MEMORANDUM
DATE February 21, 2022
TO Jaqui Guzman
City of Sunnyvale Office of the City Manager
FROM PlaceWorks
SUBJECT February 2022 Focus District Maps Outreach Summary Overview
Throughout February 2022, the City hosted a series of seven pop-up events to seek input on the three preferred Council district maps selected by the Redistricting Commission on February 10, 2022. Pop-up events occurred from February 12 to February 20, 2022 as follows:
1. Saturday, February 12: Sunnyvale Library
2. Saturday, February 12: Las Palmas Park
3. Tuesday, February 15: Shoppes at Homestead Shopping Center
4. Thursday, February 17: Sunnyvale Community Center
5. Friday, February 18: Sunnyvale Downtown
6. Saturday, February 19: Sunnyvale Farmers’ Market
7. Sunday, February 20: Sunnyvale Grocery Store - Mi Ranchito Produce The two primary goals of the pop-up events were to:
• Educate residents on the draft focus maps recommended by the Redistricting Commission and the process to select the preferred map. • Ask residents to identify their preferred district map and to identify maps they could “live with.”
Pop-up booth materials included 24”x36” boards with the three Council preferred focus district maps, comment cards, demographic surveys, handout of the FAQ sheets, background demographic data (that identified demographics by citizen voting age population, population density, education attainment, voter registration, voter turnout, age, immigration, language spoke at home, language efficiency, child in household, household income, and housing status).
PlaceWorks only collected 25 demographic surveys and five comment cards, largely due to participants having limited time available. The demographic surveys collected were from various pop-ups of the total seven pop-ups held.
22-0314 Added Attachment (posted 20220222)
February 21, 2022 | Page 2
Due to the informal nature of the pop-up events, the exact numbers of participants who were reached through these events cannot be known. However, PlaceWorks estimates a total of 101 people were engaged with and exposed to the project through the pop-up events. A total of 23 people participated in the dot-placing exercise. An estimated additional 78 people were informed of the project and gave some input but chose not to participate either because they had no opinion, or they felt all three maps looked too similar to choose one or wanted to look up more information on their own and on the Sunnyvale Elections website before making deciding.
Summary of Input
Figures 1 and 2 illustrate the breakdown of the dot prioritization exercise. Each pop-up participant was given one green dot to identify their preferred map and two blue dots to identify maps they would be comfortable with the Council selecting. If the participant did not like any of the maps, they were encouraged to provide written comments instead or take the demographic survey. The general theme that came up at all seven pop-ups was how similar all three maps looked. Some residents wondered if this redistricting effort was needed or worth carrying out, given the small changes between the maps. A few comments were made regarding the “minimal changes map” presented by the Redistricting Commission on January 13. Some residents voiced they would prefer to see that map be the preferred alternative map selected by the City Council. Residents voiced the minimal changes map did exactly what this effort intended to do – rebalance population numbers in Districts 2 and 3.
Map 101 V2 C, the preferred focus map by the Redistricting Commission, received the most green dots (9) indicating it was the top preferred map by the community. Part of this map’s popularity was due to minimal change of the majority of the district boundaries. Common reasons participants gave for choosing this as their preferred map included:
• Map looks concise, compact, and has the cleanest boundaries. • Map keeps mobile homes together.
• Map has the least changes.
Map 102 V7 C, received two of the 16 green dots. Participants did not provide any additional comments as to why they chose this map as their preferred alternative.
Map 104 V2 C, received five of the 16 green dots. Participants did not provide any additional comments as to why they chose this map as their preferred alternative.
22-0314 Added Attachment (posted 20220222)
February 21, 2022 | Page 3
As shown in Figure 2, the dot prioritization results for maps that participants could accept moving forward were as follows:
• Map 101 V2 C received three of the seven blue dots.
• Map 102 V7 C received two of the seven blue dots.
• Map 104 V2 C received two of the seven blue dots.
In addition to the dot prioritization exercise, participants provided verbal and written comments as follows:
• The difference between proposals are so minor it makes me question how much this effort matters.
• Some of the information on the demographics sheet was hard to read and had some types and was labeled inconsistently.
• Who is advocating or advantage/disadvantaged by each of these three maps? • Why is it not zero for the sum of all districts?
• There is not a clearly understandable difference between all three maps. • Would like to know why I am being absorbed into District 1. • Would like to know how this impacts school districts and were they considered in the process?
