Page 12 – Pacific Sun | Marin County, California

Sausalito agrees to pay $540,000 to homeless encampment residents

Aug 5, 2022

Sausalito agrees to pay $540,000 to homeless encampment residents

The City of Sausalito and the Sausalito Homeless Union reached a settlement agreement on Friday, ending more than 18 months of extremely contentious litigation.

Under the terms of the agreement, Sausalito will pay $540,000 to the Sausalito Homeless Union. From that fund, 30 homeless people will receive $18,000 each to be spent on housing or housing related expenses. All the recipients are current or former residents of the city-sanctioned encampment, which is now located on the Marinship tennis courts.

“It was difficult to pick 30 people,” Anthony Prince, attorney for the Homeless Union, said. “We had to systematically determine who is most in need of housing. Not everyone is going to get the assistance they deserve. But most of the people who were at Dunphy Park and then moved to Marinship Park are included in the settlement.”

The agreement requires the funds to be distributed directly to the homeless individuals. The 30 people will have agency to decide what type of durable housing is suitable for them and their families.

The City of Sausalito will be appointing a housing coordinator to work with the Homeless Union to connect people to housing. After everyone is housed, the city plans to shut down the encampment.

“I am confident we have paved a humane course of action that allows each person’s unique needs to be met,” Sausalito Mayor Janelle Kellman said in a press release issued by the city. “This agreement will allow us to help folks restore their lives in a way that is far more compassionate and safer than the unfortunate circumstance of living outdoors.”

The city has spent more than $1.5 million in expenses related to the homeless encampment, mostly on legal fees and a controversial organization to manage the camp.

There is no gag order on the parties regarding the terms of the agreement. The names of the 30 people receiving the funds will not be a part of the public record; however, those individuals are free to share the information.

Surprisingly, the settlement agreement does not address the city’s anti-camping ordinance, which was the catalyst for homeless people to establish the Sausalito chapter of the Homeless Union and file the lawsuit. The ordinance, passed by the city council in February 2021, bans homeless people from sleeping on public property, except at the city-sanctioned encampment in Marinship.

Once the encampment is closed, where will homeless people be permitted to sleep in Sausalito? Nowhere, unless the city changes the ordinance, which doesn’t appear likely to happen.

“Our [the Homeless Union] position is the ordinance is unlawful and unconstitutional,” Prince said. “The parties are in agreement that the settlement does not resolve those concerns.”

The ordinance violates Martin v. Boise, a 2018 decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which states cities must allow homeless people to sleep on public property unless it can provide them with an appropriate alternative shelter option, according to Prince. There are far more homeless people in Marin than shelter beds.

Prince acknowledges the ordinance was an important issue for the Homeless Union and that they didn’t get everything they wanted from the settlement agreement.

“We’re not happy about that, but we didn’t see any alternative, Prince said. “It was a necessary compromise on our part to get housing for the people the homeless union represents.”

The new president of the Sausalito Homeless Union, Arthur Bruce, said he’s one of the 30 recipients. He believes the funding is a good first step to stabilize people and help them get back on their feet.

“I’m beyond delighted because it will allow me to spend more time with my children and provide better for them,” Bruce said.

Novato and the Novato Homeless Union reach a settlement agreement

Nikki Silverstein

Aug 3, 2022

Novato and the Novato Homeless Union reach a settlement agreement

Without fanfare, the City of Novato and the Novato Homeless Union reached a settlement agreement last week, ending almost a year of litigation in federal court.

The agreement allows the city-sanctioned homeless encampment in Lee Gerner Park to remain for at least two more years and struck down restrictive language in a camping ordinance, which was the catalyst for the Homeless Union to file the lawsuit, Anthony Prince, attorney for the Homeless Union, said.

Prince provided details for other important aspects of the agreement, including the establishment of a city-run committee to work on housing and homelessness issues in Novato. Two members of the Homeless Union will serve on the committee, alongside city officials and community representatives.

While new people haven’t been permitted to move into the camp since October, under the agreement, homeless people will now be able to fill vacant spots. The encampment, which has the capacity for 18 people, offers homeless people some stability and a safe place to camp. Case managers can visit regularly and connect the campers with services.

The police may enter the camp only when performing law enforcement functions. If a problem arises, camp residents will be allowed to have a Homeless Union representative present during interactions with the city and its agents.

The camp will remain city-sanctioned, and Novato Mayor Eric Lucan said the city estimates spending $200,000 to $300,000 annually for services such as port-a-potties, mobile showers and janitors.

The city and community are “mostly pleased” with the outcome of the settlement, Lucan said. The goal now is to house the homeless folks in the camp. Five people living in Lee Gerner Park have been housed since the camp was established.

“At a high level, it’s very clear that we need more housing options for the many people that are unhoused,” Lucan said. “There’s a real need out there, and it got compounded by COVID. Homelessness is a complicated issue for a lot of cities and it’s ongoing.”

The Novato Homeless Union is also happy with the settlement, according to Jason Sarris, the organization’s president. Sarris, who received housing last month after a dozen years of living on the street, was the first homeless person to pitch a tent in Lee Gerner Park in November 2019. Others soon followed, despite protests by some community members.

“It wasn’t planned or staged—it was a way for me to sleep without being criminalized,” Sarris said, referring to Martin v. Boise, a 2018 decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which allows homeless people to sleep on public property unless a city can provide them with an appropriate alternative shelter option.

The city is still bound by Martin v. Boise, Prince said, but it can make reasonable restrictions on where homeless people are permitted to camp. Under the agreement, the city will remove a laundry list of places where camping isn’t permitted, which was included in the city ordinance that launched the legal battle.

However, the restrictions in the ordinance remain unchanged, according to Lucan. No camping is permitted within 50 feet of critical infrastructure.

Rather than focusing on the restrictions, Sarris is looking forward to serving on the new housing and homelessness committee and helping people in the camp. Sarris aims to ensure all the folks currently in the camp, and those who will live there over the next two years, are connected to services and eventually housing.

“It’s not just something you check off your list,” Lucan said. “We have to continue to work to find housing and the support that people need.”

