Co-Editors: Elisha J Yang, Emily Harrington & Lucie C Hollingsworth
Creative Director: Aariel A Nigam
2024 Officers
President: Scott Buell
President-Elect: Kristine Fowler Cirby
Secretary: Neusha N Ghaedi
Treasurer: Thomas M. McInerney
5 Year Past President: Lawrence Strick (2016)
Board of Directors
2024 Directors
Emily Harrington
Jeffrey G. Knowles
Mary A. Stearns
Alexander S. Vahdat
David L Winnett
2025 Directors
Robyn B Christo
Morgan H. Daly
Shanti Eagle
Lucie C. Hollingsworth
Elisha J Yang
2026 Directors
Ingrid L Carbone
Christine O’Hanlon
Roni D. Pomerantz
Maxwell V Pritt
Marrianne S Taleghani
Executive Director
Julie Cervetto
Membership & Events Manager
Denise Belli
Client Relations Chair
David M Zeff
The Marin Lawyer is published by The Marin County Bar Association
101 Lucas Valley Road, Suite 326
San Rafael, CA 94903
415-499-1314
info@marinbar.org marinbar.org
4 | Editor's Introduction
LUCIE HOLLINGSWORTH
6 | 2024 President’s Message SCOTT BUELL
10 | Opinion: Homelessness is Hard for Everyone CHRISTINE O‘HANLON
15 | Advocates Must Ensure That Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing is Top Priority in Marin County
SAVANNAH WHEELER
20 | An Update on California's Broker Fee Class Action Antitrust Lawsuits
ELISHA YANG
23 | Leveraging Recent State Legislation to Maximize Housing Production: A Study of AB 1287’s Technical Changes to State Density Bonus Law
ROBIN BARAL
27 | Shattering the Glass Ceiling: Marin County Bar Association’s Lifetime Achievement Award
MARIN COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION
30 | Preserving Marin Valley Mobile Country Club as Affordable Senior Housing
DANA DEAN
33 | Did You Know that Marin’s Court Has Unlawful Detainer Mandatory Settlement Conferences?
VINCENT J. DEMARTINI
36 | Join Us in Celebrating Excellence in Our Legal Community!
LARRY STRICK
38 | How Nonprofits Are Tackling Homelessness and How You Can Help: Interviews with St. Vincent de Paul Society of Marin and Larkin Street Youth Services
EMILY HARRINGTON
Lucie Hollingsworth
Many of our readers may feel far removed from the housing affordability crisis, but perhaps we're not opening our eyes wide enough. The housing affordability crisis affects us all, which is why we've dedicated this issue of the Marin Lawyer to the subject. Are you having trouble hiring staff? Figuring out how to walk your children to school without encountering homeless individuals? Have you tried to hire a caregiver for aging parents? (FYI – at $17 per hour, there's a good chance whoever you hire lives in their car.) As an attorney focusing on housing and homeless policy, these are the complaints I regularly hear – and they often come from the same people who object to new housing developments.
In this issue of Marin Lawyer, we're fortunate to have submissions from experts addressing the many facets of this crisis. We explore the impacts of homelessness on our community and creative solutions from the perspectives of Deputy Public Defender Christine O'Hanlon and St. Vincent de Paul Society of Marin and Larkin Street Youth Services staff, interviewed by MCBA board member Emily Harrington of Maier Law Group LLP.
Articles from Marin attorneys dedicated to removing barriers to producing and preserving affordable housing come from Robin Baral and Dana Dean of Hanson Bridgett LLP. We also feature pieces on dismantling past racist policies that denied many in Marin homeownership and generational wealth, written by Savannah Wheeler of Fair Housing Advocates of Northern California and Elisha Yang of Hanson Bridgett LLP.
Local landlord-tenant attorney Vincent DeMartini of DeMartini, Walker, & Ghaedi LLP issues a call to action, explaining how attorneys can contribute their time to help low-income tenants and landlords resolve eviction cases with dignity and a chance for a "soft landing."
Finally, it seems fitting that this issue honors the venerable Judge Verna Adams, who is retiring after 24 years on the bench. Throughout her long career, Judge Adams has positively impacted thousands of marginalized and underserved members of our community
While you might think you're about to embark on a rather heavy read and consider forgoing this issue entirely, don't give up on us yet! We truly believe our readers will come away with a sense of optimism and new ideas on how we can all address Marin's housing affordability crisis and contribute to a healthier, more inclusive community.
Lucie C Hollingsworth is a Senior Housing Attorney with Legal Aid of Marin She focuses on homelessness, elimination of fines & fees, and housing law.
over 50 years of combined experience helping mature clients manage life transitions
Reverse Mortgages for Age 55+ (FHA and Proprietary)
NEW: 2nd Place Reverse Mortgage
Downsizing and Right-sizing
Settling Estates: Sibling Buyouts
Silver Divorce: Ex-spouse Buyouts
Paying for Care: in-home or a spouse’s care home
Combining 1031 Exchange with IRC 121 when selling a highly appreciated primary residence to defer or eliminate capital gain tax Call to Discuss Your
Scott Buell, Buell Law and Mediation
When I was a first-year law student many years ago, my constitutional law professor began the semester by posing an intriguing question to the class: Why do we accept the United States Supreme Court's interpretation of the law as final? I hadn't previously considered the 'why' behind it; I had simply taken it for granted. His explanation fascinated me: it's the same reason we can exchange green and white pieces of paper and agree they have a set value. It's a collective choice to believe in and uphold this system. Decades later, that insight still reverberates with me. But what happens when a growing number of citizens stop believing in the integrity of our judicial system and the rule of law?
In recent years, we have witnessed a disturbing trend aimed at delegitimizing the court system and undermining the legal process. This trend manifests in various forms, from the public denouncement of court decisions and the questioning of judicial integrity to the outright politicization of legal outcomes. Such actions are not merely rhetorical; they strike at the very core of our democracy, threatening to erode the public's trust in the judicial system and the rule of law.
Certainly, throughout the history of this country, the judicial system has too often been used against people of color, women, and the economically marginalized. I saw this firsthand as a public defender in New York City during my first fifteen years of practicing law. But what we
are seeing now is different; prominent politicians, those with every privilege and economic advantage our system offers, are, without basis, challenging the legitimacy of our criminal justice system and the rule of law. Even after felony convictions, they continue to use digital bullhorns to spread this doubt. These statements serve to undermine public trust in the judicial system and challenge the rule of law, which is foundational to a democratic society
As attorneys, we find ourselves on the frontline of this battle. When we take the oath in this state to become an attorney, we solemnly swear to support the U.S. Constitution and the California State Constitution When I was sworn in as MCBA President, I took an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the U.S. Constitution to the best of my ability. How can we best respond to the challenges posed by those who claim the system is corrupt, rigged, or weaponized? I would argue it is incumbent upon us as attorneys to speak out against efforts to delegitimize our judicial system. Moreover, we can help to better educate the public on how the legal system works and the importance of judicial independence.
