HomeMy WebLinkAboutCM Grand Jury on Public Engagementf SAN RAFAEL
THE CITY WITH A MISSION
Agenda Item No: 5.a
Meeting Date: Auqust 7, 2017
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Department: City Manager's Office
Prepared by: Rebecca Woodbury, City Manager Approval.
Senior Management Analyst
TOPIC: RESPONSE TO GRAND JURY ABOUT PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE
MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL RESPONSE TO THE JUNE 26,
2017 MARIN COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT ENTITLED "PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT
IN MARIN: A PATHWAY TO INCLUSIVE GOVERNMENT"
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached Resolution approving the proposed
response to the Grand Jury report and authorizing the Mayor to execute the response.
BACKGROUND:
On June 15, 2017 (public release date June 26, 2017) the Marin County Grand Jury released a report
entitled "Public Enqaqement in Marin: A Pathwav to Inclusive Governance" that discussed public
engagement efforts of the City of San Rafael, the County of Marin, and the other cities and towns of
Marin.
In February 2017, the Grand Jury requested all jurisdictions take a survey to self-report how well they
perform public engagement activities. After reviewing the questions, the Marin Managers Association
(MMA) invited the Grand Jury to meet and discuss some concerns they had with the phrasing and
applicability of some questions. The Grand Jury made some revisions to the survey but declined to
meet with MMA.
In addition to the self -reporting survey, the Grand Jury conducted a survey with the public as well as
reviewed news reports about the various jurisdictions. The Grand Jury's public survey had 451 total
respondents, including 78 from San Rafael. According to the survey of San Rafael's 78 respondents:
66.7% have attended at least one meeting annually
78.2% want to be engaged more
• 56.4% are at least "somewhat satisfied" by efforts
"Informs," "full consideration," and "advance information" are ranked worst
"Website," "email," "surveys," and "social media" are most familiar
FOR CITY CLERK ONLY
File No.: 269
Council Meeting: 08/07/2017
Disposition: Resolution 14376
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Paae: 2
The Grand Jury commended the City of San Rafael for receiving a Platinum Award for excellence in
Public Engagement from the Davenport Institute of Public Policy at Pepperdine. The report also noted
the Marin IJ's recognition of the City's efforts to widely engage the community during the planning and
design phase of a project to build two new fire stations and a new public safety center.
The Grand Jury requested the City of San Rafael respond to 11 recommendations.
ANALYSIS:
Staff largely agrees with the report's findings and recommendations as they pertain to San Rafael (see
Attachment A for full proposed response). Most of the report is in line with best practices in public
engagement. Staff acknowledges that public engagement efforts can always be improved and this work
is never done. Technologies emerge and evolve every year that help agencies reach more people in
new ways.
While staff wholeheartedly agrees with the report's key message -- that good public engagement leads
to better decision-making -- it can be challenging to measure the success of public engagement efforts.
Public agencies face constraints in funding and staffing capacity, and despite advancements in
technology we still have imperfect systems for reaching people (i.e. mailers get thrown away, email
notifications are opt -in, not all community members have digital literacy skills or access to the Internet,
people lead busy lives and often don't have time to participate, etc.) And, even with proactive efforts
people can be dissatisfied with an outcome if it does not align with their interests.
The public survey conducted by the Grand Jury was not a statistically valid, representative sample of
the San Rafael community. In early 2017, the City commissioned a "Resident Satisfaction Survey," a
statistically valid survey conducted by an independent, third -party consultant. The following findings are
relevant to the City's public engagement efforts:
Having your voice 15.3% 36% 14.8% 4% 29.9%
heard in City
government
The City's website 18.3% 27.7% 3.9% 0.5% 49.6%
The City Manager's 21.4% 15.5% 1.4% 0.9% 60.7%
newsletter
Nextdoor 23.6% 18.8% 2.9% 5.8% 48.9%
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no direct fiscal impact to the recommended action of this report.
ACTION REQUIRED:
The City is required to respond to the Grand Jury Report. Penal Code section 933(c) states in part:
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 3
"No later than 90 days after the Grand Jury submits a final report ... the governing body of the
public agency shall comment to the presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and
recommendations ... [contained in the report]."
To comply with this statute, the City's response to the Grand Jury report is required to be approved by
Resolution of the City Council and submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Marin County Superior Court
and the Foreperson of the Grand Jury on or before September 26, 2017. A proposed Resolution is
included that would approve staff's recommendation for the City's response (Attachment A & B).
OPTIONS:
The City is required to respond, however, the City Council has the following options to consider on this
matter:
1. Adopt Resolution approving the proposed response;
2. Adopt Resolution with modifications to the proposed response;
3. Direct staff to return with more information.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached Resolution approving the proposed
response to the Grand Jury report and authorizing the Mayor to execute the response.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Resolution
B. Proposed Response
C. Grand Jury Report "Public Engagement in Marin: A Pathway to Inclusive Government" dated
June 26, 2017
RESOLUTION NO. 14376
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL
APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE CITY'S
RESPONSE TO THE JUNE 26, 2017 MARIN COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT
ENTITLED "PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT IN MARK A PATHWAY TO INCLUSIVE
GOVERNMENT"
WHEREAS, pursuant to Penal Code section 933, a public agency which receives a Grand
Jury Report addressing aspects of the public agency's operations must, within ninety (90) days,
provide a written response to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court with a copy to the
Foreperson of the Grand Jury, responding to the Report's findings and recommendations; and
WHEREAS, Penal Code section 933 specifically requires that the "governing body" of the
public agency provide said response and, in order to lawfully comply, the governing body must
consider and adopt the response at a noticed public meeting pursuant to the Brown Act; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Rafael has received and reviewed the
Marin County Grand Jury Report, dated June 26, 2017, entitled "Public Engagement in Marin: A
Pathway to Inclusive Government," and has agendized it at this meeting for a response.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of San Rafael
hereby:
1. Approves and authorizes the Mayor to execute the City's response to the Marin
County Grand Jury's June 26, 2017 report, entitled "Public Engagement in Marin: A Pathway to
Inclusive Government," a copy of which response is attached hereto and incorporated herein by
reference.
2. Directs the City Clerk to forward the City's response forthwith to the Presiding
Judge of the Marin County Superior Court and to the Foreperson of the Marin County Grand Jury.
I, Esther Beirne, Clerk of the City of San Rafael, hereby certify that the foregoing
Resolution was duly and regularly introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the San Rafael
City Council held on the 7th day of August 2017, by the following vote to wit:
AYES: Councilmembers: Bushey, Colin, Gamblin and Mayor Phillips
NOES: Councilmembers: None
ABSENT: Councilmembers: McCullough
ESTHER C. BEIRNE, City Clerk
ATTACHMENT B
FORM FOR RESPONDING TO GRAND JURY REPORT
Report Title:
Report Date:
Public Release Date:
Response by:
Public Engagement in Marin: A Pathway To Inclusive Government
June 15, 2017
June 26, 2017
Mayor Gary Phillips and San Rafael City Council
FINDINGS
■ I (we) agree with the findings numbered: n/a
■ 1 (we) disagree wholly or partially with the findings numbered: n/a
RECOMMENDATIONS
■ Recommendations numbered R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, R8, R9, R11 have been implemented.
(See Exhibit 1 attached)
■ Recommendations numbered n/a have not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in
the future.
■ Recommendations numbered n/a require further analysis.
■ Recommendations numbered R7, R10, R12 will not be fully implemented because they are not
warranted or are not reasonable, but have been implemented as appropriate.
(See Exhibit 1 attached)
Date: n Y) Signed
Number of pages attached: 3
EXHIBIT 1
RESPONSE OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL TO THE GRAND JURY REPORT
"PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT IN MARIN: A PATHWAY TO INCLUSIVE GOVERNMENT"
R2. Each agency should obtain input from the public in the planning and design or update of its
plan/guidelines. Response: has been implemented
San Rafael's current Community Engagement Action Plan was developed with the community through
a series of workshops and surveys. San Rafael frequently uses online surveys, neighborhood
meetings, and other informal settings (such as a booth at the Farmers' market) to continually seek
feedback and input on how we can improve our community engagement efforts. A recent survey
conducted in Aoril 2017 found that the community would like the City to do more town halls and
workshops as well as online feedback tools. Respondents said it was important for meetings to be held
in neighborhoods, during the evening, and at locations with plenty of parking. Although many
respondents felt the City was doing a great job with its bi-monthly newsletter, an almost equal number
had never heard of it.
R3. Agency managers should regularly share their PE Plans and "lessons learned" with their
counterparts in other Marin agencies. Response: has been implemented
All city and town managers in Marin meet monthly to discuss a range of topics, including outreach and
engagement. In addition, staff from several Marin agencies charged with communication and
engagement responsibilities informally meet and discuss their work. San Rafael also practices
openness by communicating on progress and sharing lessons learned. For example, during our recent
website rebuild, we blogged weekly about what we were doing through a series of "Done/Doing" posts.
San Rafael also has a public facing website that shares outreach tools and strateaies. San Rafael staff
also periodically writes about this topic for the local government community at -large, such as articles
about buvinq diqital services and buildina a beta website. San Rafael's engagement plan and efforts
has also been shared with the local government community in Governing Maqazine and Management
Minute.
R4. Each agency should provide early and ample opportunity for PE in the form of proactive
engagement in order to ensure that the public is aware of all their PE opportunities. Response:
has been implemented
Goal 2 of the City of San Rafael's Community Engagement Action Plan is to "Engage Earlier." San
Rafael recognizes the value of getting the word out early to the community on projects and programs.
This allows for more meaningful engagement.
R5. Post -engagement, each agency should follow up with the public, informing them of the
results of projects and issues. Response: has been implemented
Goal 5 of the City of San Rafael's Community Engagement Action Plan is to "Close the Feedback
Loop." San Rafael recognizes the value of communicating about the engagement process and the
feedback received as well as letting people know about decisions and any follow-up actions or next
steps.
R6. Each agency should create an easy -to -find area on their website dedicated to describing
current community issues and explaining how the public can get involved. Response: has been
implemented
The City of San Rafael's website has:
2
• Project or issue specific web pages with information about how to get involved, such as pages
dedicated to homelessness, public safetv facilitv improvements, sustainability, SMART, and
many others.
• Several areas on the website that show how residents can Qet involved in a variety of ways,
from serving on a board or commission to signing up for informational updates on a variety of
topics to simply letting the Citv know what thev think through an easy to use online form.
• A 'Newsroom' feed with timely information on projects, plans and issues.
• A strong search engine optimization and information architecture so people can find what they
are looking for fast.
• Feedback and issue reporting on social media through a Facebook Service Center and
Nextdoor.
• A robust constituent management software that allows staff to quickly respond to questions as
well as manage input on topics.
R7. Each agency should make PE a required responsibility of at least one staff person and
publicize that responsibility. Response: will not be fully implemented because they are not warranted
or are not reasonable, but have been implemented as appropriate
The City of San Rafael believes it that public engagement responsibilities are part of every City
employees job. We have employees throughout the organization with varying degrees of
responsibilities from managing a social media account to writing staffing reports to planning public
workshops. The City Manager's office oversees these efforts and has a staff person who manages
overall strategy and provides consulting services to departments.
R8. Each agency should offer regular PE professional development to its staff. Response: has
been implemented
The City of San Rafael supports employees attending professional development opportunities with
regards to public engagement. Public engagement is a common topic at most local government
conferences. In the last six months, staff from Public Works, the Fire Department, and City Manager's
office have attended conferences and trainings on public engagement. In addition, the City is currently
developing an in-house training program where public engagement skills will be taught in the context of
human -centered design. The City is also creating an online guide, for staff on how to conduct public
outreach and a variety of tools and resources.
R9. Each agency should develop meaningful and ongoing partnerships with their local
community-based organizations. Response: has been implemented
The City of San Rafael agrees that meaningful and ongoing partnerships with local community-based
organizations (CBO) are important. The City Council and staff often works closely with CBOs to get
input from underserved and disadvantaged communities.
R10. Each agency should include on all written communications the social media platforms they
use. Response: will not be fully implemented because they are not warranted or are not reasonable,
but have been implemented as appropriate
The City of San Rafael uses several social media platforms and has multiple accounts on each. Some
departments do not use social media and many do not yet have the capacity to monitor social media in
a way that it can replace other forms of communication with the community. This information would be
difficult to convey on all written communications and often irrelevant. Where relevant and appropriate,
the City includes information about social media accounts.
3
R11. Each agency should communicate and emphasize to the public the importance of
participation in PE. Response: has been implemented
The City of San Rafael regularly recognizes and stresses the importance of public engagement
internally and externally. Specific examples include:
• The City's website has a "Get Involved" section that directs community members to things like
public meeting information, serving on boards and commissions, volunteering with the City, and
more.
• Departments have added new responsibilities to staff (i.e. social media and community
engagement added to Police Department positions)
• A "community outreach" section is added to relevant staff reports
• The City is developing an in-house training program that embeds community feedback into
problem -solving methodology.
R12. Each agency should publish an annual report describing the effectiveness of their PE
efforts. Response: will not be fully implemented because they are not warranted or are not reasonable,
but have been implemented as appropriate
The City Council receives periodic updates on progress related to the community engagement action
plan and related digital projects as needed.
4
�1
A 2
yo
WITH p'�`�
August 30, 2017
The Honorable Judge Kelly V. Simmons
Marin County Superior Court
P.O. Box 4988
San Rafael, CA 94913-4988
Honorable Judge Simmons
Mr. Hamilton -Roth
Jay Hamilton -Roth, Foreperson
Marin County Civil Grand Jury
3501 Civic Center Drive, Room #275
San Rafael, CA 94903
Re: Marin County Civil Grand Jury Report Entitled: "Public Engagement in Marin —
A Pathway to Inclusive Governance
We are forwarding to you the following documents:
• A certified copy of Resolution No. 14376 adopted by the San Rafael City Council on
August 7, 2017, approving and authorizing the Mayor to execute the City's
response;
• Original of the "Response to Grand Jury Report Form," executed by Mayor Phillips
on August 21, 2017;
• Copy of City Council Staff Report dated August 7, 2017.
Should you need further assistance, please contact me at (415) 485-3065.
Sincerely,
ESTHER C. BEIRNE
City Clerk
cc: Gary 0. Phillips, Mayor of the City of San Rafael
Jim Schutz, City Manager
Robert Epstein, City Attorney
Rebecca Woodbury, Senior Management Analyst
CITY OF SAN RAFAEL 1 1400 FIFTH AVENUE, SAN RAFAEL, CALIFORNIA 94901 1 CITYOFSANRAFAEL.ORG
Gary 0. Phillips, Mayor • Maribeth Bushey, Vice Mayor • Kate Colin, Councilmember • John Gamblin, Councilmember • Andrew Cuyugan McCullough, Councilmember
2016-2017 MARIN COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY
Public Engagement inMarin
A Pathway to Inclusive Governance
Report Date: June 15, 2017
Public Release Date: June 26, 2017
p
COUNTY OF MARIN
Marin County Civil Grand Jury
Public Engagement in Marin
A Pathway to Inclusive Governance
SUMMARY
Last year's Grand Jury released a report entitled "2015-2016 Web Transparency Report Card"
which rated the information quality of local agencies' websites. This year's jury decided to go a
step further and look at how well our cities, towns and the County engage with the public. We first
surveyed each of the agencies to learn about their public engagement strategies and their perceived
effectiveness. We then surveyed residents of our municipalities and unincorporated areas to get a
"snapshot" view of their experience with their local government's engagement. Finally, we looked
at the reporting of local issues by local media.
