HomeMy WebLinkAboutCM Resident Engagement____________________________________________________________________________________
FOR CITY CLERK ONLY
Council Meeting: October 4, 2021
Disposition: Accepted report
Agenda Item No: 7.a
Meeting Date: October 4, 2021
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Department: City Manager
Prepared by: Thomas Wong, Analyst
City Manager Approval: ___________
TOPIC: RESIDENT ENGAGEMENT
SUBJECT: INFORMATIONAL REPORT ON FINDINGS FROM INTERVIEWS ABOUT
NEIGHBORHOOD & RESIDENT ENGAGEMENT IN SAN RAFAEL
RECOMMENDATION:
By motion, accept the informational progress report.
BACKGROUND:
Periodically, the City reviews its resident engagement practices to ensure that all residents have an
opportunity to view and provide feedback on community issues. As referenced by Mayor Kate Colin at
the June 21, 2021 City Council meeting, several important factors have changed in the past years that
warrant a review of current practices. These changes include, but are not limited to:
• District-based elections
• Increasing prevalence of technology in engagement, accelerated by the pandemic, such as
meetings on virtual platforms
• The City’s ongoing commitment to racial equity and social justice
Working with Susan Clark of Common Knowledge, Mayor Kate and staff identified several important
goals to address these changes:
• Increase the web of people interested in and informed about City activities, aiming to reach
beyond the subset of residents with deep expertise in civic process, and include residents of all
ages and backgrounds who care about their local community.
• Continue to expand the “pipeline” of people willing and ready to serve on City of San Rafael
boards, commissions, and other working and advisory groups (ad hoc and formal appointments).
• Develop multi-directional information flows about conditions and changes in San Rafael
neighborhoods and opportunities for community members, by increasing the collaboration
between the City and allied organizations to improve local quality of life.
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 2
ANALYSIS:
Common Knowledge in collaboration with staff, developed a two-phased approach to providing
recommendations to improve inclusive resident engagement. The first phase relied heavily on interviews
with community members with experience and knowledge about neighborhood and/or grassroots
resident engagement. The interviewees included leaders of various neighborhood associations,
community-based organizations, City staff, and elected City Officials. In total, 23 individuals were
interviewed in the first round with careful consideration taken to ensure feedback came from individuals
residing in all four Council districts.
Findings from Phase 1 include widespread agreement from interviewees that current patterns of civic
engagement skew toward retired, older, well-educated white residents. Interviewees shared their desire
to expand engagement beyond this subset of the population, such as renters, non-English speakers,
small business owners, to name a few. Additional feedback, suggestions, and information regarding the
impact of district-based communications, roles of neighborhood associations and other community
partners, and City communications was received and will be reviewed when making recommendations
for future phases and changes to current practices.
Phase 2 will ensure that a variety of diverse views are accounted for, to complement Phase 1’s
participants. While Phase 2 is still being developed based on feedback and insight gathered in Phase 1.
The current recommendation from Common Knowledge is to put together a small working group to further
develop understanding of community networks and conduct stakeholder mapping and share suggestions
for district level engagement. This working group will help the City identify new and creative ways to
connect with our community and increase two-way flow of information.
Further updates on Phase 2 will be presented to the City Council and community when available.
COMMUNITY OUTREACH:
Targeted community outreach is being done for Phases 1 and 2. Updates are provided through
neighborhood association groups and community-based organizations. Recommendations and
improvements to resident engagement will be used for all community outreach moving forward.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact from the recommended City Council action. Common Knowledge is currently
working under a $25,000 contract signed within the authority of the City Manager. Funds are available in
the approved FY21-22 general fund for this contract.
OPTIONS:
The City Council has the following options to consider on this matter:
1. Accept the informational report.
2. Direct staff to return with more information.
3. Take no action.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Move to accept the informational report regarding the inclusive resident engagement.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Summary of Phase One Findings
San Rafael Neighborhood-Level Resident Engagement Phase One Summary 1
9-27-21 Summary of Findings from Phase One Interviews about Neighborhood &
Grassroots Resident Engagement in San Rafael
Project Background & Context
Since the onset of the pandemic in spring 2020, the importance of proactive resident engagement and
inclusive communications has been made clearer than ever. The additional factors of increased wildfire
risk, the drought and economic uncertainty for thousands of residents, have raised the bar for effective
multi-directional listening and communications.
The City of San Rafael, other local public agencies, community groups and active residents have adapted
how they communicate and operate during this challenging and dynamic time. There has been a lot of
collaboration on getting key messages out on topics such as COVID-19 testing, vaccinations, rent freeze,
eviction moratorium, fire safety and more. These high stake issues require not only issuing
communications but ensuring that information is perceived as reliable. There was an expansion of Wi-Fi
coverage in the City of San Rafael as well as new ways of thinking about how human networks extend
the reach of digital networks.