Sausalito finally begins negotiating settlement with the Sausalito Homeless Union

Nikki Silverstein

Jul 19, 2022

Sausalito finally begins negotiating settlement with the Sausalito Homeless Union

After 18 months of contentious litigation between the City of Sausalito and the Sausalito Homeless Union, both parties have confirmed they are in the process of negotiating a settlement.

The Homeless Union filed the lawsuit in federal court in February 2021, just days after the Sausalito City Council passed a restrictive anti-camping ordinance in response to a new homeless encampment that sprang up near a downtown park.

The ordinance also required moving the campers from the visible waterfront location to a city-sanctioned camp in Marinship Park, located in a light industrial area. Nineteen people currently live on the Marinship tennis courts, down from a high of about 45.

The encampment population has dwindled in recent months due to attrition and the city’s policy of preventing new people from moving in. Police Lieutenant Stacie Gregory, who said last month that she spends 75% of her time on the encampment, is often seen on the tennis courts directing city staff to remove a tent after someone has moved out.

There have been no exceptions—not even for John Burke, who is undergoing experimental chemotherapy treatments for cancer. Burke says he needs a place to live because his former home, a boat anchored out in Richardson Bay, was seized and crushed by the Richardson Bay Regional Agency while he was in the hospital.

The police have escorted Burke out of the encampment on several occasions. When Burke moved into a recently vacated tent, Gregory and her crew removed it after he left for a chemo appointment.

With the camp shrinking in size, it’s unclear why Sausalito has now decided to engage in settlement discussions with the Homeless Union. Until now, the city has used a take-no-prisoners approach with the litigation, the encampment and the homeless residents. Most efforts by the Homeless Union to negotiate even small issues have been rebuffed.

Sausalito Mayor Janelle Kellman has shed no light on what precipitated the change in tactics.

“The City of Sausalito is engaged in confidential settlement negotiations with the Sausalito Homeless Union as part of the pending litigation,” Kellman said. “The city is not permitted to reveal the content of those discussions.”

Anthony Prince, attorney for the Homeless Union, has always been straightforward about what his clients are seeking from Sausalito. It boils down to people getting people housed.

“The city has to pay for durable housing for everyone in that encampment,” Prince said. “We’re getting close to an agreement, I think. There are still some things to work out, but I am cautiously optimistic.

While Sausalito’s budget is currently running at a deficit, which City Manager Chris Zapata attributes to “unplanned expenses related to homelessness” and pension costs, last week the city council approved an expenditure of $745,461 for encampment management services from Five Keys, a nonprofit organization.

That vote almost derailed settlement negotiations, according to Prince. Indeed, having an outside contractor manage the camp has been problematic for the Marinship residents in the past.

Urban Alchemy, a San Francisco-based nonprofit, performed those duties on and off since February 2021. Most of Urban Alchemy’s employees were formerly incarcerated, having “served life sentences in prison,” according to its website.

In June, the Sausalito campers alleged that Urban Alchemy staff had sexually exploited homeless females, used and distributed drugs on the job, and stolen property from the campers. The city refused to terminate the contract with Urban Alchemy early, even though it was scheduled to end two weeks later.

Five Keys also hires formerly incarcerated people. Prince believes the city’s approval to enter into a contract with Five Keys was intended to frighten and intimidate the campers, despite the fact that the organization has a solid reputation.

“We’re against that company having anything to do with the camp,” Prince said. “Since Urban Alchemy left, the camp is more peaceful than it’s ever been.”

This month, the city hired licensed security guards from a private firm to watch over the encampment. The campers say the guards treat them with respect.

Sausalito has repeatedly indicated that it wants to close the camp. Alex Merrit, an attorney representing the city, brought up the topic at a hearing in federal court last month. A city staff report issued last week about hiring Five Keys states the contract “is to speed unhoused persons to housing and close the temporary Marinship shelter.”

Since the encampment’s inception in late 2020, 10 people have been housed by the County of Marin and one through the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. Sausalito hasn’t provided any housing, although it has spent more than $1.5 million on expenses related to the encampment, mostly for legal fees and Urban Alchemy.

The county, which receives state and federal funding to provide services and housing for homeless people, has a long waiting list for permanent supportive housing and Section 8 housing vouchers. Yet, Sausalito’s leaders claim Five Keys will be able to hurry housing for the campers by collaborating with the county.

The county is engaged with homeless people in Sausalito and across Marin, according to Gary Naja-Riese, director of Marin County’s Division of Homelessness. The department provides regular updates to Sausalito on the status of its work in the city.

“We have 89% engagement through outreach or case management with the people in the Sausalito encampment,” Naja-Riese said. “That means there’s two people we’re not engaging with right now.”

Still, the city council authorized paying Five Keys almost $750,000 for six months of services. A city staff report stated the cost will be subsidized by a $500,000 allocation from Marin County. The mayor also made an announcement at the city council last week about the funding and confirmed it in an email to the Pacific Sun.

However, the county has not allocated $500,000 to Sausalito, Naja-Riese said. The county recently submitted a joint proposal to the state for $1.5 million. If awarded, Sausalito, San Rafael and Novato would each receive $500,000 for encampment expenses in their cities. There has been discussion of the county providing matching funds, though it is predicated upon receiving the state money and requires approval by the board of supervisors.

It appears Sausalito is counting its chickens before they’re hatched, which isn’t wise when the city already has a budget deficit. That’s not the only problem besetting the city right now.

The Sausalito police department is having personnel issues. Chief John Rohrbacher and Captain Bill Fraass are out of the office indefinitely, according to a source who spoke on the condition of anonymity. Kellman, Sausalito’s mayor, said Lieutenant Stacie Gregory is the acting chief and declined to provide additional information.

Hopefully, Sausalito can secure funding to work out the settlement that Prince wants for his clients—chiefly, housing. After housing is found for the people on the tennis courts, the city intends to close the camp. Then, what’s next? Is Sausalito going to build a border wall to keep other homeless people from entering the city limits?

Martin v. Boise, a 2018 decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, states cities must allow homeless people to sleep on public property unless it can provide them with an appropriate alternative shelter option. There are far more homeless people in the county than shelter beds.

