Mateo County resident, received 10/7 via Email

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

Annette Saunders, received 10/7 via Email

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

Elizabeth Benney, received 10/7 via Email

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

Wendy Jensen, received 10/7 via Email

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

River Liana, received 10/7 via Email

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

Adam Jensen, received 10/7 via Email

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

Craig Carroll, received 10/7 via Email

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

Esteban Torres-Flores, received 10/7, via Email

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

Olivia Noble, received 10/7 via Email

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.

James Boon, received 10/7 via Email

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

Natalie Baldaccini, received 10/7 via Email

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

Erica Pacheco, received 10/7 via Email

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

Dustin Cline, received 10/7 via Email

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

Aneese Bishara, received 10/7 via Email

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

Mishelle Westendorf, received 10/7 via Email

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

Edward Wilkinson, received 10/7 via Email

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.

Anne Martin, received 10/7 via Email

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

Frank Gerrity, received 10/7 via Email

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

Doreen Gerrity, received 10/7 via Email

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

Diana Purucker, received 10/7 via Email

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

Matthew R. Clark, received 10/7 via Email

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

Ric Lohman, received 10/7 via Email

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

Deborah & Jeffrey Pierce, received 10/7 via Email

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

Fred Rosenberg, received 10/7 via Email

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

Steven Slomka, received 10/7 via Email

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

Janet Davis, received 10/7 via Email

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.

William Kelly, received 10/7 via Online Survey

Community of Interest Survey:  resident of San Mateo County

Betty Hall, received 10/6 via in person

Community of Interest Survey: Pacifica

Dr. Belinda Hernandez Arriaga, received 10/4/21 via Email

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

Valentine Morgan, received 10/4/21 via Online Survey

Community of Interest Survey: Shelter Creek Condominium Complex

G.V., received 10/2/21 via in person

Community of Interest Survey: San Mateo

Maria Elena Torres, received 10/2/21 via in person

Community of Interest Survey: NFO

D. Torres, received 10/2/21 via in person

Community of Interest Survey: D. Torres

Carlos Jose Manrique, received 10/2/21 via in person

Community of Interest Survey: Burlingame

Barbara Kilpatrick, received 10/2/21 via in person

Community of Interest Survey: Hillsdale

Edna Steele, received 9/27/21 via Public Comment Online Submission

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

Wendy S., received 9/25/21 via Public Comment Online Submission

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.

Leslie Fong, received 9/25/21 via Email

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

Chris Yonts, received 9/23/21 via Email

You are racist communists, aren’t you?

Julie Shanson, received 9/21/21 via Public Comment Online Submission

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.

Daniel Magee, received 9/21/21 via Public Comment Online Submission

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.

Halley Crumb, received 9/21/21 via Public Comment Online Submission

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

Barbara Weinstein, received 9/21/21 via Public Comment Online Submission

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

Espinoza Salamanca, received 9/21/21 via Public Comment Online Submission

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

Rob Bartoli, received 9/21/21 via Email

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

Hector Camacho, received 9/20/21 via Public Meeting

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.

Ray Buenaventura, received 9/20/21 via Public Meeting

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.

Ray Buenaventura, received 9/20/21 via Public Meeting

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.

Thomas Weissmiller, received 9/20/21 via Public Meeting

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.

Rafael Avendano, received 9/20/21 via Email

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.

Thomas Weissmiller, received 9/20/21 via Email

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.

Irene M., received 9/19/21 via Social Media

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

Nancy Hurley, received 9/17/21 via Social Media

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

Bruce Lupiton, received 9/16/21 via Email

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.

Elaine Collins, received 8/28/21 via Public Comment Online Submission

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.

Henrietta Burroughs, received 8/25/21 via Public Meeting

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?