How can the City of San Rafael and neighborhood and grassroots leaders build on these recent
experiences to keep expanding inclusive resident engagement?
The Assignment
At the June 21, 2021, San Rafael City Council meeting, Mayor Kate Colin shared three factors to take into
consideration regarding neighborhood-level resident engagement:
▪ the new configuration of City Councilmembers elected by district
▪ the increasing prevalence of technology in engagement, such as meetings on virtual platforms
▪ the City’s ongoing commitment to racial equity and social justice
As a starting point, these purposes were identified for increasing grassroots resident engagement in San
Rafael:
▪ Increase the web of people interested in and informed about City and community issues, aiming
to include residents of all ages and backgrounds who care about their local community
▪ Continue to expand the “pipeline” of people willing and ready to serve on City of San Rafael
boards, commissions and other working or advisory groups (including ad hoc as well as formal
appointments)
▪ Develop multi-directional information flows about what is happening in and across San Rafael
neighborhoods (often referred to as listening to the “pulse” of the community) and sharing
opportunities to work together to improve local quality of life
While part of the assignment is to collaboratively define with the City Council, staff and local leaders
what “neighborhood and grassroots resident engagement” is, this was our initial working definition:
communications and capacity building to identify and work on issues of shared community concern.
San Rafael Neighborhood-Level Resident Engagement Phase One Summary 2
This type of engagement complements individual episodes of City outreach for specific City Council
decisions. It involves listening to a wide variety of things that residents care about, offering ways to help
people be hands-on in their contributions to quality of life, as well as build their knowledge and skills
across issues to provide constructive input on civic decisions.
Two-Phase Process
▪ Phase One included interviews with Mayor Kate, all four City Councilmembers, four City staff
members, ten leaders of neighborhood-based associations in San Rafael, and five leaders with
other local organizations that are active in spreading information about local services and issues.
Interviews were not intended to represent all types of residents but to help inform the October
4, 2021, discussion with the Council and community to help shape Phase Two of this project.
▪ Interviews topics included:
o Each person’s “journey line” to engagement
o Their organization’s purpose and its evolution
o How they engage others
o Hopes for resident engagement in San Rafael
o Information sources they use
o Thoughts about district communications
Highlights of Findings to Date
Areas of Congruence
The interviews with the City Council, staff members, local neighborhood association leaders and other
local leaders/connectors indicate an encouraging amount of congruence. The following common themes
emerged:
1. There is a shared desire for more inclusive engagement, representative of all San Rafael residents.
There was widespread agreement that current patterns of civic engagement skew to retired, older
well-educated white residents. There is a universal desire to expand engagement to be more
representative of the entire population of San Rafael. These specific types of residents were
identified by most of the interviewees:
▪ Renters as well as homeowners (renters currently represent 50% of residents)
▪ People at different life stages (school, young adulthood, young families, early-stage empty
nesters, as well as retirees)
▪ An interest in people from different socioeconomic and educational backgrounds
▪ Spanish-speakers and other residents whose primary language is not English (27% of residents)
▪ Small business owners
▪ Trusted “connectors” who share information with those not reached well by official civic
communications
The interviews also created a space for candor about gaps between the desire to reach these
audiences and how many people did not feel like they had the right connections to do so.
Alternately, some of those who were more embedded in diverse communities felt that they were
San Rafael Neighborhood-Level Resident Engagement Phase One Summary 3
not being invited early enough in a process to help shape effective communications to reach these
additional audiences.
2. Everyone interviewed saw themselves as partners in fostering neighborhood and resident
engagement. Neighborhood and grassroots leaders, as well as City councilmembers, see themselves
in the business of helping orient people to community issues and ways they can affect change. The
interviews included several examples of collaboration such as on neighborhood murals, community
gardens, efforts to reduce illegal dumping, improve medians, etc. as well as more traditional
“organizing” to lobby council decisions.
All of these committed local leaders are volunteers engaging other volunteers. They described
situations and patterns of waxing and waning interest and what they have observed in their
successes and frustrations with sustaining resident engagement over time.
3. San Rafael can do more to leverage, strengthen and build on existing networks of community
relationships. Many people were oriented to thinking about the community as a network of
networks. They talked about how the City can do more to leverage other group’s networks as well
as utilize its own lists across departments and past episodes of engagement. There is also a high
level of interest in neighbor-to-neighbor and neighborhood-to-neighborhood exchange.
Several participants offered to help with specifics elements, such as stakeholder mapping, lateral
partnerships with groups that had good reach to diverse residents, social media linkages and
development of introductory information.