Sausalito’s current anti-camping ordinance does not permit homeless people to sleep on public property, except at the city-sanctioned encampment in Marinship. Once it’s closed, should the city choose to enforce the ordinance, there will be nowhere for a homeless person to sleep, which certainly violates Martin v. Boise.

Nothing prevents other homeless people from filing lawsuits to challenge the ordinance. If Sausalito is sued again over the issue, city officials will have been hoisted by their own petard.

Marin County finally takes steps toward implementing a sheriff’s watchdog group

Nikki Silverstein

Jul 13, 2022

Marin County finally takes steps toward implementing a sheriff’s watchdog group

The Marin County Civil Grand Jury recently recommended the county create an independent sheriff’s oversight board with subpoena power, and proceedings subject to the Brown Act, to improve accountability and community trust in the sheriff’s office.

In its report titled “Sheriff Oversight: The Time Is Now,” the grand jury states that a civilian oversight board, along with the leadership change in the sheriff’s office, “presents a rare opportunity to reset relations between the Sheriff’s Office and the communities it serves.”

Assembly Bill 1185, state legislation which passed in September 2020, allows counties to establish sheriff’s oversight boards with subpoena power. Although activists and citizens have lobbied the Marin County Board of Supervisors to implement AB 1185, it has been slow to respond.

Robert Doyle, who served as Marin County sheriff for more than 25 years, retired two weeks ago. The former sheriff opposed a transparent public oversight board with teeth—subpoena power—and had previously stated that as an elected official, he only answered to the board of supervisors during the budgeting process.

Undersheriff Jamie Scardina is running unopposed in November to replace Doyle. Although Scardina also has resisted the idea of a citizen oversight board, he told the Pacific Sun that if it is created, the sheriff’s office would participate in the process as outlined by the board of supervisors.

However, Scardina is wobbling on the issue of policy changes in the sheriff’s office, which was recommended repeatedly in the grand jury’s report. It indicated that law enforcement agencies across the country have made policy changes in recent years, yet there has been little change in the sheriff’s office.

“We are not an organization that needs substantial change, but we will make organizational change along the way as long as it best serves the Sheriff’s Office and the community,” Scardina said in an email.

Obviously, the grand jury disagrees. The report provides concrete examples of the need for change, specifically pointing to sheriff’s office activities in unincorporated Marin City as justification for establishing a watchdog group.

Delving into the history of injustice experienced by Black residents in Marin City and two recent incidents, the grand jury’s report states there is a “strained” relationship between the community and the sheriff’s office.

Marin City was founded in 1942, when the federal government constructed temporary housing for the men and women building WWII Liberty ships in nearby Marinship. Both Black and white families lived in the community together. After the war ended, white workers bought homes. Black families remained in Marin City because of the county’s redlining policy, which prevented them from buying property.

Newspapers from the late 1940s chronicled alleged racial discrimination against Black residents, the report stated. Other incidents over the decades have reinforced the community’s distrust of the sheriff’s office, which continues today.

The report noted that Marin City currently has a population of 3,126 and 35% of residents are Black or multiracial, a much higher percentage than anywhere else in the county. Since Marin City is unincorporated and has no police department, the sheriff’s office remains responsible for law enforcement in the community.

Residents say the sheriff’s office uses Marin City as a training ground for new deputies, resulting in over-policing practices, which include “excessive stops, arrests, citations, and warnings,” according to the report. Short-term patrol assignments, under two years, make it difficult for residents and deputies to develop relationships.

Two recent incidents further eroded residents’ negative perception of the sheriff’s office. In November 2019, approximately 60 Contra Costa and Marin deputies descended on Marin City looking for suspects in an Orinda shooting. Ultimately, they arrested two individuals, according to the grand jury report.

The operation began at 7:45am, just in time for children on their way to school and adults going to work to witness the invasion of their small community by “armored vehicles and dozens of heavily armed law enforcement officers, many in tactical gear.” School officials reported that children arrived traumatized from the incident and many needed counseling. The sheriff’s office canceled an engagement at Tamalpais High School to speak with students about the incident and the talk was never rescheduled.

Doyle, the then-sheriff, continued to state that the Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Office led the raid and the Marin County Sheriff’s Office merely assisted. The grand jury agreed that this was true; however, it criticized the sheriff’s office for failing to address concerns raised by the community.

The second incident detailed by the report occurred two days before the November 2020 election. Hundreds of vehicles participating in a pro-Trump caravan stopped at the Marin Gateway Shopping Center shopping at around 11:30am.

Some Marin City residents went to the shopping center parking lot, where the Trump supporters greeted them with racial epithets. In return, eggs were tossed at caravan vehicles. Traffic was snarled in the community, and citizens complained they felt intimidated when trying to use the voter drop box located at the shopping center.

After the event, the sheriff’s office told the public that it only received notice of the Trump caravan a few minutes before the vehicles arrived. However, the grand jury obtained records that showed the sheriff’s office was informed of the caravan at least four times, beginning at 7:13am, more than four hours before the Trump supporters came to Marin City.

Both incidents demonstrate the need for a sheriff’s oversight board with subpoena power, according to the report. The board is a forum that would allow citizens to express their concerns and the sheriff’s office to explain its perspective. An oversight board could also “conduct a full investigation” into how the sheriff’s office handled the Trump caravan incident..

The grand jury isn’t the only entity calling for a sheriff’s oversight board. The Marin County Board of Supervisors tasked the Human Rights Commission with finding a way to implement AB 1185. The Human Rights Commission formed a two-person committee to recommend a path forward.

“The committee is recommending an inspector general and a citizen’s oversight board with subpoena power,” Jeremy Portje, a member of the committee, said. “We are looking to create a subcommittee with citizens to iron out details.”

Supervisor Damon Connolly said he has met with Portje and engaged other community members about the issue. All have spoken passionately about the need for AB 1185. Connolly says the goal is to have the AB 1185 oversight board in place by the end of this year and appoint members in early 2023.

“The Board [of Supervisors] has set aside $150,000 as part of the new budget and is continuing to work with the sheriff’s office, the Human Rights Commission, stakeholders and community members on developing a framework for AB 1185,” Connolly said.