What role, if any, should MCBA play in addressing these issues? Our mission statement is “to involve, encourage, and support bar association members, to serve as a liaison to the Marin County courts, and to educate the community and enhance access to legal services.” I don’t think it’s hyperbole to recognize that the integrity of the judiciary is foundational to the rule of law, and any baseless assault on this integrity is an assault on the principles of justice and fairness that underpin our society. I would suggest this is not a political concern as much as an existential one. But there are no easy answers.
Later this month, I will be attending a webinar by the National Conference of Bar Presidents entitled ‘21st Century Lawyer: Ideas to Action: How Your Bar Can Promote The Rule Of Law Right Now.’ I am hopeful this presentation will provide valuable insights and strategies that could inform and benefit our efforts I look forward to sharing what I learn with all of you.
These are certainly challenging times for our profession. I would like to ask for your thoughts on what action, if any, MCBA can or should undertake to support and uphold the rule of law and to counteract those who seek to erode trust in our legal institutions. Please share your suggestions with me so we might develop an effective strategy to address these pressing issues and reinforce the public’s confidence in the integrity of our judicial system.
MCBA President Scott Buell brings over three decades of legal experience to his role as a mediator in a wide range of civil cases including personal injury, property disputes, class actions, and business/ partnership disputes With a background as a public defender in New York City and as a civil defense trial attorney in the Bay Area, he offers a unique perspective and deep understanding of the legal landscape. He serves as a pro tem settlement panelist in Marin County, Sonoma County and Sacramento County Superior Courts He is also a two-term former chair of the MCBA ADR Section
UPCOMING EVENTS
GENERAL MEMBERSHIP MEETING (VIRTUAL) Thursday, June 27th 4:30 - 6:30 PM A Sip & Snack Social
LIFETIME ACHIEVEMENT AWARD DINNER HONORING JUDGE VERNA ADAMS Wednesday, July 17th 5:30 - 8:30 PM Marin Art & Garden Center
FAMILY LAW SECTION MEETING (IN PERSON) Monday, August 26th 12:00 PM-1:00 PM Marin County Sheriff's Office
ESTATE PLANNING, TRUST & PROBATE SECTION (IN PERSON)
Wednesday, September 4th 12:00 PM-1:00 PM Marin County Sheriff's Office
GENERAL MEMBERSHIP SOCIAL (IN PERSON) Sunday, September 15th
MCBA End of Summer Picnic at McNear’s Beach & Park
UPCOMING EVENTS UPCOMING EVENTS
FAMILY LAW SECTION MEETING (VIRTUAL)
Tuesday, September 17th
12:00 PM-1:00 PM
Intro and Practical Guide to Using AI and Tech in Family Law
Let's Explore End-of-Life DoulasHolistic Support for Life's Final Act
ADR & LITIGATION SECTION (IN PERSON)
Thursday, September 19th
Café Arrivederci
SCOTUS UPDATE WITH RORY LITTLE
Thursday, Sep 26th
The Club Restaurant at McGuiness Park
What happened and what to expect next term.
BASF (CO-SPONSORED WITH MCBA) AND BAY AREA MEDIATION SERVICES (VIRTUAL)
Saturday, October 5th
Mediator Certificate Training - Five Days (40-Hour Mediator Certificate Training on Saturdays: Oct 5, 12, 19, 26 and November 2, 2024; 8:00 AM - 5:30 PM)
ANNUAL JUDGES LUNCHEON
Wednesday, Oct 23rd
Embassy Suites
Honoring the Marin County Superior Court
MCLE CONFERENCE (VIRTUAL)
Nov 19th - 20th
The MCLE Conference features a Collaborative Virtual Conference Hosting Scholars, Legal Experts and Regulatory Counselors. Deadline for California State Bar MCLE (A-G) February 1, 2025, (Compliance Period: 2/1/2022 - 1/31/2025)
HOLIDAY PARTY
Wednesday, Dec 4th
Loch Lomond Yacht Club
Homelessness is Hard for Everyone
Christine O’Hanlon, Deputy Public Defender
No matter what your political leanings are, I think most of us are frustrated by the chronic problems with homelessness in our communities. No one likes to see tent cities, camps, people sleeping on the streets, trash, remnants of drug and alcohol addiction, and other belongings strewn about our streets. I am sure the people living like that did not plan to live like that and wish it were different for them too. They don’t want to be out there like that, but have given up when faced with the steep obstacles to rectify their individual circumstances. Even with the $18 million Marin County received to work on homelessness this spring, there does not seem to be a solution to this problem, which seems like it has bounded too far out of control to reel it back in.
The American Way is to live free or die. With our entrepreneurial, profit motivated, individualistic, competitive, libertarian spirit, we live in a sink or swim world Those of us who are relatively healthy, employed, and housed are the ones who are swimming whether at a dog paddle or Olympic level. Those of us who have physical and/or mental health conditions, who are under employed, unemployed, or unemployable, and are unhoused are sinking, if not already sunk Where should the people who have sunk go? What responsibility do the swimmers have to the sinkers? What responsibility do the sinkers have to the swimmers?
I wanted to understand why it might be so hard to work a full-time job and still have trouble finding housing. According to the Marin County-
wide Plan, the 2023-2031 Housing Element considers an income of less than $73,000 per year a “Very Low Income.” For example, the County estimates the average annual income for a full-time dishwasher is $34,734, at $16.70 an hour. The County estimates an affordable rent and utilities for a dishwasher as $868.35 per month. A retail salesperson makes $20.75 an hour or $43,163 annually. The recommended affordable rent and utilities is $1,079 07 per month for a retail salesperson. A construction laborer makes an estimated $26.56 an hour or $55,256 per year, and the recommended monthly rent and utilities for a person at this income is $1,381.40.
Then I did a search on Craigslist North Bay Housing for Rent of vacant one-bedroom apartments for under $1,500 per month, which is more than what the County recommends as “affordable,” there were three listings within 10 miles of San Rafael A search of “rooms for rent” under $1,000 revealed 22 listings. This told me that there is not much available for rent in Marin for very low income individuals. People earning less than $73,000 need to live outside of Marin, or opt for shared housing.
