Page 7 – Pacific Sun | Marin County, California

Former San Rafael cops appear in court to face felony charges

Nikki Silverstein

Aug 29, 2023

Former San Rafael cops appear in court to face felony charges

The two former San Rafael police officers looked appropriately somber as they walked through the corridor outside of Courtroom C in the Marin County Civic Center last week. Twice this month, they have appeared before a judge to face two felony charges each—assault by an officer under color of authority and making false statements on police reports.

On both court dates, spectators gazed intently at the co-defendants, Brandon Nail and Daisy Mazariegos, while everyone waited in the hallway until the bailiff arrived to unlock the courtroom doors. Mostly, Nail and Mazariegos averted their eyes from the gawkers. Flanked by a small entourage of attorneys and others, probably family and friends, Nail and Mazariegos turned their heads away as photojournalists took their shots.

The pair now look different than they did in the widely circulated videos from that defining incident on July 27, 2022, when they questioned a Latinx man about an open container of beer and then forcibly restrained him, leaving him injured and laying in his own blood on a street in the Canal neighborhood.

The previously clean-shaven Nail currently sports a full beard and mustache. But it’s Mazariegos whose appearance has changed more substantially. She is visibly pregnant, due in mid to late October, her attorney, Christopher Shea, told me.

During the arraignment on Aug. 11, the first court date for the defendants, there was audible whispering among the crowd when they realized Mazariegos is pregnant. It’s unsettling to consider that this fresh-faced young woman is preparing her criminal defense at the same time she’s preparing to welcome a baby into the world.

Both Mazariegos and Nail pled not guilty at the arraignment, which prompted Marin County Superior Court Judge Beth S. Jordan to schedule a preliminary hearing, the proceeding that determines whether the case will move forward to trial.

Last week, a small group gathered again outside of Courtroom C, waiting to be ushered in for the preliminary hearing. The prosecution was slated to present evidence in support of the charges against Nail and Mazariegos.

The proceedings began with prosecutor Geoff Iida and defense attorney Julia Fox, who is representing Nail, announcing that a conflict must be addressed. Iida, Fox and Shea moved to the bench to discuss the issue with the judge, out of earshot from those sitting in the gallery.

After a couple of minutes, Jordan stated there was “good cause for conflict.”

Nail told the judge that he wanted Fox to continue to represent him and waived his right for the preliminary hearing to take place in the next 10 court days.

However, Shea, on behalf of his client, Mazariegos, did not waive the time. Shea indicated that they had come to court expecting to confront witnesses at the preliminary hearing.

“My client wants to see this behind her as quickly as possible,” Shea said.

Jordan ordered that briefs regarding the conflict be submitted to the court the following week and set a new preliminary hearing date for Sept. 6.

It was evident from the dialogue that the conflict had to do with Fox, which she confirmed to me during an interview. Fox’s law practice focuses on representing law enforcement officers.

“There’s a witness that the people [district attorney] intend to call at the preliminary hearing who has been represented by me previously,” Fox said. “We all want to honor and make sure that this is a clean record on solid legal ground.”

Fox seems confident that the conflict won’t be an issue going forward and she’ll continue to represent Nail. The truly concerning issue, according to Fox, is that District Attorney Lori Frugoli filed charges against her client.

Questioning the Charges

“I think that it was an irresponsible and reckless filing decision,” Fox said. “I am a former prosecutor, and this case very clearly cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The fact that the DA did file, regardless of that reality, to me, it certainly suggests strongly that they just capitulated to public outcry, as opposed to standing their ground with regards to their ethical responsibility.”

If Frugoli submitted to public pressure, it was an extremely slow capitulation. The DA took 11 months to file charges against the defendants.

Shea, Mazariegos’s attorney, told me that he believes the DA’s actions are “politically motivated.”

“Daisy is not guilty of anything,” Shea said. “She did what she’s trained to do as a police officer.”

Both Shea and Fox claim that their clients have already been cleared—by the City of San Rafael’s independent investigative report on the use of force incident. Maybe so, but the report is not a judge or jury.

Furthermore, San Rafael’s report, which has not yet been released to the public, didn’t persuade the DA to stand down. Fox is clearly dismayed about it.

San Rafael’s independent investigation, according to Fox, could not support the charges against Mazariegos and Nail. And the standard of proof for the city’s investigation isn’t as high as what is necessary in a courtroom—beyond a reasonable doubt, Fox explained.

I reminded Fox that San Rafael was heavily criticized for hiring Paul Henry, a former Santa Rosa police officer, to conduct the investigation and issue the report. The cited concerns included that Henry, who spent 27 years in law enforcement, would have a bias toward the officers.

**LOST IN THOUGHT Julia Fox, defense attorney for Brandon Nail, waits outside the courtroom for her client’s case to be called. Photo by Stephanie Mohan.**

“Well, to that I would say—and this is a really troubling and big component—the DA’s office sought out their own use of force expert, and he similarly cleared these officers,” Fox said. “And yet somehow, they [the DA’s office] now have another use of force expert, which to me has all the hallmarks of shopping for answers.”

Interesting, but does it negate the other evidence that Frugoli claims to possess—evidence she believes will demonstrate that Nail and Mazariegos assaulted Julio Jimenez Lopez without cause and then filed false police reports about the incident?

“After a thorough review of the evidence, which included body-worn camera footage, eyewitness accounts, medical records, and reports from the San Rafael Police Department, my office has concluded there is sufficient evidence to prove these charges beyond a reasonable doubt,” Frugoli said in a statement issued on June 29, 2023, the date she filed the charges.

An Insistent Public

The public has already seen some of the DA’s evidence from the incident. Nail’s and Mazariegos’s body cam videos, as well as their police reports claiming that Jimenez Lopez hit Nail in the head, were leaked to the media last September.

The videos show that during questioning about an open container of beer, Jimenez Lopez stood to retrieve his identification. Nail and Mazariegos then grabbed Jimenez Lopez and took him to the ground. In the footage, Nail can be seen punching Jimenez Lopez in the face.

Even watching frame-by-frame, it doesn’t appear that Jimenez Lopez hit Nail. Yet Jimenez Lopez was arrested and the DA filed criminal charges against him. Those charges were later dropped, after the DA watched the videos.

Graphic content. The video, from a police body-worn camera, shows Daisy Mazariegos and Brandon Nail using force against Julio Jimenez Lopez.

Protests erupted when the story hit the media, and the public demanded the officers be fired and prosecuted. Both Mazariegos and Nail left the employment of the police department earlier this year, although the city has not confirmed whether they quit or were terminated.

Still, people are clamoring to obtain San Rafael’s investigative report, the one Fox and Shea claim clears Nail and Mazariegos. The independent investigator completed the report on April 28, after an eight-month investigation.

City attorney Rob Epstein then spent weeks vacillating on whether to release the report to the public. In June, Epstein decided against releasing the report, stating that the former officers had threatened to sue the city if he did.

While there are strong laws protecting the privacy of law enforcement officers, Senate Bill 1421 requires disclosure of records when an officer’s use of force results in great bodily injury to a person.

Medical reports provided to the Pacific Sun reveal that Jimenez Lopez suffered injuries including a broken nose, concussion and a torn labrum in his shoulder that required surgery.

Another Day, Another Court

Although Epstein may have fended off a lawsuit by Mazariegos and Nail, San Rafael is now the defendant in three legal actions, all seeking to force the city to release the report under the California Public Records Act (CPRA).

Tyler Larson, a San Rafael resident and law student, is one of three petitioners that filed against San Rafael. Jimenez Lopez’s attorney and the Marin Independent Journal filed similar actions.

If the judge rules in their favor, Larson told me that he intends to distribute the report to the community, via Nextdoor and other venues. He filed because he was disturbed by what he saw in the videos, even more so because he’s raising his children in San Rafael.