We found that public engagement in Marin takes different forms depending on where you live. In
addition, while every agency is making efforts to engage, some have more political will, more
resources, and/or a more active public to make that happen. Public engagement may take many
forms, but all have the goal of enabling more inclusive governance.
The following report provides an overview of current public engagement throughout Marin and
suggests methods of improvement for our 11 municipalities and the County. With this report, the
Grand Jury hopes to illuminate a pathway to inclusive governance, inspiring both our local
government and the public they serve.
BACKGROUND
"Government should be participatory. Public engagement enhances the government's
effectiveness and improves the quality of its decisions."1
— Barack Obama
Many terms describe public involvement in government decision making: community or civic
engagement, community participation, and public participation. In this Report, we define public
engagement (PE) as: A broad range of methods through which government agencies provide the
public with more and better information about, and meaningful opportunities to influence,
government decisions. Public engagement is not new.2 However, effective public engagement calls
upon agencies to go beyond minimum statutory requirements, such as the Ralph M. Brown Acta
1 Obama, Barack. "Transparency and Open Government." Federal Register. 21 Jan. 2009
2 Nalbanian, John. "Facilitating Community. Enabling Democracy: New Roles for Local Government Managers." Public
Administration Review. November/December, 1999..
3 "Gov -54950.5 RalDh M. Brown Act." California Legislative Information.
Public Engagement In Marin
for public meetings and the California Public Records Act for keeping and providing public
records.
PE is important for local government agencies as well as the public they serve. Today, agencies
throughout California are applying a variety of PE strategies and practices to address issues
ranging from land use and budgeting to housing and public safety. They are discovering that
successful engagement of residents in decision making can bring several benefits :5
■ Improved agency decision-making and actions, with better impacts and outcomes
■ More community buy -in and support for agency decisions, with less contentiousness
■ Faster project implementation with less time and expense in revisiting or reversing
decisions
■ Better identification of the public's values, ideas and recommendations
■ More informed residents about issues and local agencies
■ More civil discussions and decision making
■ More trust in each other and local government
■ Higher rates of community participation and leadership development
Effective PE may now be more important than ever. "Disparities in education, health, economic
opportunity, and access to affordable housing and justice continue to increase, and the resources
available to confront those challenges have not kept pace with expanding needs."6 Marin's
municipalities and the County of Marin face increasingly significant issues needing public support
for resolution, such as the lack of affordable housing and unfunded post-retirement liabilities.
Building partner -like relationships between these agencies and their communities through PE may
provide the support our agencies need. Marinites want to be engaged, as noted in the County's 5
Year Business Plan for 2015-2020.7 However, a December 2016 Marin Independent Journal
Editorial, favorably commenting on the County's goals for 2017, concluded by stating:
The list of goals or New Year's resolutions deserved more public attention and involvement before
they were approved as political marching orders, but maybe fixing that flaw will make the list for
2018.8
Local government efforts at public engagement often occur as one-time activities focused on one
immediate and controversial issue. However, local governments that "embed" a capacity to
regularly consider, design, use and improve their PE practices may be better able to successfully
assess the need for PE in particular instances and shape the best responses, since no one set of PE
strategies works for everyone.9 Those local governments often have written PE plans guiding their
public engagement efforts. In Marin, Mill Valley, Novato, San Rafael, and the County have formal
PE plans. (See Appendix A for definition of "PE Plan.")
4 "Gov -6251 California Public Records Act." California Legislative Information.
5 "What is Public Engagement & Whv Should I do it?" Institute for Local Government. 2016.
6 Barnes, Melody & Schmitz, Paul. "Community Engagement Matters (Now More Than Ever)." Stanford Social Innovation
Review. Spring 2016.
7 "County of Marin 5 Year Business Plan. 2015-2020." County of Marin. October 2015.
8 "County lists legislative coals for 2017." Marin Independent Journal. 31 Dec. 2016.
9 "Three Orientations of Local Government to Public Engagement: Passive -Active -Sustaining." Institute for Local Government.
2016. ; "Embedding Public Engagement in Local Government." Institute for Local Government. Accessed 2017.
June 15, 2017 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 2 of 61
Public Engagement In Marin
Since public engagement is important especially now, we undertook this study to see how Marin's
municipalities and the County view their own public engagement, what the public's view is, how
the news media perceives PE in Marin, and to make suggestions for improving PE in our
municipalities and the County.
METHODOLOGY
The Grand Jury followed the methodology outlined below.
Literature Review. We analyzed literature from respected sources in California, nationwide and
internationally to identify best practices in public engagement. These sources include the
following:
■ Institute for Local Government, an affiliate of the League of California Cities, the
California State Association of Counties and the California Special Districts Association
■ The Davenport Institute for Public Engagement and Civic Leadership at Pepperdine
University, a co-author of reports with the Institute for Local Government
■ Public Agenda, a New York based nonpartisan nonprofit organization and co-author of
reports with the Institute for Local Government and The Davenport Institute
■ National Coalition for Dialogue & Deliberation, a Pennsylvania based organization
■ International Association for Public Participation, a Colorado based international
association that seeks to improve public engagement
Public Engagement Plan Review. We reviewed public engagement plans, ordinances and
resolutions in Marin and other California cities and counties.
Grand Jm Report Review. We reviewed The Win Cup/Tam Ridge Residences: How Did It Come
To Pass? and the response.
Public Engagement Information Request to Marin Agencies. We prepared a Public Engagement
Information Request and distributed it to Marin's 11 municipalities and the County of Marin to
gather their views on public engagement opportunities. (See Appendix A: Public Engagement
Information Request.) The Information Request included questions regarding the best practice
strategies for implementing public engagement principles formulated by the sources listed above.11
SF Bay Area cities that have used such strategies and principles in public engagement plans
include Oakland and Menlo Park. 12
Public Engagement Survev to Marin Residents. We also prepared a survey for Marin residents to
gather the public's views on engagement in their municipalities and the County. (See Appendix B:
Survey of Residents of Unincorporated Marin County and Appendix C: Survey of Residents of
Marin Cities & Incorporated Towns.) The public survey adapts concepts from a California joint
report issued by the Institute for Local Government, The Davenport Institute for Public
io "Win CuD/Tam Ridge Residences: How Did It Come To Pass?" Marin County Civil Grand Jury. 24 June 2015.
"Principles of Local Government Public Engagement." Institute for Local Government. 2015. ; "Core PrinciDles for Public
Engagement." National Coalition for Dialogue & Deliberation. 1 May 2009. ; "Core Values for the Practice of Public
Participation." International Association for Public Participation. 2008.
z "Oakland City Council Resolution No. 84385 Resolution Establishing The City of Oakland's Budget Process Transparency and
Public Participation Policy." City of Oakland. 21 May 2013.; "City of Menlo Park. Community Engagement Plan." City of Menlo
Park. 2011-12.
June 15, 2017 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 3 of 61
Public Engagement In Marin
Engagement and Civic Leadership, and Public Agenda. 13 The Grand Jury circulated this survey
through the cooperation of news and social media and some agencies.
News Media Review. We reviewed Marin Independent Journal articles on public engagement in
Marin. The Independent Journal has served Marin readers for more than 150 years, often shining
the light on local government and public engagement. 14
Attendance at Public Meetings. Finally, the Grand Jury attended public meetings of Marin
municipalities and the County.
13 Bevond Business as Usual: Leaders of California's Civic Omanizations Seek New Ways to Eneaee the Public in Local
Governance." Public Agenda. 2013.
14 "`Sunshine week' celebrates the public's richt to know." Marin Independent Journal. 15 March 2017.
June 15, 2017 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 4 of 61
Public Engagement In Marin
DISCUSSION
Using the concepts of public engagement (PE), the Grand Jury took a snapshot of 12 government
agencies and the public to get an idea of not only how these agencies view their own PE efforts,
but also how the public perceives these efforts. We started by surveying Marin's 11 municipalities
and the County ("the agencies") in the form of an online Information Request containing questions
pertaining to PE attitudes, practices and approaches. Each agency was given 21 days to respond
during which time we were available to answer questions from respondents.
To assess how the people of Marin feel about public engagement, we developed and disseminated
two online Public Engagement Surveys designed to capture information from residents of both
cities and towns and the unincorporated areas of Marin. These surveys were announced through
the Marin Independent Journal, The Ark Newspaper, Marin Post, Point Reyes Light, and the
private social networking service for neighborhoods, Nextdoor. As was the case with the agencies,
the surveys were open for 21 days and we were available to answer questions from respondents
during that time. The questions in both surveys were identical and provided opportunities for both
multiple-choice and narrative responses. It is important to remember that the people who
responded to the public survey were self-selected. However, they were willing to share their
thoughts to give us a window into what some of our public is thinking. Four hundred fifty-one
(45 1) public responses were received and reviewed, after culling duplicates.
Overview: Agency Public Engagement Information Request Responses
Viewed in aggregate, Marin agencies' responses to our request (see Appendix D: Summary
Agency Views of Public Engagement) showed:
■ Benefits. Agencies mostly agreed on these PE benefits: improved decision making; more
community buy -in; better identification of the public's values, ideas and recommendations;
more informed residents; more civil discussions; more trust; faster project implementation;
and higher rates of participation.
■ A Formal PE Plan. Four of the 12 agencies reported having a plan.
■ Inclusive Planning Use. Agencies all agreed on the use of PE for these areas: parks &
recreation, land use & planning, transportation & infrastructure, housing, and budgeting.
■ Transparency Strategies. Agencies all used: newsletters by email, newsletters on website,
community news on website, and draft budgets online.
■ Improving Authentic Intent. Agencies mostly: summarized complexity, used clear and
simple language, and meaningful and timely information.
■ The PE Culture. All agencies rated their culture as excellent or good in these areas: PE
improves decision-making, views the public as partners, gives public full consideration,
and proactively contacts and engages with community.
June 15, 2017 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 5 of 61
Public Engagement In Marin
■ Breadth of Participation. All agencies "regularly" or "sometimes": build and nurture
relationships, distribute information regularly, provide timely information, and welcome
community participation.
■ Informed Participation. All agencies "regularly" or "sometimes": proactively post issues
on their website and use other communication platforms.
■ Accessible Participation. All agencies "regularly" or "sometimes": have meetings that are
broadly accessible in terms of location/time/language and deliver presentations in
alternative living locations for the elderly.
Not surprisingly, all of the agencies are aware of the importance of public engagement, agree on
its many benefits, and view themselves as having a good PE culture.
Opinions varied as to what constitutes effective PE. A recurring theme in response to the
Information Request was "one size does not fit all." As a result, some agencies — especially the
smaller ones — do not feel the need for a formal PE Plan. Instead, they are comfortable taking their
cues from the communities they serve, reacting to issues as they come up and engaging mostly
through their websites, newsletters, and public meetings. Others may have budgeting and other
resource concerns to contend with before they can consider developing a plan. With the exception
of the City of Sausalito, those with populations under 10,000 do not intend to develop any formal
PE Plan at this time.
However, the Grand Jury suggests that agencies do not need to start their public engagement
efforts by crafting a formal PE Plan. Instead, an agency can gather their existing engagement
strategies in a simple document (which we refer to as PE Guidelines), which can evolve over time
with community input. The process of creating the Guidelines does not need to be expensive nor
take a lot of resources. These Guidelines can also avoid the need to reinvent the wheel each time a
public engagement issue arises, and provide flexibility in the event of employee retirement or
turnover. 15 Elements of such Guidelines can be found in checklists and tables contained in San
Luis Obispo's Public Engagement and Noticing Manual 16 and Seattle Office for Civil Rights'
Inclusive Outreach And Public Engagement Guide. 17
Larger municipalities such as Novato and San Rafael, who have completed formal PE plans,
encompass much larger geographic areas with greater, more diverse populations. With a larger
public to serve and contend with, it makes sense for these municipalities to develop and make use
of a formal PE Plan to achieve effective, meaningful, and consistent communication.
Appendix E ("Platforms Used to Engage The Public") reflects some of the tools and platforms
Marin's cities/towns and the County are using to disseminate information to the public. While
each agency makes use of standard, expected methods of communication, such as public meetings
and notices, website and email, most have also embraced what have become popular and relatively
15 Medford, Marlena. "Silos Are Good for Grain—Not Public Engagement." Peak Democracy. 14 Dec. 2016.
16 "Public Engagement And Noticing Manual." City of San Luis Obispo. Nov. 2015.
17 "Inclusive Outreach And Public Engagement Guide." Seattle Office for Civil Rights. April 2009 (Rev. 01/11/12).
June 15, 2017 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 6 of 61
Public Engagement In Marin
essential social media platforms like Twitter and texting. This represents an expansion from the
minimum requirements of The Brown Act, which guarantees the public's right to attend and
participate in meetings of local legislative bodies. Moving beyond these requirements is an
essential strategy of effective, modern day PE.
Overview: Comparing Public Engagement in Marin with the San Francisco Bay Area
In 2013, Public Agenda published Testing the Waters 18 and Beyond Business As Usual. 19 These
reports contained the results from surveys of 900 local officials and 500 leaders of civic and
community-based organizations throughout California, exploring "the attitudes of California's
local officials toward public participation in local governance." The reports concluded that, "These
officials believe that the current models for including the public in local decision making fail to
meet the needs of both residents and local officials."20
Although our sample size was significantly smaller (12 Marin vs. 206 Bay Area officials) than the
Testing the Waters survey, we found similarities:
Testing the Waters Testing the Waters Grand Jury Survey
Question 206 Bay Area Respondents 12 Marin Agencies
Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied 72% at least "somewhat satisfied" 75% at least "somewhat satisfied"
are you with the level of public
participation in local government
decision making in your
community?
Thinking about significant public 4% input from experts 8% input from experts
decisions that you've been involved 60% input also from stakeholders & 42% input also from stakeholders &
with, which best describes how this interest groups interest groups
process typically works? 36% input from broad cross section 50% input from broad cross section
In the past year, how often have you 100% at least once 75% at least once
seen a public decision made with
considerable input from a broad
cross section of the community?
18 Hagelskamp, Carolin and Immerwahr, John and Hess, Jeremy. "Testing the Waters: California's Local Officials Experiment with
New Ways to Engage the Public. " Public Agenda. 2013.
19 Hagelskamp, Carolin and Immerwahr, John and Hess, Jeremy. `Beyond Business As Usual: Leaders of California's Civic
Organizations Seek New Ways to Engage the Public in Local Government. " Public Agenda. 2013.