Anything could happen before the supervisors vote on the issue. Still, Portje is optimistic, confident even, that Marin will soon have a sheriff’s oversight board.

“Everything is pointing to now,” Portje said. “The time is now. The time is right.”

Sausalito threatens to close the city-sanctioned homeless encampment

Nikki Silverstein

Jul 6, 2022

Sausalito threatens to close the city-sanctioned homeless encampment

The City of Sausalito’s outside counsel has created a stir in the homeless encampment at Marinship Park by saying he’s intending to file a motion in federal court to close the camp down permanently.

The city-sanctioned encampment is under a court order, issued by U.S. District Court Judge Edward Chen, to remain open. That same order prevents homeless people from camping anywhere in the city, except for Marinship.

In the past several months, the Sausalito police have barred new people from entering the homeless encampment, now located on the Marinship tennis courts. Catch-22: They can’t sleep in the designated encampment, and they can’t legally sleep anywhere else in the city.

Individuals have filed lawsuits against the city over the issue. Chen ruled against Sausalito in most cases. The city is now providing newcomers with vouchers for motels located outside of Sausalito.

The number of homeless people in the camp has dwindled from a high of about 45 people to 20. And the remaining folks aren’t happy. There are two women in wheelchairs living on the tennis courts. A man with cancer, who is receiving experimental chemotherapy treatments, was denied entry.

Sausalito officials have repeatedly told campers the city is working with the county to try to find housing. A few people received Section 8 housing vouchers, though they are quick to say Sausalito didn’t help them obtain the vouchers.

Robbie Powelson, a member of the Sausalito/Marin Homeless Union, believes Sausalito is waging psychological warfare against the campers. He may be right.

The Sausalito City Council contracted with Urban Alchemy, a controversial nonprofit that hires former convicts, to manage the camp. Even after allegations surfaced that some Urban Alchemy employees had sexually assaulted vulnerable homeless women and brought drugs into the camp, the city refused to cancel the contract before it expired in late June.

Chen is possibly giving Sausalito’s high-priced attorneys a preview of how he will rule on a motion to close the camp. The judge continues to bring up Martin v. Boise, a decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which states cities must allow homeless people to sleep on public property unless it can provide the folks with shelter.

Last week, Chen ruled against Sausalito in a motion it filed to dismiss a case brought against them by Arthur Bruce, a homeless man. After the city refused to allow Bruce on the tennis courts, he purchased a parking sticker to sleep in his car at the tennis court parking lots. The police revoked it. Chen ordered the city to issue a new parking sticker to Bruce and the case will continue to wend its way through court.

The City of Sausalito has spent over $1.5 million on the encampment, although much of the money has gone to Urban Alchemy and legal fees, rather than on services for the campers. The former and current Sausalito mayors have repeatedly told the Pacific Sun the city is compassionate toward its homeless residents. Perhaps they could find a way to demonstrate it.

How enterprising women from the 1930s saved the Marin Art and Garden Center property

Nikki Silverstein

Jul 5, 2022

How enterprising women from the 1930s saved the Marin Art and Garden Center property

Thanks to the foresight of a group of “Marin housewives” more than 75 years ago, the Marin Art and Garden Center in Ross was recently added to the National Register of Historic Places, an official list of America’s historic places worthy of preservation.

The center joins a prestigious collection of 53 landmark sites in the county on the National Register, including the Mount Tamalpais Mountain Theater, the Marin County Civic Center and the Green Brae Brick Kiln.

Although several of the buildings on the property are from the 19^th century, the National Register listing is for the period from 1945 to 1962, with two main areas of significance: cultural history and design history, according to center executive director Antonia Adezio.

The cultural history started with the remarkable women referred to as “Marin housewives” in court documents. They were actually skilled environmentalists who founded garden and conservation organizations dedicated to saving Marin’s natural resources from development.

Due in large part to the efforts of the organizations’ founding members, including Caroline Livermore, Sepha Evers, Portia Forbes, Helen Van Pelt and Gladys Smith, the majority of Marin County remains predominantly open space. They worked on preserving Mount Tamalpais, Stinson Beach, Point Reyes and Angel Island. In addition, they spearheaded a campaign to ban billboards in Marin County, and the Board of Supervisors passed an ordinance in 1938 to remove all erected signs and prohibit new ones.

Also focused on preventing suburbanization in Marin, which started after the Golden Gate Bridge opened in 1936, Livermore and her partners may have been among the region’s first NIMBYs. They didn’t want the area populated with too many homes.

With development interest increasing, owners of Marin’s large estates and agricultural land began dividing their properties into smaller lots for new housing. When the lovely 11-acre Kittle estate in Ross was subdivided into more than a dozen parcels and put on the market, the women set their sights on preserving the property and keeping the estate buildings intact.

Livermore, who helped found the Marin Garden Club and the Marin Conservation League, used her own finances for the $5,000 down payment to purchase the estate, with its lush magnolia trees, a creek and several unique outbuildings that survived a fire responsible for burning the main house to the ground. Along with other members of the organizations, Livermore aimed to create a center for community use and provide a permanent place for garden and conservation clubs.

In 1945, the women accomplished their lofty goal of purchasing the Kittle property and setting up a nonprofit to run the Marin Art and Garden Center.

“What these women did was really brilliant,” Adezio said. “And they did it with very little resources, even putting their personal cash in to buy the estate. In Marin and across the United States, conservation-minded people banded together to try to save green and open space.”

The design history began in 1945, when the center’s board of trustees commissioned new buildings and landscaping and hired the leading architects in the Bay Area, including Gardner Dailey and Donn Emmons, of Wurster, Bernardi and Emmons, and landscape architects Thomas Church and Robert Royston.

“Each of them is significant in their own right,” Adezio said. “Their work is still here. The suite of buildings and the landscaping we have are intact.”

With World War II just ending, building materials were in short supply, which prompted simple designs in the Bay Region Modern–Second Bay Tradition. This local form of mid-century modern styling featured clean lines, glass walls and wood panels.

The application process for the listing on the National Register spanned about a year and a half; however, it took years to gather the documents and necessary information to put together a comprehensive narrative on why the center should be included.