“I followed the story very closely from when the body cam was released last year, and then I filed CPRA requests for the investigative report,” Larson said. “I think it is important that the community see the city’s and the police department’s internal reflections on this incident. We have a right to understand.”

In mid-August, Marin County Superior Court Judge Andrew Sweet issued a tentative ruling that San Rafael must release the report. The city opposed the ruling, and Sweet is now considering the matter. The next court date is Sept. 25.

Higher Stakes

It’s easy to become mired in the legal battles, both criminal and civil, as they play out in the courtroom. Comparing notes, keeping score, getting the scoop.

But as I prepared to leave the Civic Center last week, I was reminded that there’s much more at stake. A friend introduced me to Jimenez Lopez’s wife and young daughter.

The family’s attorney, Anthony Label, agreed to let me speak with Jimenez Lopez. Label is representing him in a civil lawsuit against San Rafael and the former officers.

As I waited for Jimenez Lopez to return from the restroom, Label told me that his client had received a subpoena from the prosecution to attend Nail’s and Mazariegos’s preliminary hearing.

The minutes ticked by. Finally, someone went to look for Jimenez Lopez, and he eventually emerged, looking nervous. He admitted that he hid in the bathroom to avoid Mazariegos and Nail.

“I feel afraid,” Jimenez Lopez said. “I don’t want to see them.”

Yet, he also said that he will continue to come to court, whether he receives a subpoena or not. Jimenez Lopez simply wants justice.

“Everyone has to be responsible for their actions,” he said. “I didn’t do anything to them.”

Marin City group rejected offer to reduce size of housing project

Nikki Silverstein

Aug 22, 2023

Marin City group rejected offer to reduce size of housing project

The developer of a controversial Marin City affordable housing project says he will break ground in about 90 days, despite opposition from the local community.

Legal and moral issues are at stake, according to Save our City, the group campaigning to stop the five-story, 74-unit apartment building from going up in Marin City, a densely populated community in an unincorporated area of Marin County.

In fact, Save Our City has filed legal action against the developer and Marin County to reverse the Board of Supervisors’ approval of a $40 million bond issuance for the project at 825 Drake Ave. With the cost for construction estimated at almost $57 million, the bond would pay for most of the development.

Developer Caleb Roope, CEO of The Pacific Companies, maintains that he is obligated to build 74 units of affordable housing because he made commitments to, and accepted financing from, the state, the county and private funders.

Still, Roope told me that he has tried his best to reach a compromise with Save Our City. However, his efforts were unsuccessful.

“I had a conference call with Save Our City and made the offer for a 40-unit project at 825 Drake, and then I would find another location in Marin City or the county for the other 34 units,” Roope said. “I also offered to make it senior housing at the Drake site and provide one-to-one parking on-site. They said no to all of it.”

Rejecting Roope’s proposal was the consensus of the group, their collective position on determining what is built on “the last piece of buildable land” in the community, Marilyn Mackel, a leader with Save Our City, said in an interview.

“The community should have a voice that’s heard and regarded,” Mackel said. “Marin County has got to stop doing what they want to do and then telling us about it afterward. Caleb did that too. ‘Nothing about us without us.’ That’s where we are as a community. It’s quite simple.”

County officials have made plenty of decisions for Marin City, a historically Black community, without consulting its residents. At the conclusion of World War II, Black people who lived in temporary housing in Marin City while building ships for the war effort were prevented from buying property in the county. So, they put down roots in Marin City.

The community remained predominantly Black for decades. However, in the late 1970s and early ’80s, the county, without input from residents, approved the development of condos and luxury apartments in Marin City, which resulted in gentrification. More development followed in the ’90s.

Today, Marin City has a population of almost 3,000. Less than 27% of those residents are Black, according to the most recent data from the U.S. Census Bureau.

The apartment complex at 825 Drake will likely further gentrify the community. Although the units are considered “affordable,” the rent is based on the county’s average median income, which is almost twice as high as that of Marin City’s.

Roope is aware of the community’s history and has repeatedly told me that he has compassion for the residents. Why, then, is he insisting on building all 74 units at the Drake site, when it appears he could build fewer? Certainly, he doesn’t need Save Our City’s approval.

“I asked specifically for Save Our City’s support because they’re the adversary—filing litigation and fighting me at every turn,” Roope said. “There are other community members that are more moderate, but I wouldn’t have gotten forward on the lawsuit. I was disappointed, but on the other hand, it would have been a lot of work to make major changes.”

For months, Save Our City has asked Roope to abandon the project. The area doesn’t have the infrastructure to support the large development, which will increase Marin City’s population by 6%.

Indeed, the one-acre plot at 825 Drake is in a state-designated high fire hazard zone, and the area is also prone to flooding. Public safety problems are compounded because there’s only one road in and out of Marin City. In addition, the new five-story building perched on the hillside property will cast a literal shadow over the existing two-story, low-income senior housing complex just yards away.

Yet, the 74-unit project is moving forward. Demolition and site preparation were completed earlier this month.

To satisfy an agreement that Roope made with county, he is finishing up some aesthetic design revisions and adding more parking, enough for one spot per unit. The original plan had only 24 parking spaces on the property.

“I’m changing the appearance of the building with craftsman style elements and putting in landscaping to shield the mass of the building,” Roope said. “On the parking, I might not get all the way to one-to-one on-site but I’m very close to achieving it. I might have to lease some spaces off-site.”

As the bond issue winds its way through court, it raises the question of how to prevent another 825 Drake scenario. If state Sen. Scott Wiener of San Francisco gets his way, there may be no stopping similar developments in areas that have infrastructure issues and other problems.

Senate Bill 35, authored by Wiener and passed in 2017, restricts local governments from rejecting multi-family residential developments that satisfy specific criteria. Zoning laws, local review processes and even the California Environmental Quality Act—be damned.

A municipality is subject to SB 35 if it hasn’t built enough new housing to meet the state mandates, aimed at resolving California’s housing shortage. And Marin County hasn’t, which paved the way for Roope’s development in Marin City.

Interestingly, Marin City has more affordable housing than any other area of the county. But SB 35 doesn’t provide exemptions for an unincorporated community when the county hasn’t met its housing numbers.

While SB 35 is set to expire in 2025, Wiener has introduced SB 423 to strengthen the legislation and extend it until 2036. Critics say the new bill is worse, citing that it would allow development in coastal areas and high and very high fire hazard zones.

State Assemblymember Damon Connolly, who represents the North Bay, doesn’t support SB 423, pointing to the recent Maui fires as a reminder that developments in high-risk wildfire zones can be catastrophic.

“Out of thousands of bills, I have heard the most from constituents expressing concerns and opposition to SB 423,” Connolly said in a statement to the Pacific Sun. “I share these concerns, especially after the events in Marin City, where local residents faced racial discrimination from developers trying to jam through a project without input from the community … SB 423 still has numerous flaws that will override local housing plans, disregard community voices and short circuit environmental review.”

Conversely, Sen. Mike McGuire, who also serves the North Bay, supports SB 423. It’s surprising because he voted against SB 35. In a statement to the Pacific Sun, McGuire noted that SB 423 isn’t perfect, but it will remedy “some glaring issues” in the current legislation.

“For example, all housing projects must receive a public hearing at a Board of Supervisors or City Council meeting, which will ensure the community has an opportunity to sincerely engage early in the process,” McGuire said. “This amendment also stops the unscrupulous practice of a developer, like what we saw in Marin City, of not engaging with neighbors. It also ensures developers can’t bulldoze their way around community members, and it ensures local concerns are advanced.”

Well, not exactly. McGuire authored an amendment to SB 423 that merely requires one public meeting for low- and moderate-income Census tracts, like Marin City, to “provide an opportunity for the public and the local government to comment on the development.”