2° Hagelskamp, Carolin and Immerwahr, John and Hess, Jeremy. "Testing the Waters: California's Local Officials Experiment with
New Ways to Engage the Public. " Public Agenda. 2013.
June 15, 2017 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 7 of 61
Public Engagement In Marin
Likewise, our sample of 451 Marin residents vs. 125 Bay Area civic leaders (from Beyond
Business As Usual) also showed similarities:
Beyond Business as Usual Beyond Business as Usual
Question 125 Bay Area Respondents
Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied 7% Very satisfied
are you with the efforts made by 49% Somewhat satisfied
most local public officials to include 22% Somewhat dissatisfied
the public in government decision 15% Very dissatisfied
making?
One way for local officials to engage 21% Never
with the public is through public 32% 1-2
hearings and comments at council, 46% 3 or more
board or commission meetings. In
the past 12 months, how many times
have you personally attended such a
meeting?
As far as you are aware, do your 72% Email
local public officials REGULARLY 32% Social Media
use the following for communication 73% Website
and outreach to the public?
Overview: Resident Responses to Public Engagement Survey
Grand Jury Survey
451 Marin Residents
20% Satisfied
31% Somewhat satisfied
18% Somewhat dissatisfied
24% Dissatisfied
33% Never
36% 1-2
31% 3 or more
59% Email
43% Social Media
79% Website
The total number of responses by residents of our cities, towns, and unincorporated areas of Marin
was 451, as shown below:
Number of Public Engagement Survey Responses
Belvedere (a)
Carte Madera (10)
Fairfax (16)
Larkspur (9)
Mill Valley (22)
Novato (2W)
Ross (4)
San Anselme (1 P)
San Rafael (78)
Sausalito (5)
Tburan (3)
Unincorporated Marin (B4)
0 60 120
Number of Survey Responses
M
180 240
June 15, 2017 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 8 of 61
Public Engagement In Marin
Details: Individual City, Town, and County Snapshots
Since each agency has its own philosophy of what effective PE is, and how to achieve it, the
following discussion highlights each town or city and the County on its own merits. Each
municipality's snapshot contains the following information:
■ Background. Demographic overview of the municipality using Bay Area Census 2' data.
■ View from the City (or Town or County). Excerpts from the agency informational
requests (see Appendix A).
■ Views from the Residents. Highlights from the public surveys (see Appendices B and C),
representative comments from residents, and a "by -the -numbers" synopsis:
o On average how many public hearings, meetings and/or workshops do you attend each
year? ("Meeting Attendance")
o Are you interested in becoming more engaged in the decision making process?
("Engagement Interest")
o How satisfied are you with the efforts to include the public in government decision
making? ("PE Satisfaction")
o Please rate how the agency is doing in the following areas of public engagement
("Detailed PE Issues")
■ Agency is making more of an effort to engage a wide variety of people in government
decision making ("Malang an effort")
■ Agency engages the public in ways that are broadly accessible in terms of location,
facilities, time, and language ("Broadly Accessible")
■ Residents have ample opportunity to participate in agency's government decisions
("Ample Opportunity")
■ Agency provides the public with the information it needs, and with enough lead time, to
effectively engage in the decision making process ("Effectiveness")
■ Agency gives full consideration to public input before making government decisions ("Full
Consideration")
■ Agency regularly informs residents of follow-up, progress, outcomes, and impacts
concerning decisions made based on public involvement ("Regularly Informs")
■ Agency builds relationships with community-based groups and interested residents that are
broadly reflective of the public it serves ("Relationship Building")
■ Agency regularly uses clear and simple language in communications ("Clear & Simple")
o Which tools are used to engage and communicate with the public? ("PE Tool
Awareness")
■ View from the Media. Illustrative PE issues covered by the press in recent years. Studies
show a positive relationship between newspaper readership and civic engagement.' Most
of the featured stories are from The Marin Independent Journal (IJ), Marin's major news
source. Some of the stories recapped in this section are success stories. Some are not. The
Grand Jury suggests that all are instructive for the benefits of effective public engagement.
■ Summary. A brief comparison of views expressed by the agency, residents, and media.
21 "Bay Area Census." Metropolitan Transportation Commission and Association of Bay Area Governments.
22 Shaker, Lee. "Dead Newspapers and Citizens' Civic Eneaeement." Political Communication Journal. Volume 31, 2014 -Issue 1,
30 Jan. 2014.
June 15, 2017 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 9 of 61
Public Engagement In Marin
Snapshot Belvederel,
Belvedere has the smallest population of all Marin cities and towns at just 2,068 residents with a
median family income of $181,800. It has the highest percentage of residents over 65 years at
31.6%, and the smallest percentage of children under 5 years at just 4.6%. However, Belvedere is
in the average range of families with children under 18 at 24.2%.
View from the City
Belvedere does not have, and does not plan on adopting, a formal PE Plan. Nor is PE a part of any
one job description within the agency. When asked why they had no plans to adopt a PE Plan,
Belvedere responded, "As a small city, PE processes can often be accomplished more easily and
informally compared to larger cities. At this time, we feel our current PE processes garner a
sufficient amount of public engagement such that formalizing a plan is not necessary at this time."
As we heard from other small-scale communities in Marin, size matters when it comes to spending
agency resources on developing a full-scale PE Plan and hiring PE -specific personnel. In addition,
because of the very nature of their close-knit communities, municipalities like Belvedere feel that
active public engagement tends to happen organically. Indeed a visit to Belvedere's website
confirms that the deer issue and its follow-on study, is featured prominently on a new webpage
where all reports, information, public correspondence, and a video -recorded community forum are
catalogued regarding this issue.23
Views From the Residents
There were no respondents to our survey to provide information or insight regarding resident
views of PE efforts in Belvedere.
View from the Media
* A long-running issue in Belvedere concerns what some residents say is an out of control deer
population. With the community divided over what, if anything, to do about it, they continue
grappling with solutions as the City Council works to hear public input. In August 2016 the IJ
reported that, "...the council agreed the deer issue needs to be addressed, and it voted
unanimously to confront community concerns by calling for a forum in which they will invite
wildlife experts to participate in a panel." That this is an issue that merits debate "was evident by
the turnout," said the IJ.24
Summary
➢ Since Belvedere is a very small community, the city reports no need for a formal PE Plan.
➢ Based on media reports, Belvedere residents are engaged — primarily in an on-going, issue -
by -issue basis.
23 "Current Issues before the City Council." City of Belvedere.
24 Rodriguez, Adrian. "Belvedere deer issue to be subject of forum." Marin Independent Journal. 9 Aug. 2016.
June 15, 2017 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 10 of 61
Public Engagement In Marin
Snapshot Corte Madera
Corte Madera's population is 9,253 with a median family income of $141,140. Although only
16% of the residents are over 65, certainly not the highest percentage in Marin, Corte Madera has
been recognized by the World Health Organization as a member of the Global Network of Age -
Friendly Cities self -identifying as "Age -Friendly Corte Madera."25 Corte Madera and its
neighboring city, Larkspur, often called "the Twin Cities," share a police department with San
Anselmo (the Central Marin Police Authority) and is currently in discussion with Larkspur
regarding merging fire departments.
View from the Town
Corte Madera does not have and has no plans to adopt a formal PE Plan. According to the town,
"Public engagement is an expectation as a Town. We follow best practices for engaging the public
and disseminating information. We also hire employees that understand the importance of this
expectation. "
Extending outreach through webcasting, Facebook, Nextdoor, texting and mobile apps, Corte
Madera has also created an effective transparency portal on their website.26
The town also regularly assesses their PE efforts for effectiveness, asking participants for feedback
and advice pertaining to their PE experience.
Views From the Residents
Ten Corte Madera residents responded to our survey. By the numbers:
Meeting Attendance 70% have attended at least one meeting annually
Engagement Interest 70% want to be engaged more
PE Satisfaction 60% are at least "somewhat satisfied" by efforts
Detailed PE Issues Increased effort, advance information, and informs
are ranked worst
PE Tool Awareness Website and social media are most familiar
25 "Our Mission Statement." Age -Friendly Corte Madera. Accessed 28 Apr. 2017.
26 "Transnarencv Portal." The Town of Corte Madera.
June 15, 2017 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 11 of 61
Public Engagement In Marin
The quotes below are some of the responses to our invitation for general comment. However, it
must be noted that given the small number of responses, these views are not necessarily
representative of the greater public's views:
Town has an outstanding website, a weekly online newsletter, email notices of hearings and uses
Nextdoor to distribute information.
We wonder where the tax $$ goes, as many updates and repairs are shoddily done; especially with
the heavy weather and damage to many roadside areas.
Corte Madera is generally open with its communication. Some people are just not interested in
participating.
View from the Media
* The road to completing Corte Madera's Tam Ridge apartment complex has been a rocky one. A
March 2017 IJ editorial27 citing progress on the project stated, "There have been some important
lessons learned along the way, including that it is better to make sure that the public is informed
about and encouraged to engage in the decision making process than having to deal with the public
fall -out." Because of its controversial development history, this same article reported that, "The
building has also reinvigorated public interest in local planning decisions, as residents have gotten
a look at what can happen when they aren't paying attention."
* In another development debate, plans to rebuild a major Corte Madera hotel has run up against
public opposition over the paving of a pond that currently sits on the intended expansion site.
After vetting the plan in what the IJ in April 2017 called "marathon meetings," most recently one
with a "heated, four-hour standoff," the issue continues to be debated.28
Summary
➢ The town reports good PE efforts and has no plans to create a formal PE Plan.
➢ Residents who responded to our survey are generally positive, although "advance
information" and "informs" were rated negatively. This view is perhaps part of the
difficulties reported in the media.
➢ The Marin IJ reported on two on-going controversies in Corte Madera highlighting the
recognition that early and on-going involvement in community issues is crucial.
27 "Marin IJ: Proeress on Corte Madera apartment complex welcome." Marin Independent Journal 26 Feb. 2017
28 Rodriguez, Adrian. "Corte Madera hotel plan plods throueh pond debate." Marin Independent Journal. 4 Apr. 2017
June 15, 2017 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 12 of 61
Public Engagement In Marin
Snapshot Fairfax
__J
The town of Fairfax has a population of 7,441. Nearly 27% of the residents are families with kids
under 18, and 4.5% have kids under five. The Town of Fairfax website describes Fairfax as "...an
environmentally conscious community situated in the heart of central Marin County and is
considered the most progressive of Marin's 11 incorporated cities. " The site further states, "The
Town has ordinances preventing chain stores; take-out styrofoam food packaging and plastic bags
and is in the process of updating its General Plan with a goal of retaining its small town
character. "29
View from the Town
Fairfax does not have a formal PE Plan, nor does it intend to create one. While Fairfax "actively
engages the community for input on major land use, projects, and/or policy issues," the town finds
that "different approaches are needed for different issues/projects. " As an example of rigorous,
ongoing public discourse requiring time and resources, Fairfax cited, "One land use issue [that]
has been in discussion for four years."
After gathering community input via a community workshop and online forums, the town recently
changed direction regarding plans for their Town Center. In addition, public online forum
discussions surrounding the issue of medical marijuana cultivation led to a more informed
decision.
Views from the Residents
Sixteen residents responded to our survey. By the numbers:
Meeting Attendance 68.8% have attended at least one meeting annually
Engagement Interest 68.8% want to be engaged more
PE Satisfaction 43.8% are at least "somewhat satisfied" by efforts
Detailed PE Issues Advance information, full consideration, and
informs are ranked worst
PE Tool Awareness Website and surveys are most familiar
29 "About Fairfax. California." Town of Fairfax.
June 15, 2017 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 13 of 61
Public Engagement In Marin
Below are some responses to our invitation to make general comments:
I wish that the Town would post on Facebook or have a blog as part of their website to post
updates about ongoing issues.
The more controversial items on the meeting agenda are scheduled at the end of the town meetings,
so you may have to stay 4 hours to be heard. I've seen instances of the town council making
decisions before the public is heard...
The Town of Fairfax government operates in secrecy and with complete disregard for the interests
of its citizens. There is an imperial and dismissive air to Town officials. They do not care at all
what residents think and completely disregard views contrary to their own.
View from the Media
The Fairfax Town Council has reacted to the undoing of a 2014 rezoning decision by proposing
a new district exclusively for senior housing in hopes of building community support for the
affordable senior housing project known as Victory Village. A March 2016 IJ article reported that,
"Opponents to the rezoning gathered more than 1,000 signatures on a petition forcing the council
to backtrack and undo the zoning change."
Opposition for this latest zoning proposal has been vocal, but support for Victory Village is also
being voiced. According to the IJ, "The project has the full support of the Marin Organizing
Committee, a group of 16 civic organizations, including churches and synagogues, which has
championed the cause of addressing Marin's affordable housing shortage." -'o
* In a related issue, a former Fairfax council member posted a letter on behalf of a concerned
citizen's group to The Marin Post. The letter, addressed to the Town's mayor and council,
appeared under the headline "Fairfax residents ask Town to preserve public engagement and
transparency in planning decisions. ,31
Summary
➢ Fairfax reports having no PE Plan with no intent to develop one. The town believes
different approaches to engage the public are needed for different kinds of issues.
➢ The resident response to our survey indicates a wish for increased efforts in PE by the
town. Less than half the respondents to our survey were somewhat satisfied with the
town's efforts and the majority expressed the desire to become more involved.
➢ This view was also expressed by residents in a letter addressed to the Town and
subsequently posted to The Marin Post.
30 Halstead, Richard. "Fairfax tries new zoning tack on senior housing complex." Marin Independent Journal. 6 Mar. 2017.
31 "Fairfax residents ask Town to preserve public engagement and transparency in planning decisions." The Marin Post. 1 Feb.
2017.
June 15, 2017 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 14 of 61
Public Engagement In Marin
Snapshot Larkspur
Larkspur's population is 11,926, making it the fifth largest municipality in Marin. The median
family income is $115,360. Along with Belvedere and Sausalito, more than 21% of its residents
are over 65, which gives these three cities the highest percentage of older adults in all Marin.
Larkspur and Corte Madera are often referred to as the "Twin Cities," in part because of their
close proximity to one another. The Twin Cities share a local community newspaper (Twin Cities
Times), are currently in negotiation regarding a merger of fire departments, and have consolidated
police departments with San Anselmo forming the tri -city "Central Marin Police Authority."
View from the City
Larkspur does not have a formal PE Plan. Engagement opportunities are made available in
multiple ways beyond the public meeting, including use of tools such as Facebook, Twitter and
texting. Larkspur states that they view their public as partners, and give full consideration to
public input before making decisions. PE is an assigned duty of one or more staff members and the
City of Larkspur "makes every effort to engage the public in its processes. "
Views from the Residents
There were nine responses from Larkspur residents to our survey. By the numbers:
Meeting Attendance
88.9% have attended at least one meeting annually
Engagement Interest
66.7% want to be engaged more
PE Satisfaction
33.3% are at least "somewhat satisfied" by efforts
Detailed PE Issues
Broad accessibility, advance information, and full
consideration are ranked worst
PE Tool Awareness
Website and email are most familiar
The quotes below are some of the responses to our invitation for general comments. It must be
noted, however, that given the small number of responses, these views are not necessarily
representative of the public's views:
I haven't used the Larkspur Web Site. I don't think I get information that I need to know [about]
what is going on in the City Hall Meetings or general information about [what] is going on about
town. Only if I go to the City and ask a particular questions is when I find out what is going on
about that one thing.