• Prefer the “minimal change map” over any of these three options. • Would like to see Nimitz area remain in District 1.
• More outreach near Hollenbeck-Alberta Road such as Serra Park and Nimitz School Park. • Map 101 V2 C: this map is the cleanest of the three maps. It is judged by clear and distinct district boundaries. There is the “minimal change” map omitted by the committee.
• Map 101 V2 C: “minimal change” map has cleaner boundaries relative to this map. • Map 101 V2 C: Do not support this map.
• Map 104 V2 C: Do not support this map.
22-0314 Added Attachment (posted 20220222)
February 21, 2022 | Page 4
Figure 1 – Preferred Map Dot Prioritization Results (Green Dots)
Figure 2 – Maps Participants Could “Live With” Results (Blue Dots)
56%
13%
31%
Preferred Map
101 V2 C 102 V7 C 104 V2 C
43%
28%
29%
Maps to Live With
101 V2 C 102 V7 C 104 V2 C
22-0314 Added Attachment (posted 20220222)
February 21, 2022 | Page 5
DEMOGRAPHIC SURVEY RESULTS
Pop-up event participants were invited to voluntarily fill out a demographic survey while at the event. Questions included age, race/ethnicity, household income, housing tenure, and which Council district they live in. Results of the demographic questions are summarized below
Age
A total of 24 respondents provided their age when filling out the demographic survey as shown on Figure 7. Respondents tended to be older with 38 percent of the registrants 50 or older compared to 20 percent of the 2019 Sunnyvale total population. The survey did not capture registrants under 18 years old.
Figure 3 Age Breakdown of Pop-up Participants and 2019 Sunnyvale Total Population
Race/Ethnicity
A total of 28 respondents reported their race/ethnicity as shown on Figure 4. Most respondents, or 46 percent, were Asian compared to 45 percent of the 2019 Sunnyvale Total Population. 0%
25% 25%
38%
13%
21%
17%
34%
20%
7%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
Under 18 years old 18 to 29 years old 30 to 49 years old 50 to 69 years old 70+ years old Pop-up Participants 2019 Sunnyvale Total
22-0314 Added Attachment (posted 20220222)
February 21, 2022 | Page 6
Figure 4 Race/Ethnicity Breakdown of Pop-up Participants and the city of Sunnyvale
Household Income
Household income was reported by 18 respondents as shown on Figure 5. Most registrants, or 78 percent, reported their household income was over $100,000. 17 percent of the registrants reported an income of $50,000 to $100,000 compared to 18 percent of the 2019 Sunnyvale total population.
Figure 5 Household Income Breakdown of Pop-up Participants and the city of Sunnyvale
29%
0%
11%
46%
0%
11%
31%
1%
18%
45%
0% 0%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
Non-Hispanic
White
Black or African
America
Hispanic or
Latino
Asian Native Hawaiian
or other Pacific
Islander
Other
Pop-up Participants 2019 Sunnyvale Total
17%
39% 39%
18%
32%
36%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
$50k to $100k $100k to $200k Over $200k
Pop-up Participants 2019 Sunnyvale Total
22-0314 Added Attachment (posted 20220222)
February 21, 2022 | Page 7
Housing Tenure
The housing tenure question included three options: Renter, Owner, or Both (Mobile Home).
While Census data does track the amount of mobile homes in the city, the data is not considered “housing tenure” but is considered “housing unit type”.
A total of 25 respondents indicated their housing tenure as either “renter” or “owner.” As shown on Figure 6, 72 percent of registrants indicated they are homeowners compared to 44 percent of the 2019 Sunnyvale total population.
Figure 6 Housing Tenure Breakdown of Pop-up Participants and the city of Sunnyvale
Council District
A total of 25 respondents identified their Council district, as shown in Figure 7. Participants from District 1 represented 24 percent of the respondents, followed by 17 percent from District 2 and 14 percent from district 4.
28%
72%
56%
44%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Renter Owner
Pop-up Participants 2019 Sunnyvale Total
22-0314 Added Attachment (posted 20220222)
February 21, 2022 | Page 8
Figure 11 Council District Residence of Pop-up Participants.
24%
17%
14%
7%
3%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
District 1 District 2 District 4 District 5 District 6
22-0314 Added Attachment (posted 20220222)