Save Our City can attest that offering comments to the developer doesn’t necessarily advance local concerns. And that’s going to be a continuing problem if SB 423 passes without some serious amendments.

The bill, currently in the state Assembly Appropriations Committee, is scheduled for a vote on Sept. 1.

In the meantime, Roope has his building permits for the 825 Drake development and will soon deliver his promised design changes to the county. Roope believes the county will then give him the green light.

“It’s 90 days until excavation and construction begins,” Roope told me last week. “The only way to stop us is if the lawsuit turns into an injunction by the courts.”

The abandonment of Marin’s Poor Farm and Cemetery

Nikki Silverstein

Aug 15, 2023

The abandonment of Marin’s Poor Farm and Cemetery

On a bright, warm August day, I trudged through waist-high grass searching for any trace of the hundreds of graves in a Lucas Valley field.

The neglected meadow doesn’t resemble a cemetery—not a mausoleum, a columbarium or even a headstone in sight. I wasn’t sure whether I was in the right area, although a roadside sign indicated that I had entered the site of the “Marin County Farm Cemetery,” where approximately 600 indigent people were buried from 1880 through 1955.

A park ranger had informed me that most of the dead rest in unmarked graves. Since several markers still exist, I kept my eyes cast downward.

After about 10 minutes, I stumbled upon the first marker under an oak tree growing near the middle of the field. The makeshift headstone consisted of a rectangular metal tag, just a few inches long, affixed to a piece of concrete with two tiny screws. The concrete had been poured into a coffee can, which was then embedded in the ground.

Inadequate. Undignified. Almost invisible.

Here lies 72. The number was engraved into the oxidized metal.

Grave 72 at the Marin County Poor Farm and Cemetery, one of the few graves with a remaining marker. Photo by
Nikki Silverstein.

A few feet away, I found 96. Farther out in the field, 165.

I stopped to honor the unidentified people buried beneath my hiking boots, yet I didn’t know their names—or if they were men, women or children.

The cemetery, on Jeannette Prandi Way, is surrounded by a myriad of buildings. A ranger station, senior housing and the juvenile detention facility also occupy the county property.

I first learned of the Marin County Poor Farm and Cemetery in 2019, when two high school students screened their short documentary, A Silent Legacy, about the site. Georgia Lee and Mitchell Tanaka grew up in Lucas Valley but had no idea people were buried virtually next door—until Tanaka toured the cemetery during the Halloween Graveyard Stroll hosted by rangers from Marin County Parks.

Struck by the need to remember the people interred in the field, most of whom were impoverished, the students began a campaign calling for the county to install a sign at the cemetery. The film, which went on to win several prestigious awards, including the Audience Award for Best Short Documentary at the Golden State Film Festival, bolstered their efforts.

“I wanted to bring reverence to the lost souls that were buried there without any recognition,” Lee told me in an interview. “We had walked and biked past this graveyard our whole lives. Nobody knew it was there.”

The teens’ campaign succeeded. In 2019, Lee, Tanaka and other volunteers built a split-rail wood fence to separate the field from the road. Soon after, a permanent sign was erected to identify the cemetery and acknowledge that a farm, home and hospital also used to stand on the county property in Lucas Valley.

The cemetery lies beyond the wood fence. A florist delivers flowers to the field on occasion, according to ranger and historian Mike Warner. Photo by Nikki Silverstein.

Earlier this month, I was reminded of the Marin County Poor Farm and Cemetery when I attended a lecture hosted by the Mill Valley Public Library and the Mill Valley Historical Society. Mike Warner, who has spent years researching the site, presented a fascinating glimpse into the history and people of what is known as the “poor farm.”

Although Warner is now a supervising park ranger in Palo Alto, he grew up in Novato and was a Marin County Parks open space ranger for more than eight years. In 2016, Warner was one of the rangers leading the Graveyard Stroll, which was loosely based on the poor farm and cemetery. It piqued his interest. Since then, Warner has continued gathering information about the site and sharing its history with the public.

After the Civil War, America went through an economic boom, Warner explained. By the 1870s, a vast expansion of wealth was taking place among society’s top echelon, but working-class people were being squeezed by the rising costs of goods and services. Social welfare became a topic of discussion.

“As we have today, there was a widening gap between those that have a lot of wealth and those that don’t have enough to survive,” Warner said. “Popular political opinion began to swing to say, ‘Hey, we need to take care of our indigent, elderly and sick folks through government support.’”

In 1880, the Marin County Board of Supervisors purchased 94 acres of land in Lucas Valley for $5,717 to establish a poor farm, a place for people who couldn’t afford to live elsewhere. Though the residents were called “inmates,” they were free to come and go.

The farm included cattle, gardens and orchards. Milk and produce were sold to the public and helped feed the farm residents. In 1900, the supervisors passed an ordinance that required residents to work on the farm for their keep; however, the practice stopped in the 1920s or early 1930s.

The first county hospital opened on the property at about the same time as the farm. It consisted of two “pestilence houses” to provide accommodations and care for people with communicable diseases, such as smallpox, typhus, scarlet fever and tuberculosis.

In later years, an addition was built to the hospital, and one of the pestilence houses was converted to a dormitory for 24 nurses. The dorm still stands and is used as a storage facility by the Marin County Board of Education.

The state offset some of the poor farm and hospital expenses by paying the county $100 every six months for each person over the age of 60 admitted to the facility. That’s the equivalent of about $3,245 today.

In January 1881, William Dever’s body was the first to be buried in the cemetery, according to Warner. Dever, notorious for committing robberies and escaping from county jail, died in custody at San Quentin and left no money for his burial.

Occasionally, the death of a poor farm resident was reported in the local newspapers, such as the 1904 account in the Marin County Tocsin of Salvedore Fernandez. “He was a California Indian, and from a reliable source we learn that he was over one hundred years of age. In the year 1824 he appeared at the San Jose Mission and at that time was a full-grown man… And thus a typical Indian, for over 26 years an Inmate of the county farm, a once familiar figure with his trained dogs and sled, passed away.”

In the 1950s, the farm and hospital structures were deemed seismically unsafe. The supervisors chose not to allocate funds to rebuild, and both facilities closed in mid-1963. The remaining few residents and patients were moved to other local convalescent homes and hospitals.

The burial records can be found in the Anne T. Kent Room at the Civic Center branch of the Marin County Free Library. I spent an afternoon going through the delicate files, some handwritten, for Graves 1 through 287. Warner suspects there are far more graves than indicated.

It wasn’t only residents of the poor farm buried there. Stillborn babies, suicide victims and many others who died elsewhere in the county lie in unmarked plots.

Grave 72, one of the three marked tags that I saw, contains the remains of an unknown man hit by an automobile on Highway 101. He was interred on March 3, 1936.

Warner and others are committed to recognizing the people who lived on the farm and are buried in the cemetery.

“I don’t think the intent was to treat them with disrespect,” Warner told me in an interview. “I think it was more of, ‘That’s the best they could do at the time.’”

Perhaps it’s now time for the county to give dignity to those who remain eternally on the grounds by properly marking their graves.

Celebrity secrets and what we owe the dead

Nikki Silverstein

Aug 15, 2023

Celebrity secrets and what we owe the dead

Two weeks ago, the Pacific Sun and the Bohemian published an article (“A Local Remembers Sinéad,” July 27) about singer and activist Sinead O’Connor, who died last month at age 56.

The writer identified herself as a night shift caregiver to O’Connor, seemingly having no qualms about revealing her association with a “secret client.” O’Connor, the writer said, had undergone an undisclosed procedure and was recovering in a “rehab room.”

A description of the singer’s compromised physical appearance made it into the article a few times, as did the writer’s claim that O’Connor’s celebrity status made her want to protect her client.