Staff (city manager) wants to control information presented at meetings. Often will not release
contribution to board meetings before the date.
A recently started email newsletter from the City Manager is excellent.
June 15, 2017 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 15 of 61
Public Engagement In Marin
View from the Media
* In February 2016, the Marin IJ reported that two 25 -foot poles gifted to the City of Larkspur
were installed on Magnolia Avenue at Ward Street to allow nonprofits, schools and public
agencies to promote events by hanging a banner across the avenue. However, some business
owners and residents weren't happy about the poles or what was perceived as a lack of public
process preceding their installation. Concerned that the poles were too big and not in keeping with
Larkspur's historical downtown, one business owner said he felt "blind -sided" and that, "It would
have been nice to give some design comment. I think that if they had done a structure that had at
least appeared somewhat more historic, it could have been fine." City officials said that the poles
"were considered a utility project, which didn't require the same treatment as a remodel or upkeep
of architecture."32 Although the poles were discussed in two public meetings, it seems residents
were still caught off guard. In a subsequent City Council meeting, city officials said they "failed
the public process" and called for the poles to be brought down immediately.33
* In February of 2017, an IJ editorial noted that public protests prompted Larkspur to reverse its
decision (which was already being implemented) to reduce traffic lanes on a heavily -traveled,
short stretch of Magnolia Avenue at a cost of thousands of dollars to taxpayers. While the City
approved the lane change, it did not "get much public attention until locals noticed the [rerouting]
lines painted on the road." The Editorial noted this "deserved more effective front-end attention"
and "That attention might have saved taxpayers $50,000, a cost that should serve as a reminder for
future projects .„34
* Since 2012, the City has been working on the design and funding for a new library and
community center. An anonymous donor offered $4M to the Larkspur Library Foundation in
exchange for their pledge to match the donation. According to the City, it became clear that the
community and donor's visions differed, and the donor's pledge was withdrawn. "Our hope has
been to create a proposal that could be supported by the community from both an aesthetic and
functional point of view, and also attract needed funding resources. We acknowledge that the
process has not been without controversy, but we are committed to its success, regardless of what
outcome it may produce. Public engagement can be a slow, arduous and costly process, but the
value added by this investment will be reflected in the quality of the results. Consensus begins
with discussion and compromise, and we are committed to continue the conversation over the
coming months. ,35
Summary
➢ Larkspur has no formal PE Plan and no intent to develop one, although the agency does
report utilizing multiple tools to engage the public.
➢ With only nine responses from the public, the Grand Jury makes no inferences.
➢ Larkspur has more than once in the recent past found it necessary to reverse decisions due
to public outcry.
32 Rodriguez, Adrian. "Commotion rises over Larkspur promotional banner poles.” Marin Independent Journal. 26 Feb. 2016.
33 Rodriguez, Adrian. "Larkspur council considers relocating controversial banner poles." The Mercury News. 2 Mar. 2016
34 "Larkspur rescinds Magnolia lane change." Marin Independent Journal. 1 Feb. 2017.
35 "Larkspur is committed to work on new library." Marin Independent Journal. 11 Apr. 2017
June 15, 2017 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 16 of 61
Public Engagement In Marin
Snapshot Mill Valley
According to 2010 census data, Mill Valley has a population of 13,903. This makes Mill Valley
the third largest city in Marin. The median family income is $167,000. Of the 6,084 households,
30% have children under 18. Similar to San Rafael, Mill Valley shares its zip code with a number
of unincorporated areas including Strawberry, Tam Valley, Almonte, Homestead Valley and Alto.
View from the City
Mill Valley has a formal PE Plan. Adopted in June of 2014, their Strategic Communications Plan
is "...designed to identify goals and strategies to effectively communicate with community
members, drive the development of internal communications policies, and improve the overall
effectiveness of the City in meeting the needs of the community. „36
As identified in the Communications Plan, a "Communications Group"— comprised of a
Community Engagement Supervisor (newly established position as a result of the Plan),
Communications Specialist (part-time contract service provider), and the Assistant to the City
Manager — was established to implement communication goals. Mill Valley now has an active
Community Engagement Supervisor who reports to the Assistant to the City Manager. In addition,
Mill Valley has a convenient transparency portal on its recently revised website. 37
With two-way communication defined as a priority, Mill Valley has been busy with many
significant PE processes over the past 24 months, including: community workshops, regular email
newsletter updates, liaisons with the business community, outdoor tabling and tent events, and
door-to-door interactions. As a result of increased involvement of the public, more decisions are
based on community support and, in one instance, such efforts "galvanized a neighborhood."
Views from the Residents
We received responses from 22 residents of Mill Valley. By the numbers:
Meeting Attendance 86.4% have attended at least one meeting annually
Engagement Interest 59.1 % want to be engaged more
PE Satisfaction 72.7% are at least "somewhat satisfied" by efforts
Detailed PE Issues Full consideration and builds relationships are
ranked worst
PE Tool Awareness Website, email, and direct mail are most familiar
Of the 22 respondents who completed our survey, not all responded to our invitation for general
comments. However, some of those responses are below:
MV City manager does a yeoman's job of sending out MV Connect and his Newsletter on a regular
basis, putting a positive spin on most subjects, even the less savory subjects.
I think that the decision making process about who should serve on committees should be more
transparent.
More advanced notice is needed about meaty agenda items. Agendas come out Thursday for
Monday meetings. Not enough time to inform and engage citizens and businesses. Would like an
36 "Strateeic Communications Plan." City of Mill Valley. June 2014.
37 "Transnarencv." City of Mill Valley. Accessed 28 Apr. 2017.
June 15, 2017 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 17 of 61
Public Engagement In Marin
annual and six month published calendar with topics. Mill Valley communication and decision
making too centralized in City Manager.
Council member hosts table at Litton [sic] Square monthly ---Rotates-- for citizen input etc. Great
effort by them.
I see council members in town and they are very approachable and take time to stop and answer
questions or make suggestions or provide contact information.
90% of what they do is for show and to avoid legal challenges, not because they actually want to
hear any dissenting opinions.
View from the Media
* Settlement of a lawsuit alleging failure to preserve and protect the city's recreational and
emergency evacuation routes was contingent upon approval at a March 20, 2017 Mill Valley City
Council meeting. The lawsuit was filed against Mill Valley's city manager in October 2016 by a
former city planning commissioner and longtime trail advocate. The IJ reported that, "News of the
lawsuit ignited citizens, who formed a committee to put pressure on city officials to correct what
they say has been years of neglect." As a result, "The City Council in January approved a nine -
point action plan to address concerns about the protection and preservation of the paths. The city
has since resolved more than 10 complaints of encroachments through a crackdown in
enforcement." Mill Valley's mayor was quoted as saying, "This action is an example of the Mill
Valley City Council listening to the community and taking deliberate and thoughtful action to
directly resolve concerns."38
* Mill Valley has taken action in responding to acts of hate and anti-Semitism in their community
by adopting a resolution, "reaffirming its commitment to respect, tolerance and compassion — with
a plan to appoint a `task force' committee to reinforce the effort," stated the Marin IJ in an April
18, 2017 article. The "resolution package" includes "an action plan to audit existing community
programs in an effort to ensure that the city is offering services, policies and programs with the
same intent and commitment to tolerance and respect." Further, "Community members were
excited that the council was discussing these issues of intolerance." The task force will likely
include those who live and work in Mill Valley. 39
Summary
➢ Mill Valley has a robust PE Plan and website and has made two-way communication a
priority.
➢ The City has a highly -engaged public that mostly views council members favorably, but
thinks issues could be communicated earlier and better.
➢ The IJ reports quick responses to high-profile citizen concerns.
38 Rodriguez, Adrian. "Mill Valley settles stens, lanes and paths lawsuit." Marin Independent Journal. 18 Mar. 2017.
39 Rodriguez, Adrian. "Mill Valley council promotes respect and tolerance to quell hate episodes." Marin Independent Journal. 18
Apr. 2017.
June 15, 2017 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 18 of 61
Public Engagement In Marin
Novato is Marin's second largest city with a population of 51,904. The median age of its residents
is 43 years with 15.7% over 65. Novato has the second largest concentration of Hispanic or Latino
residents at 21.3%, behind San Rafael with 30%. The median family income is $97,000/year.40
Nearly half of the city's employees live within Novato, an important issue for many Marin cities
and towns where affordability is often a challenge.
View from the City
As the second most populous municipality in Marin, Novato has a PE Plan (dated 2015-2016)
which has not been formally adopted. They also employ a Public Communications Coordinator
who is specifically tasked with public participation and engagement. For Novato, "effective
communication means improving public access to timely, accurate, and helpful information about
the City and its services; providing a variety of easy, accessible, and meaningful ways to engage
with the City; and promoting transparency in the City's decision-making process and outcomes of
key citywide issues affecting the daily lives of our Novato community. "41
The City has a history of being engaged and active in civic discussion. However, they have
recently broadened their reach by recognizing and utilizing the changing technology landscape to
inform and engage the public. Facebook, Twitter, texting, webcasting, e -newsletters, and Nextdoor
are among the newer platforms Novato is using to expand their outreach.
Views from the Residents
Of the total number of responses to our survey by city and town, just over 50% (20 1) were from
Novato, by far the largest response to our survey. By the numbers:
Meeting Attendance 65.2% have attended at least one meeting annually
Engagement Interest 68.7% want to be engaged more
PE Satisfaction 50.7% are at least "somewhat satisfied" by efforts
Detailed PE Issues Full consideration, advance information, and
ample opportunity are ranked worst
PE Tool Awareness Website and email are most familiar
Some of the views expressed by Novato residents were:
A few Council members in Novato are excellent in answering questions, etc. City staff in some
areas however, have already made their decision before public engagement. The public
engagement is a mandatory formality only.
One has to be very civic minded to follow all that is going on in the City and where the information
is. I get lost trying to find which place has the information I need - and often would prefer a
'layperson's summary rather than legalize [sic]. It's a full time job (exhausting!) trying to keep up
with what is happening and I have only focused on the things I am involved with and rely on others
to spread the word on something that requires additional attention.
40 "List of California locations by income." Wikipedia. Accessed 28 Apr. 2017.
41 "Communications & Community En2aeement Plan." City of Novato. 2015-2016.
June 15, 2017 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 19 of 61
Public Engagement In Marin
Public communication engagement efforts are improving online (Nextdoor.com for example). That
said, I would hope that the intention of the public engagement efforts are genuine and that City
truly wants to hear from its taxpayers and residents. More often than not it seems that the
community is being "engaged" so that the City can check that box off without really caring about
Citizen opinion.
Would like to see more communication and outreach in Spanish to engage our Spanish-speaking
population
I would like to be able to provide feedback online instead of having to attend in person a meeting
(at a time I usually can't attend) in order to provide feedback.
The city is misleading in its very few and limited attempts at notifying the public. It's usually after
the fact news and only very few members of the community seem to know what's going on.
Plenty of opportunity is given, not much taken due to citizen inertia. Sometimes people who have
not taken the opportunity to voice their opinions at the onset of a proposal will later become very
vocal about quashing it. You can bring a horse to water.
View from the Media
* IJ Editorials in January and November 2016 discussed the dissatisfaction of Novato residents
concerning the City's decision-making process preceding installation of solar panels over the
parking lot at the Hamilton pool. This led to a resident's lawsuit and increasing costs. The City
apologized for not doing a better job of involving neighbors in the decision-making process — a
dialogue that the IJ commented, "should have taken place long before the city installed [the
panels]."42 Novato subsequently submitted an article for publication in the IJ stating its
commitment to public engagement and transparency. 43
Six weeks later, the IJ commented that the City had used unclear language ("bureaucratese") in
titling a City Council agenda item. 44
In April 2017, the IJ complimented the City of Novato for agreeing to engage residents concerning
proposals to develop three city -owned sites at Hamilton. 45
Summary
➢ Many of the responses from the public echoed the issues reported in Views From the
Media.
➢ While the City of Novato has been increasingly using more communication tools, it
appears that the City could better engage the public earlier on topics that are likely to be
controversial.
42 "Solar panels a test for Novato's leaders." Marin Independent Journal. 14 Jan. 2016.; "Is Novato leeal clash worth the cost?"
Marin Independent Journal. 20 Nov. 2016.
43 "Novato is leadine on community engagement and transparency." Marin Independent Journal. 14 Dec. 2016.
44 "Novato should have delayed TAM tax vote." Marin Independent Journal. 30 Jan. 2017; "Novato. TAM display mastery of
bureaucratese." Marin Independent Journal. 31 Jan. 2017.
45 "A little time would be well invested in Hamilton." Marin Independent Journal. 3 April 2017.
June 15, 2017 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 20 of 61
Public Engagement In Marin
Snapshot Rossi,
The town of Ross has a population of 2,415 with a median family income of $200,800. Ross is the
second smallest municipality in Marin. It has by far the smallest percentage of renter -occupied
housing units at 14%, indicating the vast majority of residents own their own homes. Ross has the
largest percentage of families with kids under 18 at 43% and, along with Belvedere, has the
highest percentage of residents with bachelor's degrees in Marin at 82%. With the national
average at 22%, Ross is clearly a highly -educated community.
View from the Town
Ross also does not have and does not plan to adopt a formal PE Plan. The rationale for not
adopting a plan mostly revolves around engagement as it currently happens in this very small
town:
Towns and cities that are small -scaled in size and resources generally conduct business in
a somewhat more organic fashion that naturally relies on active citizen engagement to
accomplish the public's business. Even if there is no adopted Plan, towns become acutely
aware of issues that matter to their community, the stakeholders and others who are
impacted, and the formal and informal methodologies to inform, consult, and/or engage.
As such, public engagement principles and practices become naturally embedded into
operations.
Much of the PE that goes on in Ross is centered on land use decisions. As such, Ross fostered a
process conducive to dialogue and collaborative problem solving that offered early opportunity for
feedback regarding creation of their Advisory Design Review group and procedure. Other recent
PE processes conducted in Ross include extensive community engagement regarding improvement
to Winship Bridge (two public meetings were held at the bridge itself), and a survey about short-
term rentals that generated significantly more public participation and comment than previous
Town Council meetings or public workshops.
View from the Residents
There were four respondents to our survey and no comments regarding resident views of PE
efforts in Ross.
