This post was contributed by a community member. The views expressed here are the author's own.

Politics & Government

Supes Decide to Shuffle County District Lines Slightly

Residents in northern San Mateo County are the most affected, but Coastsiders escape redistricting.

A unanimous decision Tuesday by the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors shifts control over thousands of residents in the cities of San Mateo and Belmont to a different district representative.

The board approved a motion to move a portion of San Mateo that is currently located in District 1, and under Supervisor Dave Pine, over to District 2, where Supervisor Carole Groom will assume control.

This move will reduce the population of Pine's district by 3,815 people to a total of 139,933 residents.

Also moving will be 5,358 residents living in Belmont, who will be shifted from Groom's District 2 to District 3, under Supervisor Don Horsley. This move increases the population of District 3 to 143,936.

District 1 also includes Burlingame, Millbrae, San Bruno and part of South San Francisco. District 3 includes Half Moon Bay, Pacifica and San Carlos.

The move satisfied Horsley, who expressed his desire to keep the population of all districts close while keep as many cities under the same jurisdictions as possible.

His sentiment echoed that of many county residents, who had previously expressed their opinion on district boundaries to board members. 

"I think Belmont ought to stay together," Horsley said early in the meeting. Later, he repeated the same desire for residents of San Mateo.

With the shuffling, Groom's District 2, which also includes Foster City, will lose 1,543 residents, resulting in a final population of 147,731.

District 4, which includes Redwood City and Menlo Park and is represented by Supervisor Rose Jacobs Gibson, remains set at 143,443 residents. District 5, which covers Daly City, Brisbane and part of South San Francisco and is represented by Supervisor Adrienne Tissier, will keep its current population of 143,408.

The realignment motion that was approved at the meeting Tuesday morning in Redwood City is a hybrid approach to initial suggestions of what the new districts should look like.

Tissier and Jacobs Gibson had spent several months gathering input from community residents as a way of determining the best way to draw the new district lines.

In addition to expressing opposition to the splitting of cities, many residents said they did not favor drawing district lines that would divide richer and poorer communities.

Prior to the meeting, Tissier and Jacobs Gibson had suggested the board consider approving either moving a segment of San Mateo from District 1 to District 2, or moving the population in Belmont from District 2 to District 3.

A final option - suggested by the two supervisors - essentially kept the current district boundaries in place.

The final suggestion was widely supported by county residents who opposed redrawing new district boundaries because they were already familiar with those currently in place.

Supervisors ultimately agreed that Horsley's idea to combine two of the previously proposed scenarios was the most desirable.

The state election code requires all counties in California to readjust district boundaries by October 1 in order to make each region similar in population size according to the most recent census data.

The same policy recommends supervisors also consider topography, geography, cohesiveness of territory, and community of interests when redefining boundaries.

Chief Deputy County Counsel Lee Thompson said the board should aim to keep the populations of all districts within 10% of one another.

Supervisor Pine noted that keeping the population of all districts at a relatively similar population is desirable should the county ever transition to district-based elections. Currently it is the only county in California that holds at-large elections.

The board's decision will determine boundaries for the next 10 years.

The new set of selected boundaries will go into effect on November 1.

We’ve removed the ability to reply as we work to make improvements. Learn more here

The views expressed in this post are the author's own. Want to post on Patch?