“Each of us, in our vulnerable moments, deserves privacy and dignity,” the writer stated.

Yet, in the article, I don’t think the writer protected O’Connor. In addition to the unflattering comments about the way O’Connor looked, she also made reference to—but didn’t elaborate on—“gory details,” apparently regarding the procedure.

The caginess about the procedure and the rehab room left me wondering whether O’Connor had back surgery and was in a physical therapy rehab facility or if she had undergone electroshock therapy at a mental health rehab center. Not that I’m entitled to know.

The piece, clearly intended to be an homage to O’Connor, worked on a certain level. The writer compared her challenging life experiences with O’Connor’s, giving the reader a window into why the outspoken performer had such an impact on her.

But I couldn’t get past the fact that a caregiver violated the trust of a patient.

Caregivers see us when we’re weak, when we need help, when we must turn over some control to another person.

O’Connor entrusted her care, her privacy, her personal health information to a professional caregiver. I don’t think that her death should void the expectation of confidentiality.

I asked the writer about the issue. Frankly, I was unimpressed by her defense.

“I will say that I didn’t share anything that isn’t already public knowledge,” the writer told me. “It’s all on Wikipedia. She has revealed all the things that were alluded to in the piece.”

O’Connor certainly did share her struggles—from surviving child abuse to a difficult hysterectomy to multiple suicide attempts—with the public. That was her prerogative.

However, I firmly believe that a caregiver should never disclose observations about a patient recovering in a rehab room, especially in newspapers that remain on the internet. While O’Connor is no longer living, her children and other loved ones are still here.

To be clear, I would disagree with a butler, housekeeper or chauffeur broadcasting private details about their famous employer. Heck, I’m nobody, and I don’t even want my handyman telling my neighbors about my messy hair or unkempt home. It’s nobody else’s business unless I deem it so.

Of course, the Pacific Sun and the Bohemian had a role in this scenario. I asked my editor why he published the O’Connor piece. The privacy issue didn’t occur to him, he said. It didn’t occur to other people either. I know because I asked quite a few friends about it.

Interestingly, most of my millennial and Gen Z buddies were fine with the article. They told me that since O’Connor shared her troubles with the world, the writer didn’t cross the line.

Folks in the 55+ age group and those with health problems agreed with me. Health care providers, too, frowned on the caregiver/writer providing personal information about O’Connor.

Perhaps my younger friends will feel differently when they get a few gray hairs. As our population ages, the need for caregivers will increase.

Caregivers provide vital services in hospitals, rehabs, assisted living facilities and our homes. They feed us, wipe our tushes and tuck us into bed. While there are laws in place regulating a patient’s privacy, not every situation is covered.

We need to set some ground rules about what is permissible for a caregiver to divulge when they leave us, whether we’re Grammy winners or just regular Joes needing assistance with our bodies or mental health.

Rule number one: What happens in the room stays in the room. Two: Death doesn’t negate rule number one.

And if a caregiver breaks the rules, the media should carefully consider whether to publish their revelations.

Home sweet home: help for Marin homebuyers

Nikki Silverstein

Aug 1, 2023

Home sweet home: help for Marin homebuyers

Every year, when the Pacific Sun is putting together the Best of Marin issue, I take stock of how fortunate I am to live here.

World-class photographers, best-selling authors and award-winning filmmakers capture a corner of the county here and there. But those of us experiencing her unrivaled beauty every day are blessed.

And yet, not everyone who calls Marin home shares in one of the county’s bounties—actually owning a home. In fact, Marin is one of the most unaffordable real estate markets in America.

Marin ranks third in the nation for the highest income needed to buy a home, barely edged out of first place by New York and San Mateo counties, according to a report for the second quarter of 2023 by ATTOM, a real estate data firm.

To buy a median-priced home in Marin, a person needs an annual income of $352,153, the report revealed. New York County residents need to earn $383,062 a year, and in San Mateo County, the necessary salary is $361,004.

In June, the median price for all homes sold—including single-family detached houses, condominiums and townhomes—was $1,467,000, based on data from the Marin County Assessor’s Office. The median price is the midpoint, with half of the homes selling for less and half selling for more.

For a detached house, the median price comes in at $1,707,500, with condos and townhouses at $775,000. Unless one has been following the market, the figures seem astonishing, but the median home price dropped by more than 10% year-over-year.

Still, Marin’s real estate market is considered strong. A total of 337 homes sold last month, the assessor’s office reports.

Realtor.com called June a “seller’s market” in the county, with more buyers than available homes. Of course, the strength of the housing market is based on supply and demand. Marin simply doesn’t have enough supply, which keeps demand and prices high.

While we have NIMBYs today protesting new housing planned for their neighborhoods, Marin’s current housing crisis actually began many decades ago.

After the Golden Gate Bridge opened in 1936, interest grew in developing Marin. Owners of large estates and agricultural land began dividing their properties into smaller lots for new housing.

Although the term activist hadn’t yet been coined, small groups of Marin residents fought off real estate developers to preserve the county’s magnificent open space.

Members of garden clubs and conservation leagues stopped the development of some parcels of land, such as the Kittle Estate in Ross, which is now the Marin Art and Garden Center.

In the 1960s and early 1970s, concerned citizens worked to thwart Marincello, a planned self-sustaining city of industry and housing for 30,000 people in the Marin Headlands. Today, the land is owned by the federal government, part of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area for everyone to enjoy.

West Marin was the site for other battles between early environmentalists and developers. The Bolinas Lagoon and Point Reyes National Seashore would look much different today if the developers had won.

The result is that almost 85% of the county’s land is protected from development, making it one of the most alluring destinations in America. Federal parkland, county open space, miles of beaches, the majority of Mount Tam, watershed land and city parks—all off limits to developers.

The unintended consequence is a severe housing shortage with inflated home prices. Children who grew up in Marin can’t afford to live here. Low- and moderate-income workers, including teachers, firefighters and police personnel, commute from surrounding counties.

Even with a dual-income household, grossing more than $350,000 a year, the amount needed to buy a median-priced home, is a tough nut to crack.

In Marin, the annual median income for a family of four is $175,000, and $122,500 for a single person.

Sure, Marin’s housing market seems tailor-made for wealthy people, but it’s not all doom and gloom. There are several little-known, yet extremely innovative programs that could put homeownership within the reach of low- to moderate-earners. Some are for Marin County residents and others can be applied to home buying elsewhere in California.

First-time buyers and people with lower incomes can apply to various programs and work with local professionals to guide them through the complexities of buying a home.

The Below Market Rate (BMR) Home Ownership program, operated by the Marin Housing Authority, keeps prices low on a small stock of homes throughout Marin, mostly condos. Currently, about 340 homes are in the BRM program, ranging in price from $150,000 to $500,000—a bargain compared to the county’s median prices.

With a BMR unit, the amount of appreciation is limited, which preserves the home’s affordability for the next purchaser. But the homeowner enjoys pride of ownership, the tax benefit of writing off mortgage interest and living in a neighborhood they might not otherwise be able to afford.

“There are certain units that are priced so low, anybody earning 65% of the area median income or lower could qualify,” Ceena Ford, the housing authority’s homeownership programs specialist, said.

Quick math shows that a person earning $79,625 annually, or even less, could become the proud owner of a BMR unit. Larger units, appropriate for families, come with a higher price tag, but folks making up to 120% of the area median income are eligible.

People interested in the BMR program apply with the housing authority and are entered into a lottery. And they’ll certainly need a bit of luck. Each year, about five to eight properties become available for 100 to 200 applicants.

Other homeownership programs offered by the Marin Housing Authority help prospective buyers jump a big hurdle—coming up with the typical 20% down payment. For example, residents or workers in Marin City could take advantage of the Marin City down payment assistance program, which requires the buyer to contribute $5,000, with the remainder paid by the fund. The home can be located anywhere in the county.