View from the Media
* At a meeting of the town council in July of last year, Ross, like other Marin municipalities,
addressed the issue of whether short-term rentals should be operating unregulated in their town. At
the time, with no regulations or definitions on residential use, the town's municipal code was
unclear regarding permitted use. But unlike other cities or towns, Ross — which operates on a
much smaller scale — has no hotels so has not collected transient occupancy taxes. The discussion
started in January 2015, but according to the IJ, "The council put off making any formal decision
due to a lack of rental activity." Nevertheless, the Ross planning manager stated, "There is merit in
fine-tuning some of our definitions." And not surprisingly, "Residents are on both sides of the
issue." Plans for a future meeting on the issue was announced .46
46 Rodriguez, Adrian. "Ross considers short-term rental regulations." Marin Independent Journal. 12 July 2016.
June 15, 2017 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 21 of 61
Public Engagement In Marin
* During a "two-hour, impassioned debate" at a packed Town Hall in Ross in December of 2016,
officials decided to go forward to restore a town -owned house instead of tearing it down to make
way for a park designed for preschoolers. Residents on both sides of the issue were involved: 27
members of the public spoke, 69 pieces of correspondence received, and 109 signatures collected
(in favor of the park). The IJ reported that the Town Council voted 4-1 to restore the house, which
could bring the town $10,000 to $20,000 annually in rental income. It was suggested that, "the
council form a committee of parents that could study options for the conceived playground
elsewhere. The council felt that might be the best approach. ,47
Summary
➢ Ross considers itself too small for a formal PE Plan, addressing and reacting to issues as
necessary.
➢ The Grand Jury did not receive enough responses from residents to make any relevant
observations.
➢ Ross may be small, but issues can be seen as "big" when it comes to public engagement.
47 Rodriguez, Adrian. "Ross nature nark nixed to restore workforce house." Marin Independent Journal. 9 Dec. 2016.
June 15, 2017 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 22 of 61
Public Engagement In Marin
r
pshot San1
San Anselmo has a population of 12,336 with a median family income of $122,800. As with other
areas in Marin, parts of San Anselmo are unincorporated, including Sleepy Hollow and an area at
the end of San Francisco Boulevard. Six percent of San Anselmo's population is less than 5 years
old and 13.5% are over 65.
View from the Town
San Anselmo does not currently have a PE Plan, but says they intend to design a "Public
Engagement Guide" this year, formalizing and instituting a "guide for use by staff that will be
modified as new methods of reaching the public are created, discovered or changed. " San
Anselmo stated, "We want people to become involved, ask questions, provide feedback and be
part of the decision-making process. We feel that making the effort to get the community involved
is integral to our work."
The town already makes use of many modern platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, webcasting,
texting, and Nextdoor as well as workshops and surveys. However, San Anselmo's responses to
our Information Request indicate that these tools are not necessarily used to collect community
feedback regarding their PE processes.
Views From the Residents
There were 19 responses from San Anselmo residents. By the numbers:
Meeting Attendance 57.9% have attended at least one meeting annually
Engagement Interest 78.9% want to be engaged more
PE Satisfaction 52.6% are at least "somewhat satisfied" by efforts
Detailed PE Issues Full consideration, advance information, and clear
language are ranked worst
PE Tool Awareness Website, email, and surveys are most familiar
Some of their responses to our invitation to make general comments are below:
At all levels staff attempts citizen input to significant and small issues effecting [sic] residents.
San Anselmo refuses to do anything about the flooding other than purchase expensive buildings
and let them sit there. They do nothing about cleaning the creek and spend all of our money on
consultants saying in S years they will do something.
Language for town council meetings are dense, not accessible.
By the time an item reaches Town Council it seems a decision has already been made and the input
at the meeting is disregarded.
It's a two way street: citizens must make an appropriate effort to stay informed.
June 15, 2017 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 23 of 61
Public Engagement In Marin
View from the Media
* Flooding and how to deal with it continues to be a major concern in Ross Valley. Over 100
people showed up to a "scoping session" held in February of this year to consider the
environmental impacts of a major flood prevention program that residents say, "could undermine
their livelihood," according the Marin U. Several San Anselmo merchants at the meeting
maintained that some of the [plan's] "structural modifications" would mean "the possible loss and
relocation of beloved businesses." One resident stated, "County officials should be more clear in
their presentations and that when addressing a building, rather than numbering it as one, two or
three, it should be called by the business it represents." Other residents voiced anxieties over the
plan that ranged from concern for coho and steelhead salmon populations to the safety and
effectiveness of detention basins.
The county capital planning and project manager has "heard the frustration" and "staff has been
working to keep up the pace on communicating and making progress. We are trying to take this as
a watershed community wide approach and everyone's participation is going to be really
important."48
Summary
➢ San Anselmo has no PE Plan to guide them yet. Community feedback could be better
prioritized.
➢ Public wants to be engaged more. Clear and advance information would help to achieve
this.
➢ The media echoes what the public says.
48 Rodriguez. Adrian. "Debate continues over Ross Vallev flood Ulan." Marin IJ. 17 Feb. 2017.
June 15, 2017 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 24 of 61
Public Engagement In Marin
Snapshot San Rafael
San Rafael is a city and the county seat of Marin. According to the 2010 census, San Rafael has a
population of 57,713 which makes it the largest municipality in Marin. The median family income
is $96,000. Although parts of Santa Venetia, Lucas Valley, Marinwood and other unincorporated
areas have a San Rafael address and zip code, residents of these areas responded to our survey as
residents of unincorporated Marin. If all residents with either 94901 or 94903 zip codes were
included in San Rafael census data, the total would be over 70,000 or almost 25% of Marin's total
population. San Rafael is nearly 71% white with the largest Hispanic or Latino population in
Marin at about 30%, or 17,000 people as of 2010.
View from the City
The City of San Rafael has the largest population of any municipality in Marin. As such, in
January of 2015 they adopted a formal PE Plan: the Community Engagement Action Plan. 49 To get
there, though, they first conducted a survey and held community workshops. Goals included
demystifying local government, engaging earlier, and enhancing their technological tools.
San Rafael's plan calls for considering the hiring of a Public Information Officer or
Communications Coordinator. The city states that "...our commitment to robust community
engagement continues — we recognize the value that [such] engagement brings to civic discourse
and decision-making."
San Rafael's newly -adopted Community Engagement Action Plan was put to use right away. Key
tenets from this plan were developed into a specific communications plan 50 that addressed ongoing
efforts to rebuild two fire stations and establish a new downtown public safety center. Members of
the public and key stakeholder groups were involved from the outset and information has been
made available via email, Nextdoor, YouTube, and open house events at the fire stations.
The Grand Jury commends San Rafael for receiving the Davenport Institute for Public
Engagement and Civic Leadership's highest award (Platinum) for public engagement in 2016.
Further evidence of San Rafael's public engagement efforts can be seen on their "Engage and
Connect" website page. 51
49 "Community Engagement Action Plan." City of San Rafael.
so "Essential Facilities Communications Plan." City of San Rafael.
si "Engage and Connect." City of San Rafael. Accessed on 28 Apr. 2017.
June 15, 2017 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 25 of 61
Public Engagement In Marin
Views from the Residents
A total of 78 San Rafael residents responded to our survey. By the numbers:
Meeting Attendance 66.7% have attended at least one meeting annually
Engagement Interest 78.2% want to be engaged more
PE Satisfaction 56.4% are at least "somewhat satisfied" by efforts
Detailed PE Issues Informs, full consideration, and advance
information are ranked worst
PE Tool Awareness Website, email, surveys, and social media are most
familiar
There was a mix of views on the City's efforts to engage the public, including a number of
respondents who felt the City was not responsive or made decisions prior to fully engaging the
public. Some of their responses are noted below:
With the drop in daily newspaper readership we don't really know what's on the city council
agenda, though I suppose you can go to the city's website and it should be there. A lot of
announcements about what civic meetings are going on where and when are posted by neighbors
on the nextdoor.com website.
Council demonstrates openness to community input. Staff have worked well with Gerstle Park
neighborhood on many topics. I observe a sense of pride in the work staff do.
They sometimes reach out but do not listen. The process seems designed to support decisions
already made. Feel used and manipulated
Seems decisions take forever to be made... also how the place works seems stacked against the
regular people. Only those who know what's what in the civil domain can get things done. But I'm
trying to speak out.
Need to create more awareness of communication channels.
View from the Media
The IJ has commended San Rafael's outreach inviting residents to become involved in fire
station design52 and public input for the redesign of Albert Park.53 Marin IJ's February 2016
editorial had this to say about the fire station project:
San Rafael is holding the door wide open for the public to get involved in the design of fire stations
those taxpayers are paying for.
Instead of keeping all of those decisions limited to the agendas of the City Council and its boards,
the city has posted architects' drawings ofproposed changes online and held open houses at the
sites before Wednesday's meeting of the city Design Review Board.
The process is an invitation to local residents to be part of the process.
It was noted that instead of relegating public outreach to the background since the tax was
approved, the City has made an effort to keep residents engaged in the decision making.
52 "City Hall seeks public comment on San Rafael fire stations." Marin Independent Journal. 15 Feb. 2016.; "City Hall seeks
ublic comment on San Rafael fire stations." Marin Independent Journal. 15 Feb. 2016.
51 Rodriguez, Adrian. "San Rafael's Albert Park redesien near final hurdles." Marin Independent Journal. 20 March 2017.
June 15, 2017 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 26 of 61
Public Engagement In Marin
* After two years and multiple public meetings, San Rafael's City Council is expected to consider
an upgrade to Albert Park. Gathering over 60 responses suggesting improvements for the park, the
City determined that the play area was in need of an update. After hearing support for the project,
and in concert with a citizen's group's efforts toward park cleanups, the City Council allocated
$250,000 in funding. If the commission approves the plan, construction could begin by the end of
the year.
Summary
�i- San Rafael has a PE Plan, created in part with information from the community, that is
utilized for effective PE.
➢ There is already a high level of engagement by the public, but interest in engagement is
even higher. The public is calling on the City to listen more.
➢ Media reports good efforts on the part of the City and its residents, resulting in action.
June 15, 2017 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 27 of 61
Public Engagement In Marin
Sausalito has a population of 7,061 and a median family income of $180,900. Owner -occupied
and renter -occupied homes are nearly equal at 50.8% and 49.2% respectively. Twenty-one percent
of Sausalito's population is over 65 and 4.3% are under 5. There are over 400 houseboats in
Sausalit054 (many of which are outside the city limits) and although the resident population is
relatively small, weekends and vacation times bring thousands of tourists to the town, impacting
the community in multiple ways including traffic, commerce and bicycle safety issues.
View from the City
Although currently without a formal PE Plan, Sausalito says it intends to adopt one. According to
the town, "Sausalito is proud to have a highly engaged population of well-educated and active
community members. " They describe their PE process as "...on a project -by -project basis [where]
individual community outreach plans are created to ensure that the public is provided with more
and better information and is afforded all opportunities to influence public decisions. "
An example of this approach is the ongoing Ferry Landing project where "The public engagement
process has resulted in the City challenging the originally -proposed design in order to tailor the
project appropriately." Since early 2015, when the City Council approved a public review process
regarding this project, Sausalito has provided many opportunities to engage their residents. These
included holding a number of stakeholder meetings; two public hearings; the installation of an
exhibit in City Hall; and an on -the -water buoy demonstration to give the public a visual
representation of the dimensions of the project. The City states, "Although the project is still
ongoing (currently pending a lawsuit), the public engagement process has resulted in the City
challenging the originally -proposed design in order to tailor the project appropriately."
According to the official Nextdoor page of the City of Sausalito, 55 the city librarian now also
serves as Director of Communications for the City of Sausalito.
54 Carber, Kristine. "Floating through life / Sausalito houseboat community will show off its one -of -a -kind dwellings on Sunday."
SFGate. 4 Oct. 2003.
55 "City of Sausalito." Nextdoor. Accessed 28 Apr. 2017
June 15, 2017 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 28 of 61
Public Engagement In Marin
Views from the Residents
There were five respondents to our survey and one comment regarding resident views of PE
efforts in Sausalito:
The history of Sausalito contains repeated episodes of citizens becoming engaged only after
becoming aware of a decision (or near decision), with staff maintaining that "we held xxx hearings
and surveys months (or years) ago" to juste the action. City agendas and packets come out on the
Friday afternoon (late) before the next Tuesday's meeting, leaving little time to review or mount
participation. Important issues have been decided late at night, or at midday during the work week,
or during summer/winter vacation periods. Often the same people, or people with special interests,
are appointed to committees/commissions. Staff and Council have long made overtures and efforts
to include "stakeholders": ie nonresident tourists, bicyclists, development interests, non-resident
property and business owners - whose voices and interests can hijack the decision making process.
View from the Media
A Superior Court judge has ruled against the Golden Gate Bridge district in its attempt to get
parts of a Sausalito lawsuit over a planned $11 million ferry terminal thrown out. 56 Filing the
lawsuit last September, Sausalito alleged the bridge district is violating a 1995 lease agreement
that requires city approval for "major alterations" to the ferry landing. In 2014 the district
proposed that a new dock replace the current, aging float, "which will not meet future federal rules
for accessibility." Residents claimed that the proposed larger design "didn't fit the waterfront
character of the small town and would only encourage more people — including tourists on
bicycles — to crowd the area. Others said the new dock was a needed safety improvement." The
district is expected to challenge the legal grounds of the case on May 4, when another hearing will
take place.
* In December 2016 Sausalito became the first city in Marin to approve an age -friendly action
plan aimed at seniors. The city's Age -Friendly Task Force crafted the plan with the hope that
some elements could be included in the general plan. They began meeting in April 2013 and
created a survey "to determine how Sausalito would be accessible and inclusive for its older
residents." Along with transportation and housing, "social participation, respect, social inclusion,
civic participation, employment, communication, information along with community support,
health services and safety are other topics addressed in the action plan. ,57
Summary
➢ Sausalito intends to adopt a PE Plan. Currently, PE is conducted on a project -by -project
basis.
➢ The Grand Jury did not receive enough responses from residents to make any relevant
observations.
➢ Sausalito is attempting to put the city's interests first in the face of change. They recognize
their aging population.
56 Prado, Mark. "Sausalito scores leeal victory in ferry dock dispute." Marin Independent Journal. 25 April 2017.
57 Prado, Mark. "Sausalito passes first senior action plan in countv." Marin Independent Journal. 20 Dec. 2016.
June 15, 2017 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 29 of 61
Public Engagement In Marin
Snapshot Tiburon
Tiburon has a population of 8,962 and a median family income of $170,000. Twenty-one percent
of its residents are over 65 and one-third are families with children under 18.
View from the Town
Tiburon does not have and has no plans to adopt a formal PE Plan since, "At this point, a
demonstrated need has not been established. " With knowledge of "principles of effective public
relations and interrelationships with community groups and agencies, private businesses and firms,
and other levels of government" as a stated essential qualification of the town manager, Tiburon
has incorporated elements of PE into at least one job description.58
One of Tiburon's most active community issues is that of residential building design and review.