4. There is a keen interest in engagement long before, and parallel to, public hearings. Interviewees
of all backgrounds expressed complementary perspectives on why council meetings and public
hearings are too late and too positional to be inclusive or effective informational entry points.
Participants expressed the need to engage community members earlier in the process, particularly
to include more diverse and representative perspectives. There was also a desire for more dialogue
that supports mutual learning and collaboration rather than heated debate at the stage of a final
recommendation. People talked about how contention can reduce the ability to reach new residents
and that positive relationships can make a positive difference for all involved.
5. Several spoke about the need for more intentional inclusion when engaging people newer to
formal civic processes. This includes proactively inviting diverse participation through trusted
channels (not just officially announcing opportunities to participate) and other ways of considering
the equity needs of diverse residents. Several described ways that official public meetings and the
language of public documents create “unintentional gatekeeping.” In addition to translations and
plain language, interviewees talked about types of introductory background information that allows
all people to participate fully.
6. There was widespread agreement that a variety of channels and formats are necessary to widen
and sustain engagement. These were common observations:
▪ The need for a mix of online communications that spanned email, social media, and sharable
“nuggets” alongside occasions for direct contact and discussion
▪ The benefits of a mix of formal and informal modes of engagement that allow for two-way
exchange
San Rafael Neighborhood-Level Resident Engagement Phase One Summary 4
▪ The essential role of being out in the community, knowing and going where different types of
residents are as they go about their lives; several mentioned neighborhood walks and being “on
location” as an important way to reach and understand underrepresented perspectives
▪ The value of hands-on ways for people to participate, in addition to attending official meetings;
both elected and neighborhood leaders wanted to better equip people with things they can do
themselves
▪ The importance of social and community-building activities to build relationships and shared
knowledge that helps improve civic participation too
Main Differences Across the Interviews
▪ There were significant differences in people’s sense of urgency about increasing connections
with a more representative cross section of community members. Some felt this should be a
priority focus for their own group and/or the City while others indicated less certainty about
how it might come about.
▪ Some interviewees were emphatic about the need to address economic disparities in San Rafael
as well as racial ones; others did not communicate that as a priority.
▪ Most interviewees saw the role of elected City decision-makers and City staff as collaborators
with other kinds of change-makers across sectors. Some were more tightly focused on the City’s
policy-making decision process.
▪ People articulated different things that develop trust. For some, it is credentials and technical
knowledge about civic process. For others, it was about engagement with and knowledge of
people from diverse backgrounds, cultures, and income levels.
▪ There was uneven exposure to the experience of being in multi-generational, multi-cultural
and/or multi-lingual conversations—or the practice of working side by side to blend “lived
experience and local wisdom” with technical knowledge. Voces del Canal was mentioned by
multiple interviewees as a model to examine and emulate; see http://www.datacenter.org/wp-
content/uploads/VDC_Report_Final_Draft_ENGLISH_WEB.pdf. (Note that Voces del Canal
started as a collaboration with Dominican University’s Service-Learning program which
continues to be active in supporting the Canal neighborhood.) Appendix A shares a summary
about practices that facilitate exchange between different kinds of knowledge in a community.
Feedback about Information Sources about City Activities
▪ The interviewees that have been highly engaged in civic process mentioned Snapshot, the Marin
Independent Journal, meetings with the Mayor or City Councilmembers and/or staff, other
organizations they belong to and colleagues. A smaller number of this group mentioned social
media outlets.
▪ The interviewees who work in or with the Canal neighborhood and/or in other grassroots-
oriented settings shared a wider variety of communication channels, including Facebook live,
neighborhood walks, door to door surveys, short videos posted on social media, word of mouth
at venues like the Health Hub, etc.
▪ All of the highly engaged people read the Snapshot newsletter; they find it “very informative”
and “well done.” It was seen as succinct, factual, and easy to skim.
o Some asked for different formats for passing it on in “bite-sized messages”
▪ These could include images and links to share on social media
San Rafael Neighborhood-Level Resident Engagement Phase One Summary 5
▪ Short blubs that can be passed along via email or included in
community/organization newsletters
o Some asked for a way to go deeper on recurring issues and be able to search/link to
back issues by topic.
o A couple of neighborhood leaders were looking for a longer-term “preview” of issues
that would be coming up over the next several months.
▪ Most of the interviewees visit Nextdoor, but only occasionally as they find it a “mixed bag” and
problematic in what types of posts get attention. It appeared that additional venues and
platforms for more informed engagement (digital and in-person) would be desirable.