The housing choice voucher homeownership program is beneficial for low-income earners. Also known as Section 8, most people are familiar with these vouchers paying for rent. But Ford said another aspect of the program is like gold for a person wanting to buy a home.

“You can take that voucher and apply it to a mortgage payment instead,” Ford explained. “The funds from the voucher can be used to build equity in a home, as opposed to going into your landlord’s pocket.”

Ford recommends that people interested in these programs contact the housing authority to apply. The next steps include talking to a mortgage professional to see how much they can afford and working with a real estate agent knowledgeable about the lower end of Marin’s housing market.

Pierre Masquelier, a mortgage banker at CrossCountry Mortgage in Larkspur, has spent 20 years assisting buyers navigate Marin’s real estate market. His secret weapon is getting creative.

“Buying a home in Marin is challenging,” Masquelier said. “The demand is unrelenting, and Marin is immune to the ups and downs of the economy. We’re at a point with high interest rates, hovering around 7%, but there are still buyers wanting to get into the market, no matter what the interest rates.”

In Masquelier’s experience, most first-time buyers get help from family members for the down payment. If that’s not possible, he suggests becoming familiar with the California Housing Finance Agency (CalHFA), which offers down payment assistance programs and mortgages for people with low- to moderate-incomes.

A popular CalHFA program that Masquelier has been keeping his eye on is the California Dream for All Shared Appreciation Loan.

“We call the loan a ‘silent second,’ because it doesn’t have to be repaid unless you sell or refinance your home,” Masquelier said.

Earlier this year, Dream for All ran out of funding within days of being introduced. But last month, the legislature approved another $200 million for the program. Updates and timelines will be issued soon.

Masquelier maintains that the Marin market will always be exceptionally competitive. The best advice, he said, is to make the decision to buy and move ahead.

“You just gotta get in,” Masquelier said. “If you keep thinking about it and wait for prices to come down, you’ll miss out.”

Amy Diller, a real estate agent at Coldwell Banker in Marin, represents many first-time buyers and folks with lower incomes. With 20 years of experience as an agent, she’s usually able to help her client find the right home.

“There are condos as low as $350,000 in Marin County, mostly in Novato,” Diller said. “There are homes in West Marin starting at $600,000. Sometimes they’re fixer uppers or sometimes there’s deferred maintenance, but there are opportunities to buy properties.”

While Diller loves Marin, she believes there are options if someone is feeling challenged by the county’s median housing price of almost $1.5 million.

“There are affordable opportunities in Petaluma, Cotati and Rohnert Park,” Diller said. “Point Richmond has some beautiful complexes on the water. So, you’re still close to Marin, but you can get more house for your money. People have to find where they’re comfortable and where they can afford.”

No place to go: San Rafael continues with plan to displace homeless people

Nikki Silverstein

Jul 25, 2023

No place to go: San Rafael continues with plan to displace homeless people

Part Two of a two-part report. Read Part One here.

Last week, San Rafael capitulated to residents complaining about homeless encampments by passing an ordinance that severely curtails camping. The new rules don’t come close to resolving the issues raised by people who say they are upset about crime, fires, trash and human waste at the camps.

Instead, the ordinance will exacerbate San Rafael’s homelessness crisis by forcing many people to exit established encampments and pitch their tents in nooks and crannies throughout the city, including residential neighborhoods.

The objectives of the regulations, which go into effect on Aug. 16, are to reduce the number of people living in existing camps and to prevent new “high concentration encampments.” This is accomplished through limiting each campsite to a small footprint. In addition, there must be at least 200 feet of separation between campsites.

Officials maintain that larger camps lead to increased public health and safety issues.

Let’s assume for a moment that it’s critical to reduce the size of encampments in San Rafael, particularly the largest one on the Mahon Path. The city has indicated that more than half of the approximately 40 homeless people living there must relocate to comply with the ordinance. And in a strange twist, officials say the campers will need to decide amongst themselves who stays and who goes.

I visited the Mahon Path twice recently and spoke with many of the homeless campers. None of them want to volunteer to leave. And, if they’re one of the unlucky ones pushed out by their peers, they don’t know where to go.

City officials steadfastly refuse to identify places for the ousted folks to live.

“We’re relying on our partners for that,” Chris Hess, San Rafael’s assistant director of community development, housing and homelessness, told me during an interview.

Those partners are several nonprofit organizations, including Homeward Bound, Downtown Streets Team, Community Action Marin, St. Vincent de Paul Society of Marin and the Ritter Center, that work with homeless people throughout the county by helping them obtain services and shelter. The ultimate goal is for case managers to stay connected with their homeless clients and keep them on a path toward permanent housing.

But the partners aren’t magicians, and it’s almost certain that few, if any, of San Rafael’s displaced homeless people will receive a shelter bed or housing before the ordinance requires them to move to places unknown.

The supply of shelter beds in Marin is woefully inadequate, with less than 200 shelters beds for an estimated 1,121 homeless people, according to last year’s federally mandated point-in-time count.

One organization, Homeward Bound, operates most of the shelters in the county. While the majority of its beds are for adults coming in from the street, other beds are allocated specifically for homeless families, homeless folks just released from the hospital and homeless people with mental health issues. Another nonprofit provides shelter for people impacted by domestic violence.

Homeward Bound remains perpetually at capacity, although a minimal number of beds typically turn over on a weekly basis. Last Thursday, I called Paul Fordham, Homeward Bound’s co-chief executive officer, to ask how many beds were available for individuals living on the street.

“Today, right now, the answer is absolutely none,” Fordham said. “We are 100% full in our shelters at this moment. All 38 beds at Jonathan’s Place and all 80 at New Beginnings are full.”

It doesn’t appear that the situation will improve anytime soon. Fordham says about seven of every 10 people who leave Homeward Bound move into permanent housing. Currently, no Section 8 housing vouchers are available, and a new allocation isn’t expected until late fall.

“People are not moving through the shelter and out into housing anywhere near as fast as they were 12 months ago,” Fordham said. “We definitely have more demand than we have openings.”

Without enough shelter beds, the homeless people displaced by San Rafael’s new camping restrictions will scatter. Some may remain nearby. Others may move to remote areas, such as up in the hills.

The result is that case managers often won’t be able to locate the clients they’ve been tasked with helping.

“We’re doing our best, but as people get spread out everywhere it’s going to become a lot harder,” Zoë Neil, director of Downtown Streets Team, said in an interview. “We’ll have outreach coordination meetings with other service providers to say, ‘I can’t find Joe and we have a housing appointment set. Can you guys please let me know if you see him?’”

And if a case manager loses contact with a client for 90 days, the homeless person is dropped from case management. Unfortunately, there simply aren’t enough case managers in the county for everybody who needs one.

San Rafael’s ordinance seems extremely short-sighted. To appease complaining residents, the city is compromising the long and complicated process of getting people off the streets and into a shelter or permanent home.

The city’s partners can’t move mountains, Neil says. When I spoke with leaders at most of Marin’s other nonprofit groups working with homeless people, they voiced similar concerns.

“There’s not a lot we can do, of course, when there are incredible limitations on the number of shelter spaces and housing units available for folks,” said Chandra Alexandre, chief executive officer of Community Action Marin. “If people need medical assistance or any kind of immediate support, we’re there to help provide that for them. Clothing, blankets, tents, socks, hygiene kits, emergency food.”

I pressed Hess, San Rafael’s assistant director of homelessness, about his repeated assurance that the city’s partners would help the campers displaced by the ordinance. He failed to provide further details.

City Councilmember Rachel Kertz, who was also present when I interviewed Hess, took a stab at elaborating on the role the nonprofit partners would play.