A significant PE process recently completed in Tiburon was their Building and Planning Forum, a
public discussion led by an outside facilitator. The forum provided an opportunity for residents,
contractors and architects to hear "a brief review from staff on the Planning and Building process
in Tiburon and then have an opportunity to ask questions." This resulted in the town making
several immediate changes to their processes and studying several other potential future changes.
Views from the Residents
There were two respondents to our survey and no comments regarding resident views of PE efforts
in Tiburon.
View from the Media
* The Marin IJ reported in April that a neighborhood group in Tiburon has proposed removing a
grove of 42 trees along Tiburon Boulevard, most of them on town property. 59 They say the trees
are a fire and safety hazard and have offered to pay for their removal. Some opponents, however,
think that an underlying motive of the plan is to open up bay views for homes on the hillside. In a
similar attempt to get the trees removed in 1996, "Residents tried to get the Town Council to
weigh in, but they failed to produce a plan that would be paid for by the homeowners." The
current proposal for the grove was to be aired at an upcoming Parks, Open Space and Trails
Commission meeting at Tiburon's Town Hall. More than 50 letters and petitions on both sides
have been submitted to the town.
* A plan to improve bicycle routes is expected to find its way to Tiburon's Planning Commission
and Town Council by June. "The plan is part of a $200,000 grant -funded push by the
Transportation Authority of Marin. The goal is to develop multimodal -friendly communities
countywide that improve safety — and to identify gaps in bicycle and pedestrian connectivity with
neighboring towns and cities," said the Marin IJ in April.60 While the plan is aimed at making the
roads and paths safe for everyone, accommodating children is a specific goal. But some who live
on a particular stretch of what is part of The Bay Trail are concerned that the plan will encourage
even more bikers, who "run through frequently in droves ... and [the road] has become dangerous,"
58 "Town Manager." Town of Tiburon. Sep. 1994.
59 Rodriguez, Adrian. "Tiburon tree killing Plan has neighbors barking." Marin Independent Journal. 23 April 2017.
60 Rodriguez, Adrian. "Tiburon's bike and Pedestrian draft Plan stirs debate over Bav Trail route." Marin Independent Journal. 3
April 2017.
June 15, 2017 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 30 of 61
Public Engagement In Marin
according to one resident. Officials have attempted to compromise with the residents by proposing
signage and "slow zones."
Summary
➢ The Town of Tiburon does not think there is a need for a formal PE Plan. Planning and
design issues are a recurring topic of engagement.
➢ The Grand Jury did not receive enough responses from residents to make any relevant
observations.
➢ The media reports additional issues of importance to residents that are addressed at town
meetings.
June 15, 2017 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 31 of 61
Public Engagement In Marin
Marin is the fourth -smallest county in California by land area. It has a population of 252,409 with
a median family income of $120,000. Census data from 2010 shows 72.8% of Marin's population
is white, 15.5% Hispanic or Latino, 5.4% Asian and 2.6% Black or African American. Like many
California cities and counties, the Hispanic or Latino population has increased over the years,
going from 4.2% in 1980 to 15.5% in 2010. Age distribution is consistent with average
demographics in Marin towns and cities with:
■ Children under 5 = 5.5%
■ Age 5 to 17 = 15.2%
■ Age 18 to 64 = 62.6%
■ Over 65 = 16.7%
According to an article in the Huffington Post, "An estimated 54 percent of adults 25 and older in
Marin have a bachelor's degree and 22.5 percent have an advanced degree, more than in any other
California county and among the highest rates nationwide, according to new survey data from the
U.S. Census Bureau."61 The average number of adults in the U.S. with at least a bachelor's degree
is 22%.
View from the County
In January of 2012 Marin County adopted the County of Marin Public Communications Plan. 62
With a clear vision, mission and strategy, the plan speaks to specific strategies and actions. As
stated on the first page, "The County's approach to public communications is grounded in its
mission statement and input from Board of Supervisor members, community partners and staff."
The County's mission statement, which appears both on the County website and in their Plan, is
"...to provide excellent services that support healthy, safe and sustainable communities; preserve
Marin's unique environmental heritage; and encourage meaningful participation in the governance
of the County by all." An ongoing commitment to public engagement is also stated in the County
of Marin 5 Year Business Plan 2015-2020, which among other things focuses on being a
responsive government. 63
Clearly, PE is important to and actively practiced by our county representatives and employees.
However, some of the County's PE processes differ in scope from the individual cities and towns
discussed above. Because of the size of their constituency, PE efforts are executed and spread out
among supervisorial districts, departments, and agencies embedded within Marin's government.
Therefore, Marin County discourages posting information in more than one location on their
website. As a strategy that may effectively serve a single city or town, the County feels doing so
only serves to sow confusion when navigating their intricate site. Likewise the question of whether
or not (and how) an agency publishes a regular newsletter is more complicated for the County.
With many different departments as well as the Board of Supervisors and their respective districts
reporting to the public, multiple newsletters get curated and distributed, most of them online.
The County commented that, "Above all, a resident's level of involvement in a County decision-
making process greatly depends on that resident's personal investment in that topic or issue." In
61 Jason, Will. "Marin named California's most educated county." Marin Independent Journal. 21 April, 2013
62 "County of Marin Public Communications Plan." County of Marin. Jan. 2012.
63 "County of Marin 5 Year Business Plan 2015-2020." County of Marin. Jan. 2012.
June 15, 2017 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 32 of 61
Public Engagement In Marin
addition, the County said, "...decisions made by the Board of Supervisors tend to garner higher
rates of engagement from the public."
The County cited its recent engagement process around medical cannabis dispensary bids as very
successful. "Using targeted neighborhood outreach via Nextdoor.com combined with traditional
outreach tactics (media outreach, mailers, etc.), residents in those potentially affected communities
have been very engaged in the various public meetings held around the County and have been
submitting relevant public feedback through the appropriate comment channels (letter and
email). "
Views from the Residents
A total of 451 residents of both the incorporated and unincorporated areas of the County
responded to our survey. By the numbers:
Meeting Attendance 43.2% have attended at least one meeting annually
Engagement Interest 55.9% want to be engaged more
PE Satisfaction 37.3% are at least "somewhat satisfied" by efforts
Detailed PE Issues Informs, full consideration, and advance
information are ranked worst
PE Tool Awareness Website, email, and social media are most familiar
Some of the views expressed by County residents were:
The county continuously selects Unincorporated Marin for any regulation that is likely to be
opposed by the cities. This singles out Unincorporated Marin for all the bad or trial regulation
instead of working with the Incorporated areas to make sure everyone is served consistently.
The time of the Board of Supervisor meetings is challenging for those of us who work! Please
consider making them at a later time during the day. Thank you!
I get most of my County updates on Nextdoor, and appreciate the notifications and information.
If I didn't subscribe to the Marin IJI doubt that I would have much real information on actions
under consideration by the county. Perhaps better outreach to the public is in order.
Three minutes before the Board of Supervisors is inadequate. There should be extensive workshops
in all locations of the County, not just in southern Marin County.
County is in a tough place. They are the City Council to the unincorporated areas but for those
who have a City Council... outreach from the County is not as vital.
June 15, 2017 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 33 of 61
Public Engagement In Marin
View from the Media
* Since the IJ's December 2016 article urging the County to obtain more public involvement in
setting annual goals, recent articles note that the County has begun public meetings with residents
in the Ross Valley Flood Control District64 and launched an Open Data Portal .65
In addition, two County supervisors called for public input and discussion regarding the effects
of climate change on Marin by announcing three public meetings on the subject. "There will be no
progress without public engagement," stated the authors in an April 2017 submission to the Marin
66
Independent Journal.
* Officials again had their say in the IJ in March, stating, "We believe now is the time to step up
and get more fully engaged, right here, where we live. Civic engagement. At the local level.
Serving our neighborhoods and cities and towns. Attending a city or town council meeting or a
Board of Supervisors meeting may not be glamorous but it matters. Or, attend a local flood control
zone meeting — you can learn a lot about what we're doing and what needs to be done to protect
our future. Call or email your elected officials — we want to hear from you and we can do our jobs
better if you're in touch with us."67
Summary
➢ Marin County has both a formal PE Plan and a 5 Year Business Plan that focus on public
communication and government response, respectively. Engagement efforts are relatively
more complex at the county level.
➢ Less than half of survey respondents reported having attended at least one meeting per year
but over half say they want to be engaged more. PE satisfaction is low.
➢ Reports in the IJ show the County is making efforts to encourage the public to engage
more and is creating opportunity to do so.
64 Rojas, Raul. "Public Participation an important Dart of flood -control Dlanning." Marin Independent Journal. 15 Feb. 2017.
65 "Marin launches online trove of public data." Marin Independent Journal. 20 Feb. 2017.
66 Sears, Kate and Connolly, Damon. "Marin Voice: The county moves forward with climate action." Marin Independent Journal.
17 Apr. 2017.
67 Sears, Kate and Fryday, Josh. "Marin Voice: Whatever cause is important to you — try to engage locally." Marin Independent
Journal. 11 Mar. 2017.
June 15, 2017 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 34 of 61
Public Engagement In Marin
Sharing Our Data
As stated in our public PE surveys, "The Marin County Civil Grand Jury is seeking your input.
The information provided will be treated confidentially by the Grand Jury for its research and
report: Your name and email will not be shared with anyone, and your responses will not be
attributed to you."
With the rise of the Open Data Movement (examples include: Data.gov, the Data Foundation,
OpenGov, Marin County's Open Data Portal, and the City of Sausalito's Budget Transparency
Tool), we wanted other organizations — including future grand juries — to be able to leverage our
public data. Therefore, we are sharing all the public survey responses (removing all personal
identification) in two spreadsheets (one for Unincorporated Marin and one for the towns and cities
of Marin) online here: https://2oo.2l/hdWGf8.
June 15, 2017 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 35 of 61
Public Engagement In Marin
CONCLUSION
Public engagement is at the heart of inclusive governance. It should be the responsibility of each
agency to give full consideration to public input before making decisions that affect the
community -at -large. The Grand Jury agrees with agency leaders that public engagement need not
be a "one size fits all" strategy; it should vary based on the needs of the community. Whatever
engagement approach an agency chooses, we believe that simply having good intentions to engage
is not sufficient — each agency should formally state its public engagement plan or guidelines. A
published statement (in the form of a municipal resolution, for example) would ensure that
the staff, the public, and community-based organizations work to solve common problems using
transparent processes. In fact, the process of developing and publishing such a statement is another
opportunity to understand the needs of the community.
Agencies should also collaborate with community-based organizations (CBOs) to help reach
traditionally disenfranchised groups. Such groups are often unaware of issues likely to affect them
until last-minute decision-making. Collaboration with civic leaders and CBOs can increase both
the amount and quality of public engagement.
Consistent public engagement is a goal that requires agency commitment and adaptation. Public
engagement is not something done to simply "calm the public" over controversial issues. PE must
be used early and effectively to build trust, achieve community buy -in and support for agency
decisions with less contentiousness. The PE Plan or Guidelines should be revisited often to ensure
that it continues to "work" for everyone. Otherwise, PE becomes just another box that an agency
must check -off rather than a beneficial experience for all involved.
A fundamental premise of engaging the community is providing clear, consistent, easily available
modes of communication. Many of the residents responding to our survey reported being unaware
of available resources for obtaining and communicating information. Over a quarter of
respondents reported not knowing whether their local government agencies provided any avenues
at all to engage the public. It is important that the public understands the availability of these
avenues and whether agencies are doing what is needed to make it known that such avenues exist.
Equally important is the participation of the people of Marin in the public engagement dialogue.
Residents frequently become involved in their community when a specific issue arises that is of
particular interest or consequence to them personally. When that issue is resolved, how active or
concerned or even interested do they remain in other areas of their community? At its most
effective, public engagement is a path to inclusive governance.
June 15, 2017 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 36 of 61
Public Engagement In Marin
FINDINGS
F1. Having a formal PE Plan or PE Guidelines in place helps to foster better and faster
community involvement.
F2. Not everyone conducts PE in the same way.
F3. Agencies' perception of the need for PE is in response to a controversy, not an ongoing
process.
F4. Smaller municipalities do not necessarily have the need, the budget or the will to develop a
formal plan.
F5. Larger municipalities recognize the need for a formal PE Plan.
F6. Some agencies are close to having a PE Plan; it wouldn't take too much effort to formalize
one or to develop PE Guidelines.
F7. All Marin agencies agree that PE is important, and all are engaged to some degree.
F8. There is a disconnect between how agencies rate their PE efforts and how the public views
their efforts.
F9. Most agencies believe they are doing a good job of PE.
F10. Marinites want to be engaged more.
F11. The public perceives a need for more and better engagement opportunities, including
follow-up.
F 12. Only a few municipalities have an employee dedicated to PE.
F13. Building relationships between civic leaders and community-based organizations
contributes to the inclusion of traditionally disenfranchised groups, increasing the amount
and quality of PE — and providing support for the agencies.
F 14. Marin agencies are using various and multiple modes of technology to engage the public,
but the public isn't necessarily aware of this.
F15. Moving beyond the minimum requirements of The Brown Act is essential for modern day
PE.
F16. Marin agencies and their public are statistically comparable to the Bay Area in terms of PE
satisfaction and involvement levels.
F17. PE is a two-way street, requiring vigilance on the part of the public as well as the agencies
who serve them.
June 15, 2017 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 37 of 61
Public Engagement In Marin
RECOMMENDATIONS
R1. Each agency without a formal PE Plan should develop either a PE Plan or PE Guidelines
tailored to the needs of their public and publish the results.
R2. Each agency should obtain input from the public in the planning and design or update of its
plan/guidelines.
R3. Agency managers should regularly share their PE Plans and "lessons learned" with their
counterparts in other Marin agencies.
R4. Each agency should provide early and ample opportunity for PE in the form of proactive
engagement in order to ensure that the public is aware of all their PE opportunities.
R5. Post -engagement, each agency should follow up with the public, informing them of the
results of projects and issues.
R6. Each agency should create an easy -to -find area on their website dedicated to describing
current community issues and explaining how the public can get involved.
R7. Each agency should make PE a required responsibility of at least one staff person and
publicize that responsibility.
R8. Each agency should offer regular PE professional development to its staff.
R9. Each agency should develop meaningful and ongoing partnerships with their local
community-based organizations.
R10. Each agency should include on all written communications the social media platforms they
use.
R11. Each agency should communicate and emphasize to the public the importance of
participation in PE.
R12. Each agency should publish an annual report describing the effectiveness of their PE
efforts.
June 15, 2017 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 38 of 61
Public Engagement In Marin
REQUEST FOR RESPONSES
Pursuant to Penal code section 933.05, the grand jury requests responses as follows:
From the following governing bodies:
■ City of Belvedere (R1 -R12)
■ City of Larkspur (R1 -R12)
■ City of Mill Valley (R2 -R12)
■ City of Novato (R2 -R12)
■ City of San Rafael (R2 -R12)
■ City of Sausalito (R1 -R12)
■ County of Marin (R2 -R12)
■ Town of Corte Madera (R1 -R12)
■ Town of Fairfax (R1 -R12)
■ Town of Ross (R1 -R12)
■ Town of San Anselmo (R1 -R12)
■ Town of Tiburon (R1 -R12)
The governing bodies indicated above should be aware that the comment or response of the
governing body must be conducted in accordance with Penal Code section 933 (c) and subject to
the notice, agenda and open meeting requirements of the Brown Act.