Volunteers and staff worked diligently on securing the listing, which entailed interaction with three government agencies. The process began with the California Office of Historic Preservation, which helped the center’s supporters identify what they needed. Next, the State Historical Resources Commission reviewed the nomination to ensure that the site was eligible. Last October, the commission gave the green light. Finally, the United States Department of the Interior reviewed it and approved the listing on June 6.

And it may not have happened at all if a neighbor hadn’t gone dumpster diving.

Gary Scales, a neighbor and former trustee of the center, noticed a cleanup taking place on the property and items being thrown in the trash. When he stuck his head in the dumpster, he found some very important documents, including the meeting minutes from the period of significance in the National Register listing—1945 to 1962.

“How does that happen?” Adezio said. “With a nonprofit that’s had generations of people involved, the chain of command and memory is sometimes lost. People move on, things slip through the cracks. We were lucky Gary rescued it.”

The center’s history is rich, even if some of it isn’t included in the listing. The county fair took place on the property from 1946 to 1970. It began as the Marin Art and Garden Fair, which included arts and crafts displays, outdoor installations of gardens, archery contests and Uncle Sam walking around on stilts. The fair raised enough money to keep the Marin Art and Garden Center going.

Today, the center earns its keep in other ways, with a robust calendar for weddings and private events. A nature-inspired preschool is on the grounds, and a family-friendly summer concert series takes place every Thursday in July.

Over 100,000 people a year visit the center, which doesn’t charge admission. Folks stroll through the gardens, curl up on a bench with a book and play chess. On Aug. 3, the center’s 77^th anniversary, there will be a celebration for the National Register listing. Details are not yet available.

“The listing gives us cause to celebrate and look at how we preserve the property,” Adezio said. “The Marin Art and Garden Center is a backyard for people.”

Marin City advocates raise drinking water concerns—again

Nikki Silverstein

Jun 29, 2022

Marin City advocates raise drinking water concerns—again

As the crow flies, Marin City is less than seven miles from Ross. Yet Marin City residents have a significantly lower life expectancy than Ross residents.

For example, the Robert Wood Foundation collaborated with the federal government to calculate life expectancy by census tract. In Ross, a person can expect to live 91 years, while in Marin City, the age is 80.

The people of Marin City want answers about the causes of the disparity. A local organization, Marin City Climate Resilience and Health Justice, is determined to get to the bottom of the issue.

The group’s members suspect contaminants in Marin City’s drinking water could be a factor in the decreased life expectancy because residents have complained about poor-tasting, smelly and discolored tap water for years. In 2019 and 2020, the Marin City Climate Resilience and Health Justice surveyed 280 community members, who answered open-ended questions about the water quality and other issues in Marin City.

The survey results are unsettling. Drinking water is a top concern, along with flooding and industrial contamination. Most respondents said they are worried about their tap water, and 76% indicated they drink bottled water at home.

These findings prompted Marin City Climate Resilience and Health Justice to work with the San Francisco Estuary Partnership to conduct tap water testing in 16 homes. Members of Marin City Climate Resilience and Health Justice were trained by SimpleLab, a marketplace for accredited water quality testing laboratories, to collect clean water samples from the tap. Each sample collection was carefully monitored by the local group, which also took responsibility for the chain of custody to the lab.

A total of 48 tap water samples were collected and analyzed for more than 150 contaminants. With half of the test results back from the lab, Marin City Climate Resilience and Health Justice has drawn some preliminary conclusions.

A group of bacteria, total coliform, was detected in some of the tap water samples. Although not all coliforms are harmful, fecal coliform and E. coli can cause illness and even death in humans. The presence of total coliforms is used to determine water quality, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Chemical substances known as analytes that were found in the water samples included chloroform, chlorine, dichloroacetic acid, trichloroacetic acid and more, the Marin City Climate Resilience and Health Justice said. Maria Ramos-Chertok, an attorney and volunteer with the group, said the levels of many of the chemicals exceed California’s detection limit for purposes of reporting.

The group raised their concerns with the Marin City Community Services District, an elected body representing unincorporated Marin City, which in turn contacted Congressman Jared Huffman.

The community now has Huffman’s attention. On Wednesday, June 22, he brought together more than 20 people for an invitation-only meeting to discuss safe drinking water in Marin City.

Representatives from an array of federal, state and local agencies attended, such as the Environmental Protection Agency, California State Water Resources Control Board, the Marin Municipal Water District and Marin Health and Human Services.

James Muller is the principal program manager of the San Francisco Estuary Partnership, the agency that helped Marin City Climate Resilience and Health Justice with the tap water testing. Muller is holding out for more results. For now, he believes the total coliform found in the tap water is the result of a sampling error because the test is very sensitive to these contaminants specifically.

More information and analysis is expected soon.

The Marin Municipal Water District, after being informed that coliform was found in the tap water, began testing Marin City water from a station out on the street. The testing has been conducted every weekday since late May and no coliform has been detected; however, they haven’t yet conducted tests at the tap inside a home.

The maximum contaminant level, or MCL, is a regulatory standard for the maximum allowable amount of a contaminant in the water. Contaminants are permitted in drinking water as long they are under an amount determined by state and federal regulations. Another measure, although not a regulatory standard, is California’s public health goals. Those figures, which are set by the state Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, are the level of chemical contaminants in drinking water that don’t pose a significant health risk.

“Through a regulatory lens, we’ve found no exceedances,” Muller said. “But if we look through the lens of the public health goals, what are the synergistic effects over a lifetime of use of this water? We haven’t seen that science come out. Maybe none exceed MCLs, but there are a lot of contaminants in the Marin City water.”

Paul Sellier, operations director at the Marin Municipal Water District, is confident the drinking water in Marin CIty is safe, clean and healthy, as is the rest of the county’s water.

“The system doesn’t allow us to provide different drinking water to different communities,” Sellier said.

Terrie Green, executive director of Marin City Climate Resilience and Health Justice, says the water pipes in Marin City are likely the culprit. Greenbrae, Ross and San Rafael have new pipes, and Mill Valley’s water pipes are being replaced now. Green is adamant that Marin City needs them, too.