“We can’t answer specifically, but partnerships are so integral to the city,” Kertz said. “As we go through the process, we’ll rely on them for the next step—maybe it’s just helping a homeless person around the corner. The plan is to make sure people know they’re held and supported, even if we’re not saying, ‘Here’s where you go next.’”

Somehow, hand-holding doesn’t seem like enough when a homeless person is required to move from the place they’re living and separate from their community.

San Rafael officials are well aware that a viable temporary solution exists—a city-sanctioned homeless encampment. In fact, for over a year, the city ran a “service support area (SSA).” It closed permanently in August 2022.

While critics were unhappy with its location beneath a busy freeway overpass, the city provided security, porta potties, handwashing stations and trash pickup. Equally important, case managers knew where to find their homeless clients and were successful in connecting them with services and housing.

“The city is not considering a sanctioned encampment along the Mahon Path or elsewhere,” Hess said. “We did that with the SSA and we’re proud that 35 of the 47 people ended up housed.”

The sanctioned camp was an expensive undertaking. I guess it’s not surprising that San Rafael won’t pony up to keep the Mahon Path encampment safe and sanitary, since officials won’t even pay for the two porta potties and handwashing station that are currently on site. The homeless campers pay for those essentials, courtesy of donations from a GoFundMe page.

San Rafael has apparently abandoned the sanctioned encampment concept. Fortunately, the city is still employing their best ally in helping homeless people connect to housing—Lynn Murphy.

Murphy, a licensed therapist who works for the San Rafael Police Department as the mental health outreach liaison, visits the city’s encampments daily.

“My focus is strictly on people who are homeless,” Murphy told me as I tagged along with her on an outreach mission that included about a dozen people from many of the city’s nonprofit partners.

They came together for a morning meeting and then fanned out across San Rafael to areas where homeless people are known to camp. The enthusiastic group, armed with pens and clipboards, wanted to contact as many of San Rafael’s homeless people as possible.

Their goal was to ensure that homeless folks had up-to-date information in the county’s coordinated entry system, the first step in eligibility for services and housing. If someone wasn’t in the system, case managers could assess them on the spot and input their data.

Watching Murphy and the case managers in action was impressive. Murphy knew the name of every homeless person we encountered, and they all had a smile for her.

The team spoke to more than 15 campers on the Mahon Path during my time with them. Every homeless person was in the system but one. Although the woman declined to be assessed, Murphy said they’ll continue to work at establishing a rapport with her.

Without a doubt, Murphy and the nonprofits are doing indispensable work. Still, odds are that none of the homeless people contacted will have a shelter bed or housing before San Rafael’s ordinance kicks in. Being in the system likely won’t help them in the short-term.

“We care very much about everyone living outside, but this is one of the trickier situations,” Neil, of Downtown Streets Team, said about the ordinance. “The time frame is not ideal at all. I don’t know what the city council expects us to do or what their constituents think is going to happen.”

Tent tension: San Rafael further restricts homeless camping

Nikki Silverstein

Jul 18, 2023

Tent tension: San Rafael further restricts homeless camping

Part one of a two-part report. Read part two here.

The City of San Rafael is playing Whac-A-Mole with homeless encampments on public property. Unfortunately, it’s a zero-sum game, and everyone knows who ends up losing.

Anyone can participate. Check out the easy rules:

1. Residents complain about the presence of an encampment because homeless people are scary to see and walk by.

2. The city council votes to close the area to camping or severely restrict the number of campers.

3. The police give notice to the homeless residents and clear the camp on the specified date.

4. Displaced homeless people set up camp at a new location.

5. Go back to step 1 and repeat.

On July 17, the San Rafael City Council unanimously approved an ordinance imposing limits on the size and number of campsites permitted in an area.

City officials say they crafted the new regulations in response to complaints about homeless encampments, including littering, human waste, noise and crime.

The ordinance, however, is not ready for prime time. Although overly specific and restrictive in many ways, it fails to delineate procedures for implementation and enforcement.

It’s disappointing the city missed the mark. San Rafael, more than any other city or town in Marin, tries to support its homeless residents.

The city has allocated millions of dollars to shelters and permanent supportive housing; the police department employs a licensed therapist to conduct mental health outreach on a full-time basis; and a mobile crisis intervention unit, SAFE, was launched this year.

Still, officials stress the ordinance is necessary, pointing to the Mahon Path camp, the source of most of the complaints lodged by residents.

About 40 people occupy 33 tents on half of Mahon Path, which is in a commercially zoned area of central San Rafael. The encampment starts at the intersection of Lindaro Street and Anderson Avenue and ends at Lincoln Drive. The area measures about 540 feet in length and is sandwiched between a creek and a busy road.

The campers prefer to live in close quarters because there is safety in numbers. A homeless person is statistically far more likely to be a victim of violent crime than a perpetrator.

And yet, the new rules are designed to isolate the campers.

A group of homeless people camping together is limited to a site measuring 10 feet by 20 feet. A campsite for an individual can’t exceed 10 feet by 10 feet.

The kicker is that all campsites must maintain at least 200 feet of separation. That’s two-thirds the length of a football field.

Critics say the ordinance is placing homeless people at risk, especially while they’re sleeping.

Women and LGBTQ people are particularly vulnerable to sexual and physical assaults. Seniors may experience health emergencies. Will neighbors hear them calling for help?

I met with Chris Hess, San Rafael’s assistant director of community development, housing and homelessness, and City Councilmember Rachel Kertz to learn more about the regulations.

“The intent behind the ordinance is to reduce the large congregation of people, to provide a level of safety to the community,” Kertz said. “San Rafael is really committed to working with the homeless community.”

I’m sure Kertz is sincere, but neither she nor Hess provided an answer about where the displaced homeless people could go.

To calculate how many people will be forced to move, I had an architect survey the entire Mahon Path, including the portion that runs from Lincoln Drive to Francisco Boulevard West—where no tents are currently pitched.

Using the parameters in the ordinance, six campsites will fit on the two sections of the path, which is just over 1,100 feet in length. This spreads fewer campers across an area twice the size of the existing encampment.

The ordinance doesn’t specify how many people are permitted to live in the 200 square feet group sites; however, San Rafael Police Lt. Carl Huber shed some light on what the city is considering.

“There would be a total of possibly three people in each campsite,” Huber said. “We see a couple cohabitating in a tent and then an individual in another tent. That will allow a certain level of safety for people who want to camp together.”

Three people in six campsites, for a total of 18. Consequently, 22 of the 40 homeless campers must relocate.

Whac-A-Mole.

Some folks living on the Mahon Path moved there from Albert Park, which the city closed to camping in March. The Albert Park camp was established by homeless people displaced from the September closure of a city-sanctioned encampment under a freeway. And so it goes.

The residents complaining about the Mahon Path camp probably won’t like the practical answer about where those 22 homeless people might end up.

Brian, a camper on the Mahon Path, has a few ideas about where he will go if forced to move.

“I could pop up in a neighborhood,” Brian said. “Maybe next to one of the city council members’ houses.”

As Brian is aware, it’s perfectly legal for a homeless person to pitch a tent on public property near a residential home. Homeowners also seem to know the law.

During a special city council meeting held last week to discuss the ordinance, some homeowners demanded stronger restrictions that would ban camping close to residences.

Assistant city attorney Genevieve Coyle stated that she wouldn’t recommend a camping ban in residential neighborhoods because “it wouldn’t uphold constitutional scrutiny from a court.” Coyle referenced Martin v. Boise, a 2018 decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals which allows homeless people to sleep on public property when a city can’t provide alternative shelter.

With homeless shelters in Marin County perpetually full, save for a bed or two turning over each week, San Rafael can’t provide shelter for most of its estimated 241 unsheltered residents.