Overview of San Rafael Neighborhoods and Associations
There are over 30 neighborhoods in San Rafael as identified in the recent General Plan 2040 process:
Representatives from different styles of neighborhood associations were interviewed. The most
prevalent model is a voluntary membership association where members pay small dues. San Rafael
also has some official Homeowners’ Associations (also called HOAs) where membership is required by
residents in a development. Interviews also included people in communities with no recognized
neighborhood group but some engaged residents who collaborate with their neighbors. In some cases,
resident leaders actually live in unincorporated parts of the county but are active in the City of San
Rafael issues and engaging City residents.
The Federation of San Rafael Neighborhoods is the largest umbrella organization for neighborhood
associations and HOAs and also welcomes individual members. Having begun as a convenor of
associations in 94901, this past year the Federation welcomed two groups from zip code 94903: Mont
Marin and the association in Terra Linda.
San Rafael Neighborhood-Level Resident Engagement Phase One Summary 6
These neighborhood associations are providing neighbor to neighbor education and coaching about
community issues, including valued cross-generational continuity. Two of the City's current elected
Councilmembers shared that their engagement journey included activities with a San Rafael
neighborhood association. Many of these groups are in a transition point regarding their structure, by-
laws or leadership. For example, the Terra Linda group shared that they are reviewing its mission and
exploring ways to be a more effective and inclusive forum for community interaction. The Glenwood
neighborhood group is forming itself as a 501c3. It accepts renters as members. The Spinnaker Point
HOA is reviewing its agreement with its current management company.
Associations vary in how they communicate with members. Some have regular newsletters and a social
media presence. The style of communication used by these neighborhood groups aligns with the
interests and energies of their volunteer leadership. Some write newsletters for 200-300 recipients, and
a few are larger than that. Some groups run surveys. Almost all have annual or semiannual meetings
attended by elected officials. Most of the associations also have hands on activities and social events
such as picnics which draw a more diverse cross section of the neighborhood. There were several
anecdotes about how word of mouth is the most powerful way to recruit new members and committee
participants.
There are also several neighborhoods in San Rafael where people who serve as “connectors” have not
been identified by councilmembers or the Federation. For example, Councilmember Llorens Gulati
described how she works with various groups in the Canal given that there is no formal neighborhood
association. Grassroots leaders in the Canal neighborhood shared how they received coaching in various
types of local leadership from multiple community-based organizations. A focus of Phase Two of this
project is to more thoroughly explore the networks that are providing two-way communications and
engagement support to San Rafael residents.
Discussion of Phase 2 and Next Steps
The first step is to listen to feedback from the Council, the interviewees and interested community
members at the October 4, 2021, City Council meeting. Current thinking about Phase 2 is to convene a
temporary team of 12-15 residents who are well-connected with all sectors of the City’s demographics
and have different levels of exposure to civic process. As this project with Common Knowledge is limited
in scope and resources, it will serve to provide initial input on:
- Communications strategies and tactics to reach a more representative cross section of San
Rafael community members, including but not limited to how to approach district-level
communications
- How the City organizes its collaboration with neighborhood-level leaders and connectors,
assessing information flows through:
a) existing/evolving neighborhood associations
b) other neighborhood-level and grassroots organizations that have direct relationships with
residents (including but not limited to schools, service nonprofits and clubs, faith groups and
recreation leagues
c) informal leaders and “connectors”
- How to approach a more comprehensive update of the City of San Rafael’s Community
Engagement Plan and staffing
San Rafael Neighborhood-Level Resident Engagement Phase One Summary 7
In two to three sessions, the group will provide feedback on: a) Phase One findings and specific
suggestions from interviewees; b) some past/existing/potential communications; and c) what the team
together chooses as priorities for more inclusive resident engagement. The group may follow up on
community offers to do stakeholder mapping and possibly field a grassroots survey that tests the reach
of existing lists and networks to see where gaps remain. The plan is that representatives from this team
will share highlights of their work with the City Council and community in a study session discussion.
Appendix A: A few remarks about Co-Design and Co-Production
Traditional civic engagement structures refer to the IAP2 spectrum about levels of consultation.
Alternately, various forms of “co-design” and/or “co-production” are employed in communities aiming
to be more innovative in how they address complex issues for long-term social and economic
regeneration. This also relates to the premise of the popular Asset-Based Community Development
(ABCD) practice which assumes that everyone has something to contribute, especially in marginalized
communities. Co-production is already happening in many places and on many subjects in San Rafael –
such as disaster preparedness, fire safety, food sharing, recreation for children, public art, reducing
isolation of seniors, adding outdoor Wi-Fi in the Canal, hyper-local Resilient Neighborhoods groups, etc.
For more information, see https://www.beyondstickynotes.com/what-is-codesign, and
https://www.coproductionscotland.org.uk/what-is-copro.