Then, there are the group of people in our community who are disabled due to mental and/or physical problems, who are incapable of working. If they receive monthly social security, the amount is about $900 to $1,200 a month. With the above rents, how can they afford anything? The only way they could afford anything would be through family members or subsidized housing. According to the Marin Housing Authority, the average wait years for an apartment through Secti housing! Five years?! What is that dis person supposed to do in the meanti
We all wish homelessness would be once and for all. For now, how can w the impact homelessness has on the people themselves and the rest of th community? Perhaps we come up wi different solutions to combat the pro several angles There is no one-size-f solution for all unhoused people. It w perfect, but we can make it better.
vehicles are not parked on residential streets which would increase congestion and waste for other housed people. Additionally, if there is drug and/or alcohol misuse, it is occurring inside the vehicle instead of out on the street in public view, which presents risks to the public. Is this a perfect solution? Absolutely not. But it is better than people camping on sidewalks.
Compared to tent cities and homeless people camping on city streets, the RV/Vehicle Camp on Binford Road in Novato is the better scenario, in my opinion. I concede the problems with waste management, crime, and pollution are drawbacks of Binford Road. However, there are strong benefits. On Binford Road, people park RVs and other vehicles and live inside those vehicles on the side of Binford Road, which is a frontage road to Highway 101 that leads to a commercial development. Instead of tents, tarps, and sleeping bags spread out in the middle of the sidewalks of downtowns, the people and their belongings are contained in their vehicles. Living in an RV or other vehicle reduces the unhoused person’s exposure to harsh weather and contains their belongings. This leaves public sidewalks in commercial and residential neighborhoods free of unhoused people. Plus, these individual
Jonathan’s Place, the primary homeless shelter in Marin, has 38 beds. This is a temporary shelter that offers shelter on a night-by-night basis. Eventually, people can transition to the New Beginnings program, which has 80 beds of transitional dormitory-style housing built on the decommissioned military base at Hamilton. People can stay there for several months. There is onsite staff, meals, counseling, job support, and services to help people find long-term housing. Strict rules prohibiting onsite drug and alcohol use apply, which will deter some people, but are probably necessary for the comfort of the majority of people staying there. Perhaps Marin could add a second night-by-night shelter with dormitory transitional housing. This would be another 80 to 118 people off the streets working for stability in our community. There must be some vacant building in Marin that could serve this purpose.
Another area to press for, in terms of long-term housing, is to incentivize more Section 8 Housing to landlords. People who own rental properties want a sustainable and profitable investment. It is unreasonable to expect a landlord to “give away” or sacrifice profitability on rental properties to help homeless and impoverished people. Instead, the State, County, or municipality can rent the property at market rate from the landlord, and the State, County, or municipality can charge the tenants a rent wellbelow market rate. This system could be in employed all types of structures single family dwellings, multi-unit apartment houses, hotels, and any other vacant buildings. This resolves two of many issues. First, the landlord is appropriately compensated for the services they are providing. Second, this avoids “handouts” to homeless people, which many people find disdainful because of the concern the handout will be misused or will encourage unproductivity. The drawback, of course, it is unfair to the person working three low-wage jobs to cover a market rate rent when some people are receiving a significantly reduced rent.
All of the solutions cost the community money. Nothing is free. Have the current circumstances of homelessness reached the point where the
cost to do nothing and allow it to become worse has exceeded the cost of investment to ameliorate the problem? I hope we are at a point where investing in ameliorating this problem is worth it to all of us. This year, our County invested $7.5 million of taxpayer money to repave a parking lot at the Civic Center We had the will to invest $7.5 million into fixing a parking lot. Don’t we have the will to put resources into housing people to reduce people sleeping on sidewalks in downtowns creating trash and hazards for other community members? There are many people working diligently to ameliorate homelessness. I hope more community members will join into finding the solutions, none of which will cure homelessness, but at least make it better. For the sake of all of us, I hope we do.
Christine O’Hanlon is lifetime California resident growing up in Vallejo, California She earned her bachelor’s degree in psychology from University of California, Santa Cruz Ms O’Hanlon attended and graduated with a J.D. from California Western School of Law in San Diego Since being admitted to the Bar in
n has specialized in the defense of indigent ted her career in juvenile court in San Diego. ed to Northern California and worked in the Juvenile Division in the Solano County Public Defender’s Office In January of 1999, Ms O’Hanlon joined the Marin County Public Defender’s Office where she has remained
MCBA LEADERSHIP CIRCLE MCBA LEADERSHIP CIRCLE
Derek G. Howard Derek G. Howard
Derek G. Howard Law Firm Derek G. Howard Law Firm
Kristine Fowler Cirby Kristine Fowler Cirby
Cirby Family Law Offices Cirby Family Law Offices
Laurel Halbany Laurel Halbany Kazan Law Kazan Law
Mary McClain Mary McClain
McClain Mediation McClain Mediation
Paula Freschi Kamena
Paula Freschi Kamena
Marin County District Attorney (ret.)
Marin County District Attorney (ret.)
Peter Kleinbrodt Peter Kleinbrodt
Freitas Law Firm Freitas Law Firm
Advocates Must Ensure That Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing is Top Priority in Marin County
Savannah Wheeler, Fair Housing Advocates of Northern California
Recently, jurisdictions in Marin County and across the state updated their housing elements, the portion of a jurisdiction’s General Plan that addresses how the jurisdiction will meet the housing needs of everyone in the community over the next eight years. In this process, much attention was paid to the new housing element requirements involving affirmatively furthering fair housing (“AFFH”). Jurisdictions have a legal duty to affirmatively further fair housing, which means “taking meaningful actions, in addition to combating discrimination, that overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity based on protected characteristics.” (1) Assembly Bill 686 requires that a housing element is consistent with the AFFH duty by including an assessment of fair housing to identify fair housing issues in the jurisdiction, and by including priorities, goals, and actions to remediate these issues and promote fair housing, among other requirements.
Fair Housing Advocates of Northern California’s (“FHANC”) work over the years has highlighted the great need for jurisdictions to create stronger plans to address and eliminate the housing discrimination that is prevalent in the County. FHANC provides free comprehensive fair housing counseling services to individuals alleging housing discrimination in Marin County, Solano County, and Sonoma County (except the incorporated city of Petaluma). FHANC also provides additional services, such as prepurchase and foreclosure prevention counseling and education, as well as trainings to housing providers, in Marin, Solano, and Sonoma counties and other neighboring counties. In addition to counseling and education services, FHANC recruits, trains, and employs fair housing testers to investigate claims of housing discrimination and to assist in conducting systemic investigations.
