San Mateo County considers new district map

The county is mandated to update its current district maps now that updated population demographics have been produced following the U.S. 2020 Census. To help with drafting the map, the board created a District Lines Advisory Commission made up of 15 county residents who’ve completed numerous community outreach meetings since.

After gathering more than 300 community responses, including 69 community of interest surveys, more than 20 proposed maps and 150 written comments, the committee recommended the board consider two maps.

“I don’t think they expected to have the amount of work they had and the number of meetings they had and they really did a wonderful, wonderful job representing the county,” Groom said. “My hats off to the wonderful work that they did.”

The first map has been labeled the Unity Map since it was drafted by the Unity Map Coalition, with one amendment by the committee to keep Millbrae whole. Under the drafted map, the coastside would remain in one district as it is in the current map, stretching from Pacifica to Half Moon Bay and including rural unincorporated areas.

Unlike the current map, it pulls San Bruno into the coastal district as well. The map also shows only three districts splitting the Bayside, opting to have District 2 landlocked from part of Burlingame to part of Redwood City.

Many cities on the map are split between multiple districts including South San Francisco, Burlingame, San Mateo, San Carlos and Redwood City.

Alternatively, the second recommended map, drafted by committee member Rudy Espinoza Murray, keeps most cities whole. The map also differs by pulling Pacifica from the coastal district to the most northern one including Daly City, Brisbane and Colma.

The map also adds Menlo Park, East Palo Alto and North Fair Oaks into the coastal district rather than keeping the cities in the more urban District 4. Under the map, three majority-minority districts would be created with Latinos making up more than 50% of the voting population while the Unity Map would create one majority-minority district for Asian residents of voting age living in the north county.

More than 30 public speakers addressed supervisors during Tuesday’s meeting and appeared fairly split on which map to support. While some favored the Unity Map for keeping the coastside united, others praised the Espinoza Map for giving Latinos stronger voting power.

Supervisors largely agreed on the importance of keeping Pacifica as part of the coast and other communities grouped by issues but shied away from supporting the Unity Map given that they also saw value in keeping cities whole.

“I’m troubled actually by both maps to some extent. I can see the rationale for both,” Supervisor Don Horsley said, who represents the coast and a large portion of the county’s Latino residents.

Horsley shared discomfort with including East Palo Alto in a coastal district, noting it’s a more urban city. The coast is also grappling with a variety of environmental issues including sea level rise and wildfire risks that require being united, he said.

He also shot down a public request to establish seven districts in the county rather than five. Comparing the county to the city and county of San Francisco, which has 11 supervisors, Horsley suggested San Mateo County residents have substantial local representation from more than 100 elected officials.

“If we were to become a consolidated city and county of San Mateo I’d agree 11 supervisors would be a good number but I don’t think the cities are going to go along with becoming a consolidated city and county,” Horsley said.

Supervisor Warren Slocum noted that expanding the number of districts would require a public vote to change the county’s charter, which County Counsel John Beiers affirmed.

Instead, Horsley requested a “Minimal Change” map be brought forward for consideration, which would keep existing districts mostly as they are while accounting for population changes.

Sharing their preferences, Groom and Supervisor Dave Pine agreed with Horsley and added that San Bruno should remain a part of the Bayside rather than being included with coastside communities. Groom suggested that grouping communities of concern may take priority over keeping cities whole.

Unable to fully back either map, supervisors agreed to task the Redistricting Subcommittee, Board President David Canepa and Horsley, with reviewing four maps that weren’t considered due to a technical error and the minimal change map before next week’s board meeting.

The board has until Dec. 15 to adopt its new maps ahead of the June 2022 election, Beiers said. With three meetings remaining before the deadline, Beiers said the county is under tight time constraints but still has a reasonable window of time to review and adopt a final map.

“You’re a little time constrained but you do have a little bit of flexibility built in,” Beiers said. “You do have some flexibility but not a whole lot.”

sierra@smdailyjournal.com

(650) 344-5200 ext. 106