Note: At the time this report was prepared information was available at the websites listed.
Reports issued by the Civil Grand Jury do not identify individuals interviewed. Penal Code Section 929 requires that reports of
the Grand Jury not contain the name of any person or facts leading to the identity of any person who provides information to the
Civil Grand Jury. The California State Legislature has stated that it intends the provisions of Penal Code Section 929 prohibiting
disclosure of witness identities to encourage full candor in testimony in Grand Jury investigations by protecting the privacy and
confidentiality of those who participate in any Civil Grand Jury investigation.
June 15, 2017 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 39 of 61
Public Engagement In Marin
APPENDIX A: Information Request From Agency
■ II
7111 � ....
ruff
7.�...,n ;III
Public Engagement Information Request
* Required
A. Public Engagement (PE): Abroad range of methods through which government agencies provide the public with more and
better information about, and meaningful opportunities to influence, public decisions.
B. PE flan: A formal, written plan or policy that a government agency makes easily accessible to the public it serves and
outlines the methods through which it provides the public with more and better information about, and meaningful
opportunities to influence, public decisions.
C. Community -Based Organization (13130): A group of individuals organized by and for a particular community of people or
entities based on shared interests and/or attributes. Members may include various stakeholders, such as the public, advocacy
groups, businesses and business leaders.
D. Transparency Portal: An easy to find agency website location containing or providing access to anticipated information the
public needs from all agency departments.
E. "You" or "Your": The agency responding to this survey
Name of Responding Agency*
Your Name *
Your Email *
June 15, 2017 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 40 of 61
Public Engagement In Marin
APPENDIX A: Information Request From Agency (cont'd)
1. Please state whether you agree or disagree that each of the following is a potential
benefit of effective PE: *
2. Do you have and follow a PE Plan?
O Yes
O No
3a. When did you formally adopt your PE Plan?
If your agency does not have and follow a PE plan, please enter NIA
Your ?ns:v r�r
3b. When did you last review and update your PE Plan?
If your agency does not have and follow a PE plan, p3ease choose N/A
O Within the last year
O Within the last 3 years
O Within the last 5 years
O N/A
3c. Do you have a commitment to review and update your PE Plan periodically?
If you do rot have and follow a PE Plan, please choose N/A.
O Yes
O No
O N/A
June 15, 2017 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 41 of 61
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Improved agency decision-making and actions, with
O
O
O
better impacts and outcomes
Morecommunity buy -in and support for agency
O
O
G
decisions, with less contentiousness
Better identification of public's values, ideas and
O
O
O
recommendations
More informed residerds--about issues and about
O
O
G
local agencies
More civil discussions and decision-making
O
O
O
raster project implementation with less need to revisit
O
O
G
again
More trust in each other and in IocaE government
O
O
O
Higher rates of community participation and
leadership development
O
O
G
2. Do you have and follow a PE Plan?
O Yes
O No
3a. When did you formally adopt your PE Plan?
If your agency does not have and follow a PE plan, please enter NIA
Your ?ns:v r�r
3b. When did you last review and update your PE Plan?
If your agency does not have and follow a PE plan, p3ease choose N/A
O Within the last year
O Within the last 3 years
O Within the last 5 years
O N/A
3c. Do you have a commitment to review and update your PE Plan periodically?
If you do rot have and follow a PE Plan, please choose N/A.
O Yes
O No
O N/A
June 15, 2017 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 41 of 61
Public Engagement In Marin
APPENDIX A: Information Request From Agency (cont'd)
4. If you do not have a PE Plan, do you intend to design one?
If you already have a PE Plan, please choose N/A
0 Yes
0 No
0 NIA
5. If you do not intend to design a PE Plan, please state why.
If you already have or intend to design a PE Plan, please enter N/A
6. Have you adopted a resolution demonstrating a commitment to effective PE?
0 Yes
0 No
X The planning and design of a public engagement process includes input from appropriate local officials as wdll as from
members of intended participant communities.
7. Have you developed a current database or contact list of potentially interested
residents and CBOs in order to engage them in your PE processes?
0 Yes
0 No
8. Did you (or will you) obtain input from LBOs and other members of the public in the
planning and design of your existing (or potential) PE Plan?*
If you do not already have or intend to design a PE Pian, please choose N/A.
0 Yes
0 No
0 N/A
June 15, 2017 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 42 of 61
Public Engagement In Marin
APPENDIX A: Information Request From Agency (cont'd)
9. Please state whether you agree or disagree that each of the following is an area for
application of PE: *
M There is clarity and transparency about public engagement process, sponsorship, purpose, design, and how decision makers
Will use the process results.
June 15, 2017 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 43 of 61
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
N/A
Parks & Recreation
O
O
O
O
Land Use & Planning
O
O
O
O
Transportation & Infrastructure
O
O
O
O
Law Enforcement
O
O
O
O
Housing
O
O
O
O
Homelessness
O
O
O
O
Electoral/Voting
O
O
O
O
Budgeting
O
O
O
O
Heelth/Social Ser�+iCes Delivery
O
O
O
0
Educavon
O
O
O
O
Immigrant Integration/Related Issues
O
O
O
O
Pensions & Other Poslemplayment Benefits
O
O
O
O
M There is clarity and transparency about public engagement process, sponsorship, purpose, design, and how decision makers
Will use the process results.
June 15, 2017 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 43 of 61
Public Engagement In Marin
APPENDIX A: Information Request From Agency (cont'd)
10. Please check any and all of the following strategies that you use to improve
transparency in your PE process: *
E A primary purpose of the public engagement process is to generate public views and ideas to help shape loca I government
action or policy, rather than persuade residents to accept a decision that has already been made.
11. Do you have any communications that contain "government -speak," "legalese" or
similar jargon that most people would have trouble understanding?
0 Yes
0 No
12. If so, are you considering revision of these types of communications in order to
make them more understandable?
If not, please choose N/A
0 Yes
0 No
G N/A
June 15, 2017 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 44 of 61
Use
don't Use
Publish a newsletter regularly
O
O
Distribute that newsletter by USMail
O
O
Distribute that newsletter by Email
O
O
D istribu le that newsletter through Website
O
O
Maintain a website page where recent community news can
O
Q
be accessed
Offer opportunities to the public you serve to view draft
O
O
budgets online and engage in the budgeting process
Your website includes a Transparency Portal (see Definition
O
0
a bove)
Accept online public records requests
O
Q
Regularly post frequently requested public records on your
website
O
O
E A primary purpose of the public engagement process is to generate public views and ideas to help shape loca I government
action or policy, rather than persuade residents to accept a decision that has already been made.
11. Do you have any communications that contain "government -speak," "legalese" or
similar jargon that most people would have trouble understanding?
0 Yes
0 No
12. If so, are you considering revision of these types of communications in order to
make them more understandable?
If not, please choose N/A
0 Yes
0 No
G N/A
June 15, 2017 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 44 of 61
Public Engagement In Marin
APPENDIX A: Information Request From Agency (cont'd)
13. Please check any and all of the following strategies that you use to improve the
authentic intent of your PE process: *
Regularly Use Sometimes Use Don't Use
PE is an assigned responsibility in the job
description of one or more of your staff
members
Within the past 24 months, staff members
and/orelected officials of your agency have
received training in how to identify and apply the
most effective PE strategies to the range of
issues that affect your agency and the public
you serve.
Summarize complex Communications into key
points.
Use clear and simple language in your written
and verbal communications
Distribute meaningful and timely information to
allow public views and ideas to shape actions
and policies
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
a
0
0
0
0
0
14. Please rate the culture within your agency with respect to PE on the following:
Excellent Good Needs Improvement
Thinking of PE as a method for improving
decision-making rather than being the
same as public relations
Viewing members of the public as
partners rather than clients
Giving full consideration to public input
before making decisions
Making proactive efforts to contact and
engage community members in order to
reach a broad spectrum of people,
including those not typically "engaged"
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
15. Please describe a significant public engagement process that you completed during
the past 24 months, including whether the process resulted in a more informed and/or
better decision.
16. In your experience, what circumstances have prompted the public you serve to
become broadly engaged in your decision making process? *
A The public engagement process includes people and viewpoints that a re broadly reflective of the Iota I agency's population of
affected residents.
June 15, 2017 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 45 of 61
Public Engagement In Marin
APPENDIX A: Information Request From Agency (cont'd)
17. Please check any and all of the following strategies that you use to broaden
participation in your PE process: *
O
O
O
O
Regularly Use
Sometimes Use
Dont Use
Build and nurture relationships with key
O
O
prior is agency decisions on those issues
individuals and CBOs that are broadly
O
O
O
reflective of the public you serve
O
O
more than one place on your website
Regularly distribute information and solicit
Such proactive information is communicated
input on issues of potential importance to
O
O
O
such key individuals and CBos
Provide participants in your PE process with
timely information and/or access to
expertise consistent with the work you
request them to do
Your PE process reflects, honors and
welcomes the community
Deliver PE presentations in high schools
and community college
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
A Participants in the public engagement process have information and/or access to expertise consistent with the work that
sponsors and conveners askthemto do.
18. Please check any and all of the following strategies that you use to improve
informed participation in your PE process: *
Platforms y
Regularly Use
Sometimes Use
Dont Use
Your website includes information that the
for timely identifying, collecting and
distributing the information necessary for an
O
public needs in order to understand issues,
O
O
O
prior is agency decisions on those issues
receive the information they need, and with
enough lead time, to participate effectively in
Such proactive information is available in
O
O
O
more than one place on your website
Such proactive information is communicated
on other be -and aur website
O
O
O
A Public engagement processes are broadly accessible in terms of location, time, and language, and support the engagement
of residents with disabilities
June 15, 2017 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 46 of 61
You have adopted and implement a procedure
for timely identifying, collecting and
distributing the information necessary for an
O
O O
effective PE process
CBps and other members of the public
receive the information they need, and with
enough lead time, to participate effectively in
O
O O
your PE process
A Public engagement processes are broadly accessible in terms of location, time, and language, and support the engagement
of residents with disabilities
June 15, 2017 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 46 of 61
Public Engagement In Marin
APPENDIX A: Information Request From Agency (cont'd)
19. Please check any and all of the following strategies that you use to improve
accessibility in your PE process: *
Your website incorporates a "translate" function
allowing visitors to read your site in languages
otherthan English
Key print communications are translated into
languages other than English and distributed or
made available to the appropriate residents and
community groups
Use PE processes that are broadly accessible in
terms of location, time and language
Use PE processes that support the engagement
of residents with disabilities
Deliver PE presentations in alternative living
locations for the elderly
Offer multiple ways, beyond attending public
meetings, for contributing input and feedback
during the PE process,
Regularly Lisa
Sometimes Use
Bony Use
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
,0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
A The public engagement process utilizes one or more discussion formats that are responsive to the needs of identified
participant groups, and encourages full, authentic, effective and equitable participation consistent with process purposes. This
may include relationships with existing community forums.
20. Please check any and all of the following strategies that you use to improve the
process of effective PE:
June 15, 2017 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 47 of 61
Regularly Use
Sometimes Use
Don't Use
Work with universities and community
partners to organize training programs for
CBOs, residents and neighborhood leaders
0
0
0
so that they can gain the skills and
experience needed for effective PE.
Use local facilitators to help organize and
run community dialogues and surveys to
O
O
0
solicit resident input on key community
issues.
Independent and impartial people
O
O
0
moderate PE processes
Residents participate in the setting and
O
O
O
defining of agendas
With input from residents, you identify and
O
O
0
use local experts as participants
You fallow through on the input provided
and make known to participants and the
0
0
public how that input influenced your
decisions or actions
June 15, 2017 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 47 of 61
Public Engagement In Marin
APPENDIX A: Information Request From Agency (cont'd)
21 a. Please check any and all of the following ONLINE platforms that you use to engage
and communicate with the public *
21 b. Please check any and all of the following PRINT platforms that you use to engage
and communicate with the public *
Use
Don't Use
Public website
O
O
W ebcasting
O
O
Facel
O
O
Online Neighborhood sites (such as NextDool
O
O
Twitter
O
O
Text
O
O
Email
O
O
Mobile apps
O
O
Online forums
O
Q
21 b. Please check any and all of the following PRINT platforms that you use to engage
and communicate with the public *
June 15, 2017 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 48 of 61
Use
Dont Use
Public notices
O
O
Press releases
O
O
Direct me it
O
O
Newspaper ads
O
O
Magazine ads
O
O
June 15, 2017 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 48 of 61
Public Engagement In Marin
APPENDIX A: Information Request From Agency (cont'd)
21c, Please check any and all of the following IN-PERSON INTERACTIVE platforms that
you use to engage and communicate with the public*
Use Don't Use
Public hearings
0
0
Town Hall meetings
0
0
Other large -action forums
0
0
Small face-to-face discussions
0
0
Personal interactions (such as visits, speeches, in-person
0
0
informational eKchanges)
Focus groups
0
0
Workshops
0
0
21d. Please check any and all of the following UNIDIRECTIONAL. platforms that you use
to engage and communicate with the public *
21 e. Please describe any other communication methods you use:
V The ideas, preferences, and/or recommendations contributed by the public are documented and seriously considered by
decision makers. Local officials communicate ultimate decisions back to process participants and the broader public, with a
description of haw the public input was considered and used. Sponsors and participants evaluate each public engagement
process with the collected feedback and learning shared broadly and applied to future engagement efforts.
22. Do you regularly inform residents of follow-up, progress, outcomes, and impacts
concerning decisions made based on public involvement?
0 Yes
0 No
June 15, 2017 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 49 of 61
Use
i7 on't Use
Surveys
0
0
Polls
0
0
Local access television
0
0
Telephone message
0
0
21 e. Please describe any other communication methods you use:
V The ideas, preferences, and/or recommendations contributed by the public are documented and seriously considered by
decision makers. Local officials communicate ultimate decisions back to process participants and the broader public, with a
description of haw the public input was considered and used. Sponsors and participants evaluate each public engagement
process with the collected feedback and learning shared broadly and applied to future engagement efforts.
22. Do you regularly inform residents of follow-up, progress, outcomes, and impacts
concerning decisions made based on public involvement?
0 Yes
0 No
June 15, 2017 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 49 of 61
Public Engagement In Marin
APPENDIX A: Information Request From Agency (cont'd)
23. Do you regularly assess your PE efforts for effectiveness and the public's
satisfaction? *
O Yes
O No
24. Do you regularly ask participants for feedback and advice concerning their PE
experience?
G Yes
O No
25. Do you periodically evaluate and adjust your PE strategies with the collected
feedback and your experience?