(1) Gov. Code, § 8899.50, subd. (a)(2)
Our Work
FHANC’s work has shown the continued prevalence of housing discrimination in Marin. FHANC regularly conducts investigations and audits to determine the prevalence of discrimination in rental housing in Marin, Sonoma, and Solano counties. In these investigations, trained fair housing testers pose as home seekers who are members of protected class categories to determine whether they receive differential/discriminatory treatment compared to a home seeker who is not a member of that protected class category.
FHANC’s recent four-month investigation in Marin, Solano, and Sonoma counties found that Marin had the highest rate of discrimination overall. (2) Staff examined rental practices at 20 properties in each county, using testers who posed by phone or email as either Latina or white
(2) An Investigation of Familial Status and National Origin Discrimination in Rental Housing
non-Latinx potential renters with children. The investigation tested for discrimination at the preapplication stage based on familial status (the presence of children) or national origin, or a combination of both. In Marin, 67% of the tests revealed at least some evidence of discrimination based on familial status or national origin, and Marin also had the most discrimination based on familial status specifically, with 53% of tests revealing evidence of such discrimination.
Another prevalent form of housing discrimination is discrimination based on source of income (“SOI”), which includes discrimination against Housing Choice Voucher (“Section 8”) holders. FHANC’s recent audits revealed evidence of SOI discrimination in 57% of tests in the county, race discrimination in 33% of tests, and both race and SOI discrimination in 22% of the tests. FHANC continues to see increases in complaints of SOI discrimination, and in the past fiscal year, FHANC received more SOI complaints than any other type except disability. FHANC’s May 2021 Audit Report also found evidence of disability discrimination in 59% of tests in the County. (3)
An Example
In the spring of 2021, FHANC released the results of the aforementioned testing investigation to ascertain the extent to which Black renters with Section 8 vouchers experienced discrimination when applying for rental housing. Soon after, in May 2021, the Marin Independent Journal (“Marin IJ”) published a Letter to the Editor submitted by the manager of Novato Park Apartments, stating that they no longer accepted any tenants with Section 8 vouchers because of a difficulty they had previously had with a Section 8 tenant. FHANC emailed and sent a letter to the manager, explaining the law once again, letting him know
(3) Fair Housing Resources & Information
that the reason he gave for not renting to Section 8 tenants did not negate the discriminatory effect of their policy. FHANC and the Marin Housing Authority also collaborated in submitting a response letter to the Marin IJ, explaining the source of income discrimination so that the community was made aware that it was illegal to deny renters because of their housing vouchers.
FHANC then conducted several fair housing testing investigations – in September 2021, March 2022, and February 2023, which all confirmed that the apartment complex was still not accepting Section 8 tenants (for example, the management responded, “We don’t take those, sorry… we’ve had trouble in the past”). In March 2023, FHANC filed a discrimination complaint with the California Civil Rights Department (CRD), alleging source of income discrimination against the owner and manager of Novato Park Apartments because of their ban on renting to people with Section 8 housing choice vouchers, which violates’ California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act. One year later, an agreement was reached between the parties settling for $35,000, policy changes, training, and posting vacancies to sites serving people with Section 8 vouchers.
Our investigations show how housing discrimination in the County compounds the serious obstacles already faced by renters, such as unaffordable rents and insufficient tenant protections. The forces of displacement have a disproportionate impact on people with disabilities, who are often on fixed incomes, voucher holders, and other renters of protected class categories under California law.
Homeownership Must Also Be Addressed
Homeowners also cannot escape discrimin
Some of the longstanding barriers faced by homeowners and prospective homebuyers protected classes have worsened in recent and they remain prevalent in Marin. Mode appraisal and lending practices contribute maintaining the effects of discriminatory h practices like redlining, including the undervaluation of Black neighborhoods an Black-Owned homes and the exclusion of and Latinx borrowers from the mortgage a refinance market. For example, the racial w gap is greater now than it was when the Fa Housing Act was passed in 1968 and it see be widening. This is greatly attributed to the gap in homeownership rates. In Marin County, 75% of white (non-Latinx) households own homes, while only 19.5% of Black households and 55.5% of Latinx households own homes. In 2022, 23.6% of Black and 14.9% of Latinx mortgage loan applications were denied, while only 11.7% of loans were denied for white applicants. Additionally, homeownership rates for multiracial families in Marin County declined significantly between 2000 and 2019, while foreclosure rates continue to rise.
owned homes is especially pronounced in this area, as evidenced by a landmark appraisal discrimination case that FHANC settled last year on behalf of Black homeowners in Marin City whose home was undervalued by an appraiser by nearly half a million dollars because of their race and the demographics of their neighborhood.
Research has shown that minority-owned homes are also largely undervalued as compared to white-owned homes, leading to a reduction in access to credit, equity, and wealth accumulation. The under-valuation of Black-
In December 2016, Tenisha Tate-Austin and Paul Austin, a Black couple, purchased a house in Marin City, an unincorporated area in Marin County, California, and moved into their house with their children. (As of July 2019, Black residents accounted for 36% of Marin City’s population, compared to less than 3% of the county as a whole.) The couple made substantial renovations that increased the square footage of the house, upgraded many features, and began renovations on an accessory dwelling unit. They decided to refinance their mortgage in 2020. Home buyers and homeowners are generally required to have an appraisal to obtain a mortgage or refinance a mortgage.
The appraiser inspected the Austins’ house and appraised it at $995,000. The Austins believed
PAUL AUSTIN AND TENISHA TATE-AUSTIN
that their race and the racial demographics of Marin City played a role in the low estimate of value and requested a second appraisal. Three weeks after the first appraisal inspection, a different appraiser valued the home at $1,482,500, nearly half a million dollars higher. Between the two appraisals, the Austins erased any evidence of their racial identities inside their house, removing family photos and Africanthemed art. Their white friend, who replaced the Austins’ family photos with photos of her own family, was the only person present during the second inspection.
The settlement agreement for the Austins’ case included an undisclosed monetary amount with additional terms, including that the appraiser agrees not to discriminate in the future, will watch the ABC documentary “Our America: Lowballed” (which features the Austins’ story); attend a training session regarding the history of segregation and real estate-related discrimination in Marin County provided by FHANC; and continue to abide by the Bureau of Real Estate Appraisers’ continuing education requirements, including those outlined in California’s AB 948.