“Our people are dying…,” Green wrote in a text message.

The oldest water pipes in Marin City date back to 1959, although pipes can last 70 to 100 years, according to Sellier. Now 63 years old, the pipes are nearing the end of their life span, yet Marin Municipal Water District has no plans to replace them anytime soon.

“In Mill Valley, my water has never been discolored, never had a bad taste and it doesn’t smell,” Ramos-Chertok said. “What’s that about? You can say the Marin City water is pristine all day and all night, but if what comes out of your tap is discolored and has a bad taste, it’s not pristine.”

Cynthia Koehler, who serves on the Marin Municipal Water District Board, said the agency is concerned. It has offered to do water quality testing at the meter and the tap concurrently, which will help determine whether the contaminants are coming through the agency’s pipes or pipes that are the responsibility of homeowners. There is no date set for the testing, but it is anticipated that it will start within a month or two.

Green wants the testing conducted by an independent company. Regardless of the outcome, she wants the six miles of water pipes in Marin City replaced.

Like Green, many people in the community don’t trust government agencies, which stems from years of broken promises and discrimination. Marin City began as a temporary home for shipbuilders in World War II. When the war ended, white people bought homes in the county. Black people were prevented from owning homes in certain areas through a process known as redlining. In Marin County, they simply weren’t permitted to buy property.

While there has been some progress since then, systemic racism still exists in Marin. The county has the dubious distinction of being the most racially segregated county in the Bay Area. Just three years ago, the Sausalito Marin City School District received the first California desegregation order in 50 years. There is still a long way to go to build trust.

Perhaps it could start with those six miles of new water pipes.

Marin County Public Defender draws from personal experience

News

Nikki Silverstein

Jun 15, 2022

Marin County Public Defender draws from personal experience

Marin County Public Defender David Sutton experienced a rough childhood in San Francisco’s Western Addition. By high school, he had managed to get himself into some trouble. It probably saved him.

Raised by a single mother diagnosed with bipolar disorder, Sutton and his sister spent time in foster homes or staying with family. When he was eight years old, his sister was permanently removed from the home.

“My mother had pretty significant mental health issues,” Sutton said. “Oftentimes, she would be voluntarily or involuntarily hospitalized.”

His father left when Sutton was six months old. As a child, Sutton never knew him.

In the mid-’90s, prompted by Sutton’s wayward behavior after entering high school, his mother sent him to live with an uncle who was a police officer in Riverside County. Influenced by his strict uncle, Sutton toed the line.

Sutton’s aunt, who was a labor and employment attorney, also provided motivation. He began to realize he had other options in life, including becoming a lawyer.

“A lot of my aunt’s guidance, specifically through undergrad and law school, helped keep my eyes on the prize,” Sutton said. “I have no doubt that I wouldn’t be a public defender but for adults intervening throughout my life and throughout my career.”

Early in law school at the University of San Francisco, Sutton considered working at a large law firm to earn the big bucks because “poverty sucks,” he said. Yet, he abandoned those plans and chose instead to work as a public defender.

For Sutton, it boils down to doing meaningful work. Helping people justifies logging in 60 to 80 hour weeks. Sutton harkens back to his rocky, impoverished youth as his inspiration.

“The reason I became a public defender is to help individuals who have experienced the same things that I have or are dealing with the same kind of mental health issues that my mother dealt with,” Sutton said. “That became my calling—really trying to effect change for individuals who find themselves in dire situations and may not have had the mentorship or the intervention I did. It’s my way of honoring my background and who I am, while also making sure that I’m paying forward the opportunities that I was afforded.”

Sutton’s route to lead the Marin County Public Defender’s Office was circuitous. In the summer of 2006, and continuing throughout most of law school, he worked as an intern in the department. After a short stint in Alameda County’s public defender’s office, Sutton returned to the Marin office as a misdemeanor attorney, but only stayed for about a year-and-a-half.

Lured to Los Angeles in 2010 by an offer from the largest federal public defender’s office in the country, Sutton remained there for 10 years, working his way up the ladder. Eventually, he became the trial chief, managing dozens of attorneys.

Still, Sutton has always considered the Bay Area his home. Last year, when Marin came knocking at his door to manage the public defender’s office, he didn’t think twice.

“Given the opportunity to return to Marin and steward the office that basically gave me my start, I jumped at it,” Sutton said. “I built what I think is an extremely strong legal foundation—a foundation for public defense—to come back and lead the office.”

The Marin County Public Defender’s Office has always provided excellent legal services, according to Sutton. Today, he’s building on that base with the 42-person department he manages.

“We’re staying on the cutting edge and pushing the envelope with litigation,” Sutton said. “We’re addressing our client’s needs after they’re released from jail or prison by ensuring they’re not repeat clients. We’re addressing housing, using Clean Slate events to get rid of historical convictions and looking at the decarceration of current inmates through changes in the penal code.”

Another goal of the department is to keep people out of handcuffs in the first place and help change their stations in life. Sutton works to find funding sources to support those efforts.

People who can’t afford an attorney are referred to the Marin County Public Defender’s Office. Their cases run the gamut, including felonies, misdemeanors and sometimes infractions, which aren’t criminal offenses. In addition, public defenders represent people when there is an attempt to place them under a conservatorship for allegedly posing a danger to others or being unable to care for their own basic needs. The department also serves juveniles.

The responsibilities of directing the office are plentiful, yet Sutton finds time to carry his own caseload. However, he takes the low-profile cases because he doesn’t believe the lead public defender should be chasing headlines.

“I still love being a lawyer,” Sutton said. “I’m an administrator, but I represent clients as well.”

Sutton sings the praises of the team, emphasizing it’s not just the attorneys keeping the office humming along. From the legal support staff, who are the first contact with the public, to the drug and alcohol recovery coach, everyone works long hours to ensure that their clients’ rights are protected.

While the Marin County Public Defender’s Office protects their clients’ constitutional and statutory rights through traditional representation on the court floor, it also provides holistic legal representation to the community, according to Sutton. The staff even takes their services outside the office, meeting people where they live.