Over the last few years, San Rafael has been whittling down the number of places where a homeless person may camp. Banned areas include all open space, two parks near downtown, city parking garages and public buildings and fences. The new ordinance also prohibits camping within 10 feet of public utility infrastructures and within 100 feet of playgrounds.

While the city’s ordinance establishes where the displaced homeless people can’t camp, it doesn’t address who may stay on the Mahon Path and who must go.

Hess proposed “incentivizing” folks to leave the camp by bribing them with Safeway gift cards. Never mind that it’s exploitative to ask someone to give up a place to live and separate from their community for a few bucks. Unless Safeway offers housing, the campers will need far more than gift cards.

The city would prefer the campers decide who should move, according to Huber. But none of the many homeless people I interviewed wants to be involved in the selection process that will oust more than half of them.

“You have to be able to cooperate,” Paul, a veteran, said. “Not everyone here is always coherent, and you have to be coherent to cooperate.”

Brian, 51, believes foisting the choice on the campers will create havoc, fear and possibly violence.

“You’ll have people trying to govern each other,” Brian said. “People already under duress will be put under more duress. It will be survival of the fittest—only the strongest will get to stay.”

Charges Dropped: Allegations against ex-cops wreak havoc in Marin justice system

Nikki Silverstein

Jul 10, 2023

Charges Dropped: Allegations against ex-cops wreak havoc in Marin justice system

The Marin County District Attorney’s Office has dismissed criminal charges in at least 10 cases that would have relied on the testimony of two former San Rafael police officers who now stand accused of crimes themselves.

Other criminal defendants have been offered attractive plea deals for serious offenses because their cases involved the two ex-cops whose honesty is now in question.

And that’s just the tip of the iceberg. Plenty more cases will be impacted before this mess is over.

The saga began almost a year ago, when then-officers Daisy Mazariegos and Brandon Nail were accused of beating and severely injuring a local Latinx man during questioning about an open container of beer. Julio Jimenez Lopez, formerly referred to as “Mateo” by the media, suffered a broken nose, a torn labrum in his shoulder and a concussion, according to medical reports that I reviewed.

The apparent brutality was caught on police body-worn cameras, with the footage contradicting Mazariegos’ and Nail’s police reports.

In September, Jimenez Lopez’s attorney released the videos to the media, and the public demanded action be taken against Mazariegos and Nail.

The next day, the San Rafael Police Department placed the pair on paid administrative leave, setting up a quandary for Marin County District Attorney Lori Frugoli. Could she put Mazariegos and Nail on the witness stand to provide vital testimony against criminal defendants that she was prosecuting?

Marin County Public Defender David Sutton was also considering the same issue. His office promptly began reviewing all of its clients’ cases that involved Mazariegos and Nail.

“We saw the videos, as everyone else did,” Sutton said. “Their credibility is an issue. We are looking at every single case—first the active ones and then the historical cases.”

As part of the pre-trial process for current cases involving Mazariegos and Nail, the Public Defender’s Office has been filing Pitchess motions, which are used in California criminal cases to gain access to the officers’ confidential personnel files for evidence of misconduct, such as excessive use of force or falsifying police reports. A new Pitchess motion must be filed for each case.

Sutton is prohibited from telling me what he may have discovered from the Pitchess materials because they’re subject to a protective order.

However, a private defense attorney who was in court during a few of those Pitchess motions provided some insight. The judge left the courtroom to meet with a representative from the police department to review Nail’s or Mazariegos’ personnel file. Upon the judge’s return, it was reported that nothing in the file would have an effect on the defendant’s case, according to my source.

That fact may have changed recently. Mazariegos separated from the police department in May, after the completion of an independent investigation into the use of force incident. Nail left last month. There has been no word on whether they were fired or quit.

The City of San Rafael has refused to release the investigative report to the public, with city attorney Rob Epstein stating that the former officers have threatened to sue if the report is disclosed. Instead, Jimenez Lopez’s civil attorney, the Marin Independent Journal and a law student are suing San Rafael to obtain the report.

Regardless, any potential negative findings from the independent investigation will make their way into Mazariegos’ and Nail’s personnel files.

The situation has since heated up even more. Two weeks ago, Frugoli dropped the hammer on the ex-officers. After a 10-month investigation, she filed felony charges against Mazariegos and Nail for “assault under color of authority and making false statements in a crime report.”

Sure, the wheels of justice have moved slowly, and Mazariegos and Nail are presumed innocent of their criminal charges unless proven otherwise. But the ripple effects of last year’s use of force incident just keep getting bigger.

Hence, Sutton’s diligence. He says that his office will continue filing Pitchess motions, as well as investigating and developing a plan of attack on behalf of his clients.

Currently, the Public Defender’s Office is representing criminal defendants in 65 active cases involving Nail and Mazariegos.

There are also prior cases, those where people have already been prosecuted and convicted based on the testimony of the then-officers. Sutton says his office is compiling a list of historical cases, paying special attention to any allegations their clients made against Nail or Mazariegos and circumstances where the officers might have lied to justify their conduct.

“If there’s evidence of dishonesty which led to the conviction, then we would seek to recall those convictions,” Sutton said.

The potential ramifications are significant. It’s possible that convictions could be overturned, according to Sutton.

The Public Defender appears to be on firm ground with his position, especially when considering the statement DA Frugoli issued after she filed the felony charges against Nail and Mazariegos.

“…my office has concluded there is sufficient evidence to prove these charges beyond a reasonable doubt,” Frugoli said.

That’s a sticky wicket for Frugoli. It must be challenging for the DA to simultaneously prosecute the ex-cops and continue with the prosecution of other cases dependent upon their testimony.

So far, Frugoli hasn’t called on Nail or Mazariegos to provide witness testimony since the use of force incident came to light.

“Six of our clients are being offered very favorable plea agreements for serious charges as a result of these two officers’ involvement in their cases,” Sutton said. “They’re pleading to less serious offenses.”

It’s not just Sutton raising concerns and combing through active and historic files. Private defense attorneys also represent clients whose cases involve Nail and Mazariegos.

Although it’s not yet clear how cases may be affected, the total could easily reach triple digits. While Mazariegos was a new officer and had only been on solo patrol for about four months before being sent home, Nail had served as an officer since 2017, in both the Sausalito and San Rafael police departments.

The DA’s Office probably has the best estimate on the number of cases called into question; however, Frugoli did not respond to my request for an interview, nor did she answer any of the written questions that I sent her via email.

Defendants, some who may have committed crimes, have already waltzed out of the courtroom scot-free—without a jury ever hearing the cases and determining whether the accused were guilty or not.

In the end, Frugoli isn’t responsible for Mazariegos’ and Nail’s alleged crimes. That blame lies squarely on the institution of law enforcement, which has been moving slow as molasses to make meaningful reforms.

At least in this case, the wheels are in motion to hold Mazariegos and Nail accountable. Let’s hope that the entire process will be transparent, despite the best efforts of the former officers to keep their personnel records and investigative reports about their conduct cloaked in secrecy.

(Un)welcoming Waters: Sea otters poised for comeback to Marin and Sonoma counties

Nikki Silverstein

Jul 5, 2023

(Un)welcoming Waters: Sea otters poised for comeback to Marin and Sonoma counties

Flippers down, sea otters win the blue ribbon in the cutest critters contest. And to think, in the 18th and 19th centuries, man hunted sea otters to near extinction for their luxurious fur, which contains more hairs per square inch than any other mammal.

The sea otter slaughter lasted about 150 years. By 1911, when the animals became protected under an international fur treaty, less than 2,000 remained, down from an estimated population of 150,000 to 300,000.

Although the sea otter, Enhydra lutris, holds a place on many endangered lists in the United States and other countries, the population never recovered in a significant portion of their historical range, which once ran from the northern islands of Japan to Baja California, Mexico. The largest gap is from the San Francisco Bay to Oregon, where no sea otters remain.