Conclusion
It is essential that jurisdictions in Marin commit to addressing and undoing housing discrimination and the enduring inequities in housing, homeownership, and wealth. The strength of the fair housing commitments made in Marin jurisdictions’ housing elements vary among the cities and towns in the county, with some jurisdictions including commitments to work toward increasingly needed tenant protections, to continue or expand fair housing education and services, and to create affordable housing. Many advocates had pushed for stronger fair housing goals and actions to be included in these housing elements, and while the goals and actions that are included in the elements are likely not sufficient to adequately address fair housing issues in the county, they are certainly necessary steps to doing so. Given the size and urgency of the problem, it is clear that advocates will need to closely monitor the implementation of the housing element plans, and if necessary, take action to enforce these commitments and ensure that jurisdictions are held accountable to their duty to affirmatively further fair housing in the County.
An Update on California's Broker Fee Class Action Antitrust Lawsuits
Elisha Yang, Hanson Bridgett LLP
In March of 2024, the National Association of Realtors (NAR) agreed to settle its high-profile antitrust lawsuit (the "NAR Settlement"), which includes the payment of approximately $418 million in damages and adjustments to its rules and policies governing commission payments to its brokers and agents. Prior to the announcement of this settlement, several similar lawsuits were filed against NAR and/or real estate brokerage firms and related organizations across the nation, two of which were filed in California. In both of these California lawsuits, plaintiffs claim that the named defendants engaged in anticompetitive practices to keep real estate commissions high in violation of state and federal antitrust regulations.
Grace v. BAREIS
The first lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court's Northern District of California's San Francisco Division in December of 2023 and names as defendants a mix of associations and brokerages of the San Francisco Bay Area. (1) In this class action, the plaintiff alleges that the prevailing compensation scheme by which the seller of a home bears the cost of commission payments for both the seller's broker and buyer's broker is unfair and forces sellers to pay inflated broker commissions to buyers' real estate agents. Plaintiff points to two particular rules established by BAREIS – Rule 11.2 (2) and Rule 11.5 (3) The court recently dismissed this lawsuit, holding that BAREIS' rules do not require the listing broker to share compensation with the buyer broker.
Fierro v. NAR
The second lawsuit was filed in California's Central District Court in January of 2024 and names 36 defendants made up of mostly national associations and brokerages with a few local brokerages of Southern California.4 In this action, the plaintiff alleges that the defendants engaged or collaborated in anti-competitive practices by establishing rules that compel home sellers to pay an inflated fee to buyer brokers,
(1) Grace v. Bay Area Real Estate Information Services, Inc. et al., 23-cv-06352
(2) This rule has been modified, effective August 1, 2023, to include the following: “This offer of compensation, if any, is also made to members of organizations that are parties to the Cross Pollination Agreement.”
(3) Bareis MLS Rules
(4) Gael Fierro et al v National Association of Realtors et al , 2:24-cv-00449
What Changes Can Buyer Brokers Expect
Following the NAR Settlement?
Under the NAR Settlement, the terms of which are set to take effect next month, a homeowner, as the seller, will no longer be required to pay the buyer’s broker as a condition of using an MLS. The seller can still offer a commission to the buyer’s broker if they so desire. Broker commissions, especially for the broker representing the buyer, will be subject to more negotiation, with the possibility of fixed-fee arrangements and significant discounted rates to attract clients, depending on the housing market. Purchasers of homes can expect to negotiate buyer’s broker fees through a buyer representation agreement as part of their process of selecting an agent. Many of the changes coming out of the NAR Settlement could potentially lower the cost of purchasing and selling a home.
Elisha Yang’s transactional experience covers a broad array of commercial and real estate matters She counsels clients in the ood and beverage industry in contract negotiations, including procurement contracts, services agreements, co-manufacturing arrangements, and trademark licensing agree-
ments In her real estate practice, Elisha regularly counsels real estate owners and investors in the acquisition and disposition of commercial real property, including agricultural land, office buildings, and senior care facilities She has represented both landlords and tenants in commercial leases, and borrowers and lenders in real estate financing She is adept at project management and in the implementation of data and workflow management systems. A San Francisco Bay Area native, she is deeply involved in the community, regularly working on behalf of the Asian American Bar Association
Leveraging Recent State Legislation to Maximize Housing Production: A Study of AB 1287’s Technical Changes to State Density Bonus Law
Robin Baral, Hanson Bridgett LLP
As the Marin County Civil Grand Jury acknowledged two years ago, the “[l]ack of affordable housing is a problem throughout Marin County.” (1) Fast forward to this year, more than 50 housing-related bills intended to address California’s housing crisis have now become state law. The bills were designed to reduce barriers to housing production and incentivize the development of more affordable housing. One of those bills, AB 1287 (Alvarez), promotes housing production by amending State Density Bonus Law to enable developers to receive an additional density bonus that can double the allowable density increase on an eligible site.
State Density Bonus Law is a proven tool for facilitating greater certainty in the local approval process and entitling projects that are financially feasible to construct.
State Density Bonus Law is codified under Government Code section 65915. The law requires cities and counties to award a density bonus above a project’s maximum allowable residential density provided the developer agrees to build a certain percentage of low-income, very-low-income, senior citizen, moderateincome, or student housing units.
The bonus amount is based on the percentage of affordable units allocated for the housing project:
For very-low-income units, setting aside 5% of the allowed units results in a 20% density bonus, and setting aside 15% of the allowed units results in a 50% bonus.
For low-income units, the developer must set aside a higher number of units, starting with 10% of the allowed units for a 20% density bonus; or up to 24% of the allowed units for a 50% bonus.
For moderate-income units, the spread increases further: 10% of the allowed units results in a 5% density bonus; and if up to 44% of the allowed units are reserved for moderate-income households, a bonus of up to 50% must be awarded.
State Density Bonus Law applies to both multifamily sites and single-family subdivisions, and to rental and for-sale units, although the substantive requirements vary considerably based on the type of development proposed. Overall, State Density Bonus Law has established
(1) June 24, 2022, Affordable Housing: Time for Collaboration in Marin
an extremely effective framework for providing greater certainty to developers during the entitlement process, particularly when coupled with the Housing Accountability Act (Gov. Code § 65589.5), as amended by SB 330, and the bevy of other recent amendments to state housing law.
Existing law provides a significant boost in project density, but the affordable housing set asides are still too high to be feasible in most jurisdictions.
Under previous law, if a project site could accommodate up to 20 units under existing zoning, that 20-unit total would have entailed the "maximum allowable residential density" (for purposes of calculating the required set-aside of affordable units and the allowable density increase). If 15% of those 20 units were allocated to very-low income households, the city or county reviewing the project would be required to award a 50% density increase – this would have ultimately allowed up to 30 units to be developed onsite (of which, three would need to be set aside for very-low income households). For moderate-income households, however, to receive the same density increase, the developer would have needed to set aside 44% of the 20 base units to receive a 50% density bonus resulting in 30 total units.