“This isn’t just a mission statement, but something that we’re truly honoring,” Sutton said. “What does a trip to the Civic Center mean in your life in terms of timing? Maybe you don’t have a car or you have child care issues.”

Sutton and his team collaborate with the Marin County District Attorney’s Office to address legal issues in the community. The two departments work together on Clean Slate, a program that aims to seal and expunge a person’s prior criminal record, which removes barriers to employment, housing and educational opportunities.

Although public defenders and district attorneys are often adversaries in court, Sutton says he speaks with DA Lori Frugoli and Assistant DA Otis Bruce on a regular basis. Frugoli includes Sutton on some of her calls and meetings with the community. The two offices try to work out compromises on cases.

The Marin County Jail and the Public Defender’s Office also routinely communicate, especially during the pandemic.

“The jail captain has been a partner in ensuring that we still have access to our clients, despite Covid outbreaks,” Sutton said. “The Marin County Jail was an early adopter of providing remote meetings with clients.”

It’s clear that the clients, the people his office represents, remain foremost in Sutton’s mind. After all, they’re the reason he chose to become a public defender.

“I’m a civil servant,” Sutton said. “I serve these individuals and I take that to heart.”

Marin Sheriff agrees to obey the law as part of legal settlement

Nikki Silverstein

Jun 8, 2022

Marin Sheriff agrees to obey the law as part of legal settlement

Marin activists declared victory last week when Marin County and Sheriff Robert Doyle settled a lawsuit which claimed Doyle’s office illegally shared the license plate data and location information of Marin motorists with hundreds of law enforcement agencies across the country.

Under the settlement agreement, the sheriff and his successors must abide by two state laws, SB 34 and SB 54. SB 34 prohibits sensitive data, collected by surveillance cameras, from being transferred to federal and out-of-state agencies, while SB 54 prevents state and local resources from being used to assist federal immigration enforcement.

The sheriff did not admit to any violations in the settlement agreement. Instead, Doyle made admissions that he understands the meaning of the laws and will follow them.

Long-time Marin residents, Lisa Bennett, Cesar S. Lagleva, and Tara Evans, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union and the Electronic Frontier Foundation, filed the lawsuit in October against the sheriff and the County of Marin, alleging public documents showed Doyle was sharing automatic license plate recognition (ALPR) data with at least 424 out-of-state agencies and 18 federal agencies, including U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection.

Since 2010, the Marin County Sheriff’s Office has gathered surveillance information through an ALPR system. It began sharing the data in 2014. The cameras capture images of the license plate and vehicle, as well as GPS data with a time and date stamp.

“This location data contains personal information, revealing where we live, where we work, where we worship and when we go to the doctor’s office,” Matt Cagle, an ALCU attorney involved in the case, said. “The government has the location information for residents and visitors traveling through the county. What we have seen is troubling. ICE has tapped into databases of information like this and used the sensitive data points to locate, target and deport immigrants.”

Keeping ICE out of Marin was a goal of the lawsuit. Doyle is frequently criticized for cooperating with ICE. While it’s within the sheriff’s power to cease collaborations with the federal agency, Doyle has chosen to continue to assist ICE, despite making a few small changes over the past few years.

The sheriff’s staff stopped inquiring about a person’s immigration status and no longer responds to ICE requests regarding release dates for low-level offenders. In addition, the sheriff barred ICE from entering the jail for inmate transfers but the agency now waits in the parking area for the release of people it wants to take into custody.

Although the sheriff’s office must stop providing the automated license plate recognition data with ICE, it is under no obligation to stop collecting the information and may still share it with other non-federal law enforcement and prosecutorial agencies in California. Doyle declined an interview request but did release a statement.

“The Marin County Sheriff’s Office is pleased with the settlement of [the] ACLU lawsuit,” the statement says. “We have evaluated the policies and procedures surrounding the use and sharing of information from our ALPR system and made changes to ensure no information is shared with out of state agencies unless allowed per the terms of the settlement agreement.”

It’s unclear what Doyle might be referring to when he states that his office won’t share information with out of state agencies unless allowed by the settlement agreement. Both the settlement agreement and SB 34 prohibit any sharing of the data with out of state agencies.

The ACLU considers the collection and distribution of the data to be problematic because it’s not always known how the data is used, according to Cagle. It could violate individuals’ privacy and civil liberties, especially for those in marginalized groups, such as immigrants or people of color.

“The information could be used to identify stolen vehicles,” Cagle said. “Or it could be used to identify folks at a protest.”

It would be nice to know exactly what the sheriff’s office is doing with the data it collects from Marin residents and visitors. In 2020, Doyle recorded 821,244 scans of license plates and specific location information with the ALPR readers.

What’s even more interesting is how few vehicles are detected that may have been involved in a crime. Out of all the license plate images gathered in 2020, only 216 “hits” were found, a mere 0.02%.

“There are aspects of ALPR that make it look like it’s not a very effective means of surveillance,” Lisa Bennett, one of the activists who filed the lawsuit, said. “Very few [scans] actually lead to anything. So why is the sheriff surveilling an entire population?”

Marin activists have been calling for a sheriff’s oversight committee with teeth – subpoena power. AB 1185, state legislation passed in 2020, gives the Marin Board of Supervisors the power to create a committee to hold the sheriff’s office accountable for its policies and actions.

“This lawsuit settlement is one great argument for an oversight committee,” Bennett said. “It was not only an acknowledgement that the sheriff needs to change his practices, but it also cost the county $49,000 – the amount included in the settlement agreement to pay for [the plaintiffs’] legal fees.”

Another activist, Cesar Lagleva, who was also a party to the lawsuit, agrees wholeheartedly. He encourages all Marin residents to support AB 1185 by writing to the Marin County Board of Supervisors.

“We have enough evidence to suggest there needs to be accountability in the sheriff’s office,” Lagleva said. “These practices have had a disproportionate negative impact against BIPOC and poor residents here in Marin County.

Until an oversight committee is established, it’s up to community activists to keep close watch over the sheriff’s office, Cagle said. It’s important to ensure the sheriff follows SB 34 and SB 54 and other laws designed to protect our immigrant neighbors and community members.