However, the sea otter population in Northern California and Oregon could be on the brink of a comeback. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service recently completed a feasibility study on reintroducing the sea otter into these areas. Indeed, not only did the agency conclude it is feasible, but they also determined there would be significant benefits to reestablishing the animals, including improving the genetic diversity of the species and helping to maintain the ecosystem of their habitats.

Overall, the species possesses very low genetic diversity, with the southern sea otter, Enhydra lutris nereis, having the lowest of the three subspecies. By the early 1900s, it was generally believed that the southern sea otter was extinct. However, in 1911, the California Department of Fish and Game discovered 30 to 50 living off the coast of Big Sur.

Two years later, California made it a misdemeanor to kill or possess a sea otter.

“What the state did was extremely important to preserve that population,” said Lilian Carswell, the southern sea otter recovery and marine conservation coordinator for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

The conservation laws are working. In fact, the current population of 3,000 southern sea otters descended from the Big Sur stock. Slowly, they’ve expanded their range, occasionally with the help of relocation projects conducted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services. Southern sea otters presently inhabit the coastline from San Mateo County to Santa Barbara County and near San Nicolas Island, about 60 miles from the coast of Ventura County.

Now, if only sharks could read.

“One of the main problems for southern sea otters in California is the high level of shark bite mortality that they’re suffering,” said Carswell. “It’s always been quite high at the northern end of their range, which is San Mateo County, and it’s really ramped up in the southern portion of the Central California range, as well. This has prevented southern sea otters from having any net range expansion in about 20 years.”

Bringing the southern sea otter closer to the range of northern sea otters, found off the coasts of Washington and Alaska, could greatly benefit both subspecies. Interbreeding would certainly increase the genetic diversity in the southern sea otter. With climate change bringing warmer weather northward, the northern sea otter could also gain an advantage from interbreeding, perhaps enabling them to better adapt to new environmental conditions.

Another important consideration in reintroducing the sea otter is its critical role as a keystone species. Sea otters, known as voracious eaters, maintain their ecosystem by controlling the population of their prey. For example, sea otters eat sea urchins. Left unchecked, sea urchins can decimate kelp forests, which provide food and shelter for a large variety of plants and animals.

And kelp forests are currently being depleted by an out-of-control purple sea urchin population. The sea star, another main predator of the purple sea urchin, suffered a devastating population decrease from disease. Sending sea otters back to their historic habitats could help restore the kelp forests.

Slam dunk. Who would oppose the reintroduction of adorable creatures that keep their ecosystems healthy?

For starters, objections may come from the commercial fishermen who will compete with sea otters for crabs, clams, abalone and mussels. It may not be much of a competition either. While sea otters are the smallest marine mammals, measuring about four feet in length and weighing from 50 to 100 pounds, they have high caloric requirements.

On a daily basis, sea otters consume 25% of their body weight in food. Hence, there are very real concerns by the fishermen who make their living hauling in Dungeness crabs and the other invertebrates that sea otters devour. Reestablishing sea otters could disrupt an entire industry right here in Marin and Sonoma counties and beyond.

Dick Ogg, a Sonoma County resident for 62 years, has been fishing most of his life. For the last 25 years, he’s been a commercial fisherman, with his income relying heavily on crabbing. The soft-spoken Ogg is a philosophical enigma. While he believes the ocean resources belong to all, and he’s happy to bring seafood to many a dinner table, as a vegetarian, he won’t partake.

But Ogg is an important voice, representing the fishing community on more than a dozen state and federal committees. He’s worried—extremely so—about the possibility of reintroducing sea otters to the area. The Dungeness crab fishing season has already been substantially shortened due to migrating humpback whales becoming entangled in the fishing gear.

“When you think about what has happened to our industry in the last five or six years, we’re already down to the point where we basically cannot make a living,” Ogg said. “They’re cute, the sea otters, but they are going to eat whatever they can get their hands on. Everybody knows bringing them back is going to affect the crab industry.”

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is quick to say that there is no plan at the present time to reintroduce sea otters to Northern California and Oregon. The agency is still assessing.

“We’re gathering feedback from people up and down the coast right now,” Carswell said. “We’re trying to understand some of the nuances, like exactly where people are fishing, what depths they’re fishing at and what they’re fishing for. No particular sites have been identified yet, so I can’t actually speak to what the effects would be. I will say that past experience has shown us that reintroductions always start small and grow slowly over time. If a sea otter population became established, it would probably take decades.”

Ogg isn’t convinced that sea otter reintroduction should even be considered. It’s his belief that the intervention of man never works out for the betterment of the environment.

“I know the perspective is that the sea otters were here and man wiped them out,” Ogg said. “And that’s absolutely true. But I also understand that it happened 150 years ago, and the crucial environment is nothing like it was back then. It’s very important that we’re sure we’re not making a mistake, because once we’ve done this, there’s no turning back if things begin to get out of control.”

BREAKING NEWS: Criminal charges filed against San Rafael cops involved in “Mateo” assault

Nikki Silverstein

Jun 29, 2023

BREAKING NEWS: Criminal charges filed against San Rafael cops involved in “Mateo” assault

Marin County District Attorney Lori Frugoli filed criminal charges today against two former San Rafael police officers who beat and bloodied a man during questioning about an open container of beer.

Brandon Nail and Daisy Mazariegos were both charged with two felonies, including assault under color of authority and making false statements in a crime report. The DA’s criminal complaint states that each officer “personally inflicted great bodily injury” upon the victim.

View the police reports with alleged false statements here.

View the DA’s criminal complaint against Mazariegos and Nail here.

Nail left the employment of the San Rafael Police Department on Wednesday, while Mazariegos, who was still on her probationary period, separated from the department on May 15, about two weeks after the conclusion of an independent investigation into the use of force incident. The police have remained mum on the reasons behind the departures of the former officers.

“I’m prohibited from commenting because of confidentiality laws involving police administration investigations and the police officer bill of rights,” San Rafael Police Sgt. Justin Graham said.

The use of force incident took place on July 27, after Mazariegos approached three Latinx men who had open containers of beer on Windward Way in the Canal neighborhood of San Rafael. Under direction from Mazariegos, the men sat on the sidewalk while she questioned them. Nail arrived at the scene minutes later.

The officers violently assaulted Julio Jimenez Lopez, who the media has previously referred to as “Mateo,” after he stood to retrieve his identification. Jimenez Lopez suffered injuries including a broken nose, a torn labrum in his shoulder and a concussion.

Ironically, Jimenez Lopez was arrested and faced charges of a felony, obstructing and resisting an officer, and three misdemeanors, including battery on an officer. Mazariegos and Nail both filed police reports stating that Jimenez Lopez placed Nail in a headlock. Nail also asserted that Jimenez Lopez struck him in the head.

The reports appeared inconsistent with the police body cam videos, and the DA dropped the charges against Jimenez Lopez after reviewing the footage.

Charles Dresow, the criminal defense attorney who represented Jimenez Lopez, requested that Frugoli investigate the incident. On Sept. 7, Frugoli issued a statement that she would review the officers’ conduct.

Despite the body cam videos and other evidence, Frugoli took 10 months to review the case and file charges. The public has been critical of the DA for failing to act decisively in a reasonable amount of time.

“District Attorney Frugoli made the right decision,” Dresow told the Pacific Sun. “It’s an important step in rebuilding trust in the criminal justice system.”

Mazariegos and Nail are scheduled to appear in Marin County Superior Court on August 11 to face the charges. If convicted, they will be required to relinquish all firearms, according to the DA’s criminal complaint.

“The individuals who battered my client and falsely arrested him are bullies not fit to wear the badge,” Dresow said.