Affordable housing set asides under State Density Bonus Law must also be applied toward any applicable local inclusionary housing requirements. Cities and counties cannot require the affordable units provided under State Density Bonus Law in addition to local inclusionary requirements.
Despite these benefits, current headwinds on development due to rising costs of insurance, construction, developer fees, and labor have resulted in density bonus projects remaining
infeasible in most jurisdictions. This is exasperated when the macroeconomic headwinds are combined with the impact on project financing and limited financial returns from setting aside significant portions of a project for affordable housing.
AB 1287 amends the State Density Bonus Law to be even more favorable to developers.
As of January 1, 2024, AB 1287 amended State Density Bonus Law by requiring cities and counties to award an additional (or second) density bonus for projects that have already allocated the maximum amount of affordable housing for very-low-income, low-income or moderate-income units.
Now, if a project allocates at least 15% of the base units to very low-income units, 24% of the base units to lower-income households, or 44% of the base units to moderate-income households, the city or county must grant the developer an additional density bonus if additional set-asides are made for either verylow income or moderate-income households.
The second density bonus is also provided on a sliding scale, depending on the percentage of units allocated to the respective type of housing. However as shown in the table below, the ratios are more favorable to developers.
Going back to the 20-unit example, if a project first allocates 15% of the maximum allowable residential density for very-low-income households, that project will be eligible for a 50% increase in density. This would allow for a total of 30 units, with three units set aside for verylow-income households. If the same project also set aside 15% of the 20-unit base for moderateincome units, it would be eligible for an additional 50% bonus. This would allow for a total of 40 units (with three units set aside for very-low-income households, and three units set aside for moderate-income households). As a result, the developer would be awarded a total bonus of up to 100% over the maximum allowable residential density. Note, however, that AB 1287 caps the affordable set aside at 50%. For projects that allocate the maximum of moderateincome units (44%), they would only be eligible to set aside another 6% of very-low-income or moderate-income units to receive an additional bonus of 23.75% or 22.5%, respectively.
AB 1287 awards additional concessions and amends State Density Bonus Law to conform to recent judicial opinions.
In addition to facilitating greater project density, State Density Bonus Law requires cities and counties to award a specified number of "concessions or incentives" based on the amount of affordable housing provided by the project. Concessions are defined as "reductions in site development standards, the incorporation of mixed uses on the project site, or any other regulatory incentives proposed by the developer that result in identifiable and actual cost reductions to a project." Under AB 1287, the amount of concessions that may be awarded is increased to four concessions for projects that include at least 16% of the units for very-low-income households, and five concessions for projects that set aside 100% of the units for lower-income households.
Apart from providing additional concessions, AB 1287 amends the State Density Bonus Law to memorialize recent judicial opinions that limit the amount of information that local governments may require to determine whether concessions or waivers of development standards are in fact needed to achieve project cost savings or to physically accommodate the project at the higher density proposed by the developer. (See Schreiber v. City of Los Angeles (2021) 69 Cal.App.5th 549; Bankers Hill 150 v. City of San Diego (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 755.)
It remains to be seen whether AB 1287 will help to alleviate California's housing crisis.
AB 1287 is intended to provide another tool to developers to encourage the production of both market-rate and affordable housing to address the state’s housing crisis. It remains to be seen, however, whether AB 1287 will facilitate more housing applications throughout Marin County and the state. Broader market forces such as higher interest rates, construction, and insurance costs continue to be a drag on housing entitlement applications. AB 1287, however, can effectively scale up a project to address those broader headwinds, in addition to the other pathways under State Density Bonus Law that may continue to be leveraged. Developers and local agencies with questions regarding the application of State Density Bonus Law are encouraged to contact the authors of this article and Hanson Bridgett’s Land Use Group.
obin R. Baral has more than a decade of xperience practicing land use, environental, and water law He applies his nvironmental knowledge to help clients evelop permitting strategies for new and merging technologies He is particularly illed at providing strategic counsel in
gislative and regulatory mandates, ranging from housing policies to water management, waste disposal, and recycling requirements
MBCA Program Sponsors
Shattering the Glass Ceiling: Marin County Bar Association’s Lifetime Achievement Award
Kristine Fowler Cirby
MCBA’s Lifetime Achievement Award honors community titans with long, distinguished legal and public service careers who have left indelible marks on Marin County and our Bar Association.
MCBA is proud to announce that it will bestow this award for only the fourth time in its 90-year history to Judge Verna Adams (Ret.), on July 17, 2024 at a dinner in her honor at the Marin Art & Garden Center in Ross, CA. Judge Adams is the first woman to receive this coveted award.
For those of you who do not know Judge Adams, she has been a force to be reckoned with from a young age. She grew up in South Bend, Indiana, a town of about 100,000 people, 100 miles from Chicago. She remains close to many of her childhood friends, some of whom will attend the July 17, 2024 event.
Because her parents came of age during the Great Depression, her mother was not able to graduate from high school, and her father could not finish college. They made sure that their five children (Judge Adams is the youngest) would have opportunities that they did not have. At an early age, she decided she wanted to be an attorney
She was valedictorian of her high school class (in 1963) and gained admission to Wellesley College
JUDGE ADAMS IN 2017
in Massachusetts, graduating summa cum laude in 1967. She enrolled at Columbia Law School for her first year and then transferred to Stanford Law School, graduating in 1970 She went from the all-women Wellesley to a law school class in which she was only one of three women.
While in law school Judge Adams interned at the Santa Clara County Public Defender’s Office and also spent time at California Rural Legal Assistance (CRLA) in Delano, California. CRLA was the legal branch of the California Farm Workers’ Union, then led by Cesar Chavez. She was able to meet Mr. Chavez and while she would have loved to join CRLA, they had little money and no openings for totally inexperienced attorneys.
During a brief period working at a boutique San Francisco law firm, Judge Adams read an article in the women’s section of the San Francisco Chronicle about a female law firm in San Rafael After sending them a letter and her resume, Beverly Savitt invited her to San Rafael for lunch. She met with Beverly and her partner Ann Diamond (the first and second female MCBA Presidents), and accepted their job offer as an associate
Judge Adams moved to Marin soon after and threw herself into the practice of family law and
JUDGE ADAMS 1963 HIGH SCHOOLYEARBOOK PHOTO
community service. Judge Adams always had a few pro bono cases going and she also volunteered her time at Legal Aid of Marin. She served on the Board of Directors of Planned Parenthood and the Center for the Family in Transition. In 1986 Judge Adams and several other attorneys got together to form what is now the Family and Children’s Law Center, which furnishes low-cost legal services to individuals involved in family law matters, including domestic violence. She served on their board of directors for years. Serving on the Board, she became increasingly aware of the growing number of self-represented litigants in family law and their special needs.