The ACLU hopes the outcome of the Marin lawsuit will send a warning to all agencies in California that are violating the law by sharing ALPR data with out-of-state and federal law enforcement. Police departments in Tiburon and several areas in San Diego stopped the practice after the lawsuit was filed.

“We don’t have any other active cases right now,” Cagle said. “Basically, this should be putting other California law enforcement agencies on notice that it is illegal to share location information collected by ALPR with out of state and federal agencies. The law is clear and these public agencies need to get in line and comply if they’re not already.”

Bennett says the heart of the matter with the lawsuit is the privacy issue, which affects all residents.

“What if an undocumented woman from Texas wants to drive to California for an abortion and Texas wants to know from us is she in your state?” Bennett said. “We don’t want them to know that. This has implications not just for undocumented immigrants but for anyone who values their privacy.”

How a Marin County Woman Found her Birth Parents

Nikki Silverstein

Nov 25, 2020

How a Marin County Woman Found her Birth Parents

We all count our blessings during the holiday season, with family usually topping the list. After a remarkable journey, an adopted San Rafael woman found her birth mother and an entire extended family, giving her yet another reason to feel thankful.

Wendy Gallagher, 54, grew up in Sausalito, knowing her parents adopted her as an infant. No one knew that her birth mother, coincidentally, lived just two blocks away at the time.

In 1965, Mary Lynn, a single woman, worked at a real estate firm in San Francisco. That summer, she unexpectedly became pregnant and decided to give her baby up for adoption through the Children’s Home Society in San Francisco. Margaret and Dr. Clifford Raisbeck adopted Wendy in April 1966, when she was three weeks old.

Wendy spent an idyllic childhood in a large Sausalito home with her parents and three siblings. Her eldest brother, 10 years her senior, was her parents’ only natural child. They also adopted a boy in 1963 and another girl, after Wendy, in 1967.

“It was paradise growing up,” Wendy said. “Our house was on a half-acre with a swimming pool and a treehouse. On the Fourth of July, my dad would drive his 1911 Model T in the Sausalito parade and then we’d have a big party at our house.”

Unfortunately, Margaret passed away in 1991, when Wendy was only 25. After her death, Wendy’s adopted brother and sister searched for and found their birth families. Their father was supportive; however, Wendy sensed his discomfort during photo sessions with her siblings and their birth relatives.

Wendy had little interest in finding her birth parents, though as a child, she sometimes wondered if she might receive a birthday card from them. None ever arrived.

Her curiosity about her birth parents’ health information increased as she grew older, especially when she married and had children. Her daughter was immunocompromised, causing her to contemplate whether it was a genetic trait from her side of the family.

After her father died in 2013, Wendy thought more about searching for her birth parents. Still, she did not act.

In the fall of 2015, while attending one of her daughter’s tennis matches, Wendy chatted with another parent about her growing desire to find her birth parents. The woman suggested she check out 23andMe, a genetic testing company. A customer simply places a saliva sample in a tube, sends it to the company and waits a few weeks for the DNA results. The 23andMe online database then provides the names of family members also registered with the company.

“For $100, I found 900 relatives,” Wendy said.

Most were distant relations, except for Mike, a first cousin living in Oregon. Coincidentally, he was also adopted. The two cousins, who share 15.6 percent of their DNA, corresponded and learned that neither knew anything about their birth parents.

Even more determined to locate her birth parents, Wendy sent away for her adoption records from the Children’s Home Society. In April 2016, eight pages arrived from the nonprofit agency, but the report did not reveal her parents’ names. The actual birth record containing that information was sealed by the state.

She learned from adoption records that her mother grew up in Kansas, spoke two languages and had one sister. Her father was an only child.

From these facts, Wendy and Mike deduced their mothers were sisters. Wendy spent many hours on the internet and made several visits to the Marin Civic Center with her clues, yet she gleaned no new information. In effect, she had reached a genealogical dead end.

Wendy discussed her dilemma with her brother-in-law, who worked on computers. As if by fate, his roster of clients included Phyllis Garrett, a genealogist in Novato. Wendy hired her in May 2016 to find her birth parents.

It was the best $400 Wendy ever spent, because the following month, Phyllis sent her a photo of her maternal grandmother.

“I felt like I was looking in the mirror,” Wendy said.

Phyllis identified and contacted Wendy’s birth mother over the summer. Mary Lynn was excited about the prospect of reconnecting with her daughter. Unfortunately, there were roadblocks finding her birth father.

After more than 50 years apart, the mother and daughter began a tentative relationship, communicating through email and Facebook for several months. Wendy gained a younger half-sister and half-brother, who she also contacted online.

Mike, too, received good news. Mary Lynn’s sister, Patsy, was indeed his mother.

“It was very cool. Like reading a spy novel,” Mike said after learning about his birth mother. They were soon in touch, as well.

Wendy made the trip to Texas in November 2016 for a joyful family reunion. She had never even spoken on the phone with her newfound relatives, yet there she was, meeting her mother, sister and brother for the first time.

“There’s a lot to nurture versus nature,” Wendy said. “My adoptive mother was detailed, neat and organized. Always on time. That’s nurture, because I’m the same way.”

“My birth mother and I have the same mannerisms and dimples,” she continued. “One of my half-sister’s daughters is the spitting image of my daughter at that age.”

Wendy and Mary Lynn discovered they both love to travel and have visited the same places. They enjoy doing puzzles, always drink Diet Coke and never drink coffee. And, that autoimmune disease that plagued Wendy’s daughter when she was younger? Wendy’s half-brother had it, too.

The relationship between the birth relatives has grown steadily. In 2017, Wendy’s new extended family traveled to San Rafael for Christmas and met her adoptive family.

“I have three siblings and a step-sister who I’m close to,” Wendy said. “That’s my family, the people who raised me and took care of me. My birth mother, half-sister and half-brother, they’re a wonderful bonus.”

Wendy recommends using the genealogy websites and the services of a genealogist to anyone seeking their birth family. In fact, she now has 1,500 relatives on 23andMe.

“I would do it all over again,” she said. “It’s amazing what you can find out from a vial of spit.”