O Yes
G No
26a. Please provide the URL or hardcopy of your PE Plan
See Definition above for PE Plan, If you have a hardcopy, please either scan the document and email to ora ndiurv-auditlitmadncountv.ora
OF mail to: Marin County Civil Grand Jury • 3501 Civic Center Drive, Room 275 • San Rafael, CA 94903
26b. Please provide the URL or hardcopy of your resolution
As described in item 6. If you have a hardcopy, please either scan the document and email to orandiurv-audtf(@madncouotv.om or mail to:
Marin County Civil Grand Jury • 3501 Civic Center Drive, Room 275 -San Rafael, CA 94903
26c. Please provide the URL or hardcopy of your newsletter
If applicable, please provide the URL or hardcopy of your newsletter (either scan the newsletter and email to grand iurv-
aud Qmarincounty,or0 or mail to: Marin County Civil Grand Jury • 3501 Civic Center Drive, Room 275 • San Rafael, CA 94903)
26d. Please provide the URL of your Transparency Portal
See Definition above for Transparency Portal. If applicable, please provide the URL of your Transparency Portal
June 15, 2017 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 50 of 61
Public Engagement In Marin
APPENDIX B: Survey of Residents of Unincorporated Marin County
I t ,
� -�V t x I f I
4 1
I t 1 4� , I
Public Engagement Survey For Residents Of Unincorporated Marin
County
The Marin County Cly ll Grand Jury Is seeking your Input. The Information provided will be treated confide IIally by the Grand Jury for its
research and report: your name and email will not be shared with anyone. and your responses will not be attributed to you,
Public engagement Is a general term used for a broad range of methods through which government agencies provide the public with more
and better Information about, and meaningful opportunities to influence, government decisions. This survey respectfully requests your
views on public engagement In the County of Merin.
If you have any questions about this survey, please contact: GrandJury@MarinCounty.org
- Requved
Your Name *
Your Email *
1. On average how many County public hearings, meetings and/or workshops do you
attend each year?
OD
01-2
O 3 or more
O Don't know
2. Are you interested in becoming more engaged in the decision making process of the
County?
O Yes
O No
O Don't know
June 15, 2017 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 51 of 61
Public Engagement In Marin
APPENDIX B: Survey of Residents of Unincorporated Marin County (cont'd)
3. How satisfied are you with the County's efforts to include the public in government
decision making?
O Satisfied
O Somewhat satisfied
O Somewhat dissatisfied
Q Dissatisfied
O No opinion
4. Please rate how the County is doing in the following areas of public engagement:
June15, 2017 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 52 of 61
Poor
Fair
satisfactory
Very Gccd
Excellent
6onl Kncw
County is making mare of an
effort to engage a wide variety
O
O
O
O
O
O
of people In government
decision making..
County engages the public In
WHYS that are broadly
accessible in terms of
O
O
O
O
O
O
location, facilities, time, and
language,
Residents have ample
opportunity to participate in
O
O
O
O
O
O
County's government
decisions.
County provides the public
with [ information it needs,
enough
h enough lead
and with d time, to
O
O
O
O
O
O
effectively engage in the
decision making process.
County gives fulconsideration
to public Inputbefore making
O
O
O
O
O
O
government decisions.
County regularIy Informs
residents of follow-up.
progress, outcomes, and
O
O
O
O
O
O
Impacts conceming decisions
made based on public
Involvement.
County builds relationships
with community-based groups
and interested residents that
O
O
O
O
O
O
are broadly reflective of the
public it serves.
County regularly uses clear
and simple language in
O
O
O
O
O
O
communications
June15, 2017 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 52 of 61
Public Engagement In Marin
APPENDIX B: Survey of Residents of Unincorporated Marin County (cont'd)
5. Does the County use the following to engage and communicate with the public? *
6. Please provide any additional feedback on the County's public engagement efforts
SUBMIT
June 15, 2017 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 53 of 61
Yes
No
Don't Know
Dlrect mail
O
O
O
wehsIte
Q
0
0
Email
O
0
O
Social media
O
O
O
Newsletter
O
O
O
Surveys
O
O
O
6. Please provide any additional feedback on the County's public engagement efforts
SUBMIT
June 15, 2017 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 53 of 61
Public Engagement In Marin
APPENDIX C: Survey of Residents of Marin Cities & Incorporated Towns
Public Engagement Survey For Residents Of Marin Cities & Incorporated
Towns
The Marin County Civil Grand Jury is seeking your Input. The Information provided will be treated confidentially by the Grand Jury for its
research and report: your name and small will not be shared with anyone, and your responses will not be attributed to you.
Public engagement Is a general term used for a broad range of methods through which government agencies provide the public with mare
and better information about, and meaningful opportunities to influence, government decisions. This survey respectfully requests your
views on public engagement in your city or incorporated town, and the County of Marin,
If you have any questions about this survey, please comact: GrandJury@MarinCounty,org
Required
Your Name
Your answer
Your City or Incorporated Town of Residence
Choose
1. On average how many city or town public hearings, meetings and/or workshops do
you attend each year?
Oa
01-2
O 3 or more
O Don't know
June 15, 2017 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 54 of 61
Your Email
Your answer
Your City or Incorporated Town of Residence
Choose
1. On average how many city or town public hearings, meetings and/or workshops do
you attend each year?
Oa
01-2
O 3 or more
O Don't know
June 15, 2017 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 54 of 61
Public Engagement In Marin
APPENDIX C: Survey of Residents of Marin Cities & Incorporated Towns (cont'd)
2. Are you interested in becoming more engaged in the decision making process of your
city or town? *
O Yes
O No
O Don't know
3. How satisfied are you with your city's or town's efforts to include the public in
government decision making?
O Satisfied
O Somewhat satisfied
O Somewhat dissatisfied
O Dissatisfied
O No opinion
June 15, 2017 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 55 of 61
Public Engagement In Marin
APPENDIX C: Survey of Residents of Marin Cities & Incorporated Towns (cont'd)
......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... .
4. Please rate how your city or town is doing in the following areas: * ■
Poor Fair Satisfactory Very Good Excellent Don't Know
Your city/town Is making more
Yes
No
Don't Know
Direct mail
O
O
O
of an effort to engage a wide
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
variety of people In
O
O
O
Newsletter
O
O
O
govemment decision making.
O
O
O
Your city/town engages the
public in ways that are broadly
accessible in terms of
O
O
O
O
O
O
location, facilities, time, and
language,
Residents have ample
opportunity to participate In
O
O
O
O
O
O
your city's/town's government
declsions.
Your clty/tcwn provides the
public whh the In tit
le
needs, and with enoughhough lead
ad
O
O
O
O
O
time, to effectively engage in
the decision making process.
Your city/town gives full
conshdeietlon to public input
O
O
O
O
O
O
before making government
decisions.
Your cltyltown regularly
Informs residents of follow-
up, progress, outcomes, and
O
O
O
O
O
0
Impacts concerning declsions
made based on public
involvement.
Your city/town builds
relationships with community-
based groups and interested
O
O
O
O
O
0
residents that are broadly
reflective of the public tt
selves.
Your city/town regularly
clear and simple language in
O
O
O
O
O
communications.
5. Does your city/town use the following to engage and communicate with the public? *
June 15, 2017 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 56 of 61
Yes
No
Don't Know
Direct mail
O
O
O
Webske
O
O
O
Email
O
O
O
Social media
O
O
O
Newsletter
O
O
O
Surveys
O
O
O
June 15, 2017 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 56 of 61
Public Engagement In Marin
APPENDIX C: Survey of Residents of Marin Cities & Incorporated Towns (cont'd)
6. Please provide any additional feedback on your city's or town's public engagement
efforts
Youranswer
Items 7-12 Apply to The County of Marin Only
7. On average how many COUNTY public hearings, meetings and/or workshops do you
attend each year? *
Oa
O 1-2
O 3 or more
O Don't know
B. Are you interested in becoming more engaged in the decision making process of THE
COUNTY?*
O Yes
O No
O Don't know
9. How satisfied are you with THE COUNTY'S efforts to include the public in government
decision making?
O Satisfied
O Somewhat satisfied
O Somewhat dissatisfied
O Dissatisfied
O No opinion
June 15, 2017 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 57 of 61
Public Engagement In Marin
APPENDIX C: Survey of Residents of Marin Cities & Incorporated Towns (cont'd)
......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... .
10. Please rate how THE COUNTY is doing in the following areas of public engagement:
11. Does THE COUNTY use the following to engage and communicate with the public? *
Poor
Fair
Satisfactory
Very Good
Excellent
Don't Know
County is making more of an
Website
0
0
0
Email
0
effort to engage a wide variety
/1
0
O
O
O
O
O
or people in government
0
0
surveys
0
0
0
decision making.
additional feedback on THE
COUNTY'S public
engagement
efforts
County engages the public in
ways that are broadly
accessible in terms of
0
0
0
0
0
0
location, facilities, time, and
language.
Residents have ample
opportunity to participate in
O
O
O
O
O
0
County's government
decisions.
County provides the public
with the information it needs,
and with enough lead time, to
0
0
0
0
0
0
effectively engage in the
decision making process.
County gives full consideration
to public input before making
0
0
0
0
0
0
government decisions.
County regularly informs
residents of foMi
and
0
0
0
0
0
0
impacts concerning decisions
made based on public
involvement.
County builds relationships
groups
mmted
rebased
andintth
and interested residents that
0
0
0
0
0
0
are broadly reflective of the
public R serves.
County regularly uses clear
and simple language in
0
0
0
0
0
0
communications.
11. Does THE COUNTY use the following to engage and communicate with the public? *
June 15, 2017 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 58 of 61
yes
No
Don't Know
o irect mall
0
0
0
Website
0
0
0
Email
0
0
0
Social media
0
0
0
Newsietter
0
0
0
surveys
0
0
0
12. Please provide any
additional feedback on THE
COUNTY'S public
engagement
efforts
June 15, 2017 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 58 of 61
Public Engagement In Marin
APPENDIX D: Summary Agency Views of Public Engagement
Benefits of PE
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Improved decision making
More community buy -in
Better identification of public's values
More informed residents
More civil discussions
Faster project implementation
More trust
Higher rates of participation
12
0
2
1
1
3
3
1
2
0
10
0
11
0
11
0
9
0
7
2
11
0
10
0
PE Plan Yes No
Have and follow a PE Plan 4 8
PE Area for Use
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
N/A
Parks & Recreation
Land Use & Planning
Transportation & Infrastructure
Law Enforcement
Housing
Homelessness
Electoral/Voting
Budgeting
Health/Social Services Delivery
Education
Immigrant Integration/Related Issues
Pensions & OPEB
12
0
0
0
1
0
2
1
0
2
2
1
1
0
0
12
0
0
12
0
0
10
0
1
12
0
0
8
0
2
10
0
1
12
0
0
5
0
5
5
0
5
7
0
4
10
0
1
Strategies Used
Use
Don't
Newsletter
Newsletter by Mail
Newsletter by Email
Newsletter on Website
Community News on Website
Draft Budgets Online
Data Transparency Portal
Online Public Records Request
Freq. Requests on Website
12
0
5
7
12
0
12
0
12
0
12
0
8
4
10
2
7
5
June 15, 2017 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 59 of 61
Public Engagement In Marin
APPENDIX D: Summary Agency Views of Public Engagement (cont'd)
Improve Intent Strategies
Regularly
Use
Sometimes
Use
Don't
Use
In Job Description
Received Training
Summarize Complexity
Clear Language
Timely Communication
6
4
2
5
5
2
10
2
0
11
1
0
12
0
0
Rate the PE Culture
Excellent
Good
Needs
Improvement
Improves decision-making
Public as Partners
Full Public Consideration
Proactive & Wide
6
6
0
6
6
0
10
2
0
6
6
0
How Broaden Participation
Regularly
Use
Sometimes
Use
Don't
Use
Build and Nurture Relationships
Regularly Distribute Information
Timely Information
Welcoming
In HS & Colleges
10
2
0
8
4
0
9
3
0
11
1
0
2
4
6
June 15, 2017 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 60 of 61
Public Engagement In Marin
APPENDIX E: Platforms Used to Engage The Public
Technology
Platforms Agencies Using
Webcasting Corte Madera, Larkspur, Mill Valley, Novato, San Anselmo, San Rafael, Sausalito,
Tiburon, County of Marin
Facebook Corte Madera, Larkspur, Mill Valley, Novato, San Anselmo, San Rafael, Sausalito,
Tiburon, County of Marin
Twitter Larkspur, Mill Valley, Novato, San Anselmo, San Rafael, Sausalito, Tiburon,
County of Marin
Texts Belvedere, Corte Madera, Larkspur, Mill Valley, Novato, San Anselmo, San
Rafael, Sausalito, Tiburon, County of Marin
Mobile Apps Corte Madera, Mill Valley, San Rafael, Sausalito, Tiburon, County of Marin
Online Forums Fairfax, Novato, Sausalito, County of Marin
✓ Websites
✓ Nextdoor
✓ Emailing
Platforms All Agencies Use
✓ Public Notices
✓ Press Releases
✓ Direct Mailing
✓ Public Hearings
✓ Town Hall Meetings
✓ Small face-to-face
discussions & personal
interactions
✓ Workshops
✓ Surveys
June 15, 2017 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 61 of 61
SAN RAFAEL STAFF REPORT APPROVAL
THE CITY WITH AMISSION ROUTING SLIP
Staff Report Author: Rebecca Woodbury Date of Meeting: 08/07/2017
Department: City Manager's Office
Topic: Response to Grand Jury Report about Public Engagement
Subject: CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE CITY
OF SAN RAFAEL RESPONSE TO THE JUNE 26, 2017 MARIN COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT ENTITLED "PUBLIC
ENGAGEMENT IN MARK A PATHWAY TO INCLUSIVE GOVERNMENT"
Type: (check all that apply) ❑ Consent Calendar ❑ Public Hearing
N Discussion Item ❑ Resolution ❑ Ordinance
❑ Professional Services Agreement ❑ Informational Report
*If PSA, City Attorney approval is required prior to start of staff report approval process
Was agenda item publicly noticed? ❑ Yes ❑No I Date noticed: I ❑Mailed ❑Site posted ❑Marin IJ
Due Date Responsibility Description CompletedDate Initial / Comment
PRELIMINARY REVIEW
FRI, 7/21
Author
Submit draft report to
7/20/2017
❑X
Director
RW
MON, 7/24
Director
Submit draft report to ACM
7/20/2017
❑X
Assistant City Manager
Readiness review,
7/26/2017
❑X
City Attorney
preliminary legal and
LG (CA)/MM (Fin)
Finance
financial impact review
CONTENT REVIEW
FRI, 7/28
Assistant City Manager
Content review
7/27/2017
❑X
7/31/2017
Author
Revisions
❑X
FINAL REVIEW
MON, 7/31
City Attorney
Final legal review
8/1/2017
Click here to
LG
Finance
Final financial review
enter a date.
Click here to
Author
Revisions / accept changes
enter a date.
TUES, 8/1
City Manager
Final review and approval
Click here to
enter a date.