Judge Adams served as President of the Marin County Bar Association as its third woman president, following Ann Diamond and Beverly Savitt. She was also honored by her peers, who listed her in “The Best Lawyers in America” for many years before her judicial appointment.
Judge Adams became a partner in the Diamond and Savitt firm and later worked with Beverly Savitt until Judge Savitt’s appointment to the Marin County Superior Court in 1982. Thereafter she was in partnership with Barbara Dornan until shortly before she was sworn in as a Judge of the Marin County Superior Court in 1999, appointed by Governor Gray Davis.
During her 24+ years of judicial service, Judge Adams served in every division of the court criminal, civil, family law, juvenile, and probate. She was elected by her colleagues to serve as Presiding Judge and she was selected by the Chief Justice of California as one of nineteen judges (there were about 1,650 statewide at the time) to serve on the Strategic Evaluation Committee, charged with making recommendations to streamline and improve court administration in California.
Once she became a judge, she began to understand the needs of self-represented litigants from a different and enlarged perspective. She formed the task force which created the Legal Self-Help Center of Marin, a place where those without attorneys could obtain assistance with filling out legal forms, get tips on court presentation and protocol, and obtain general legal information. It has met an enormous and growing need in our county. She served as President of its Board of Directors for several years after the Center opened.
When Judge Adams joined the court, Marin had only one specialty court, an adult drug court. She saw the need for other specialty courts that could address the needs of our most underserved populations in Marin. She formed and served as the first judge presiding over the Mental Health Court and the Domestic Violence Court
Family law has always been her specialty. As supervising judge in the Marin Unified Family Law Court, she became even more aware of the needs of self-represented litigants in all aspects of family law, especially domestic violence and child custody. She presided over a special court session for self-represented litigants where the court furnished the assistance of volunteer attorneys and paralegals to help these litigants resolve issues and fill out paperwork. Frequently
JUDGE ADAMS IS AMONG THE FIVE WOMEN INDUCTED INTO THE MARIN WOMEN’S HALL OF FAME IN 2016
those self-represented litigants would leave the court session with a signed judgment on file.
Judge Adams also initiated a settlement conference program for parties involved in highconflict custody disputes, creating a panel comprised of a judge, a family law attorneymediator, and a mental health professional to help parties work out a custody plan that was in their children’s best interest. Never satisfied, in collaboration with Judge Beverly Wood (Ret.) and the family law bar, she also addressed problems related to visitation, by creating a visitation supervisors’ training program whereby qualified individuals could receive required training for free, in exchange for furnishing hours of free supervision for families in crisis.
Throughout her distinguished career, Judge Adams’ enduring passion has been to make our justice system accessible to the most disenfranchised members of our community: children, women, victims of domestic violence,
and all who must navigate the legal system without an attorney.
After the Lifetime Achievement Award event had been scheduled, Judge Adams lost her husband and the love of her life, John Boudett, who died peacefully at home on April 17, 2024. John was adamant that the event go forward without delay and Judge Adams is honoring his wishes.
Please join us in honoring Judge Adams when she receives the Marin County Bar Association’s Lifetime Achievement Award on Wednesday, July 17, 2024, at the Marin Art & Garden Center in Ross, California. Sponsorships and tickets are available here
JOHN L. BOUDETT: JUDGE ADAMS’ LATE HUSBAND
Preserving Marin Valley Mobile Country Club as Affordable Senior Housing
Dana Dean, Hanson Bridgett LLP
Some matters and clients just get under your skin and live with you from then on. Such is the case for me with regard to the beautiful community of caring, deeply engaged residents at Marin Valley Mobile Country Club (MVMCC). I have been fortunate enough to represent these folks for the better part of the last year in their to-date successful efforts to save 315 affordable housing units for over 400 senior residents. The residents range in age from 55 to over 100 years old, and the vast majority qualify as low income in Marin County. Many have put their life savings into their homes, which rest on a lovely, somewhat hidden hillside along the San Pablo Bay in Novato.
After a summer of advocacy that at its peak involved 182 organized, articulate (but respectful) senior residents attending City Council night meetings in person, last August the Novato City Council voted to decline a $30million offer from a private for-profit company to purchase the city-owned land where MVMCC is located.
The City of Novato has owned the MVMCC property since 1997. In June 2023, during a live public City Council meeting, the City Council received an unsolicited $30-million purchase offer from a private for-profit developer for the MVMCC property. Facing budget deficits, over the following nine weeks, the City Council met in closed session to discuss the pursuit of the sale and specific sale terms. Dozens of park residents came to every meeting during that time to express their fears of losing their homes, while our team made the case for keeping the park out of for-profit hands and transferring it to the residents.
On August 23, 2023, the City Clerk sent out the announcement: “The Novato City Council has decided not to pursue the offer from HCA to purchase Marin Valley Mobile Country Club."
The decision was hard fought, but ultimately the City Council made the right choice. MVMCC provides an important affordable-housing option for Marin County’s seniors. The park keeps these residents, 80 percent of whom are low income, in a stable and caring community. Through this challenge, everyone, in particular the City Council, came to understand the folks at MVMCC deserved to know that that their own City would not put the homes they’ve put their life savings into at risk.
In the days that followed, a special kind of joy and sense of relief spread throughout the park. I felt great joy myself. Through my 21 years of practicing land use law, I have represented dozens of groups and entities before city councils and all manner of governing bodies. I have never been more impressed with a group's organized advocacy and dedication to their cause. It was hard, hard work but a delight for me to support them.
After that glorious moment in late August, MVMCC and its residents quickly turned their attention to making that moment of security in their homes permanent. The City Council, for its part, created an ad hoc committee to work with MVMCC's non-profit board, known as the Park Acquisition Corporation (PAC), to advance that objective. Since then, we have worked to negotiate an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement (ENA) between the PAC and the City, as both
parties work towards the residents' ultimate ownership of the property. The ENA became operative in May. Now, the PAC has the very real opportunity to move forward with due diligence and all necessary steps to bring the goal of selfdetermination to fruition.
It has been my great honor to work with the PAC and all of the MVMCC residents to bring them to this moment of hope and opportunity. I look forward to the day these wonderful folks reach their goal of self-determination.
Dean is
LLP She has practiced real estate and land use law for over two decades, focusing on land use development and litigation. She has worked throughout California on matters involving sustained, long-range advocacy efforts and detailed analyses, as well as
extensive communications with governing entities, community groups, developers, and property owners
Dana
Counsel at Hanson Bridgett
Did You Know that Marin’s Court Has Unlawful Detainer Mandatory Settlement Conferences?
Vincent J. DeMartini, DeMartini, Walker, & Ghaedi LLP
When unlawful detainer cases are set for trial in Marin County a mandatory settlement conference is set for the week prior to trial. These judicially supervised conferences are coordinated by Legal Aid of Marin scheduling volunteer attorneys from the Marin County Bar to provide unrepresented parties legal assistance at the conference.
We asked Vince DeMartini, who has been representing landlords for nearly 50 years, and has litigated over a thousand unlawful detainer cases, for his thoughts on the effectiveness of the Marin County Mandatory Settlement Conferences. His immediate response was that this coordinated effort is an “invaluable process” which in the vast majority of cases, results in a resolution that avoids the risk and uncertainty of trial and is beneficial to both landlords and tenants.
T a of the strengths and weaknesses of their position to properly evaluate the risk/reward of trial and settlement at no cost to the tenant.
By reaching a negotiated settlement, tenants avoid the risk of judgment and the negative impact on their credit When a case is resolved before trial a standard settlement term provides that the matter remains confidential and sealed and unavailable to third-parties.
efficient avoiding costs associated with the preparation and presentation of a trial, as well as any uncertainty regarding an award by a judge or jury.
Resolution through an MSC does not prevent a landlord from obtaining court-ordered relief in the event of a breach of a written settlement agreement by a tenant. In settlement agreements reached at an MSC, the Court typically is
requested to retain enforcement jurisdiction to assure compliance.
Generally:
In January 2024, the Judicial Council published form UD-155, Eviction Case (Unlawful Detainer) Stipulation, which is an optional “check the box” form to assist with the resolution of a case before trial. The judicial council form sets forth the standard terms typically addressed at settlement conferences. Reviewing the form in advance of the conference should assist in focusing on the issues the conference is intended to address and resolve.
Overall, it is a system that works. Mandatory Settlement Conferences provide a valuable opportunity for landlords and tenants to settle their disputes in a fair, efficient, and less stressful manner.
Join the Honorable Judge Sweet and the MCBA’s Real Property Section on Monday, June 17, 2024 at 12 PM to hear how to get involved with MSCs and help mitigate Marin’s housing crisis.
Vince DeMartini has practiced law for over 40 years in Marin County Initially with a practice that assisted businesses and later Vince expanded his practice into the area of real estate He is now one of Marin County's preeminent legal authorities in business, real estate, property management and landlord-
was awarded an AV rating, the highest hics, by Martindale-Hubbell, Inc Vince’s real estate and business litigation with emphasis on property management and landlord/tenant issues, evictions, contract disputes, easement/title disputes, defense of landlords in general liability claims, Department of Fair Employment and Housing discrimination claims, Americans With Disabilities Act claims, premises liability claims, and mold and toxic issues He also has extensive experience in collection matters
Join Us in Celebrating Excellence in Our Legal Community!
Larry Strick, Esq., Strick Law & Mediation
The MCBA Board of Directors is thrilled to announce the institutionalization of two prestigious awards to be presented at our annual December Holiday Party: the Ann Diamond Young Lawyer Award and the Marin Lawyer of the Year Award.
The Ann Diamond Young Lawyer Award aims to honor a young lawyer, a member of the California Bar for 12 years or less, for their outstanding legal achievements and contributions to the Marin community.
The Lawyer of the Year Award recognizes a lawyer who dedicated a remarkable amount of time, effort, and support to the legal system, the legal community, and their clients. The recipient should have demonstrated competence, integrity, civility, and honor in all professional interactions.
We encourage all MCBA members to consider nominating deserving individuals for these esteemed accolades. All nominees must be MCBA members. Nominations must be made no later than September 15, 2024.
The Board is enthusiastic about revitalizing and establishing these awards as integral components of our annual festivities. We eagerly await your nominations and look forward to celebrating the remarkable contributions of our legal peers
How Nonprofits Are Tackling Homelessness and How You Can Help: Interviews with St. Vincent de Paul Society
of Marin and Larkin Street Youth Services
Emily Harrington, Maier Law Group
When we think about the topic of the housing crisis in Marin County and the broader Bay Area, one of the first issues that jumps to many of our minds is homelessness. The unhoused members of our community are often a very visible reminder of how—in my opinion—our social safety net has failed our neighbors and the housing crisis has made their path to shelter and stability much more harrowing. While many stakeholders (the government, non-profits, communities of faith, businesses, and individuals, to name a few) have an important role to play in stepping up to address this crisis, I wanted to shine a light on the important work being done by two non-profits in our community: St. Vincent de Paul Society of Marin and Larkin Street Youth Services. I believe the insight shared in the following interviews can help readers learn about the critical services being offered by these nonprofits—and others like them—and perhaps inspire and empower reads to be a part of the solution.
Interview with Christine Paquette, Executive Director, and Meredith Parnell, Chief Program Officer of St. Vincent de Paul Society of Marin County:
Emily Harrington (“EH“): Please tell our readers about St. Vincent de Paul Society of Marin– What does the organization do?
Christine Paquette (“CP”): St. Vincent de Paul Society of Marin (“SVdP”) has been in Marin since 1946, helping people experiencing crisis; oftentimes people who are precariously housed or facing eviction, also those who are homeless. We offer three core services:
Homelessness prevention: Our staff and volunteer team makes 1,200 home visits per year, throughout Marin. They meet with and help people in crisis situations, for example, with an eviction notice, or to help pay emergency rent, utilities, and other bills. Anything to help them not lose housing. There are so many people who do not have an emergency fund and cannot navigate a crisis. If someone just can’t afford their rent, we help connect them to resources. We help them navigate the crisis, to remain housed and reach sustainability.
Services for people experiencing homelessness. We house people who are both newly homeless and chronically homeless. We have specific programs if someone is newly homeless, or has been on the street for some length of time, battling disability, mental health, substance abuse, etc. We have case managers who provide services to help these people get rehoused.
Christine Paquette Meredith Parnell
Each year, we help hundreds of people who are experiencing homelessness to secure a path to housing.
Free dining room: Our free dining room is open 365 days a year. It’s been open since 1981, providing free breakfast and lunch. We serve approximately 175,000 meals per year in Marin County. The dining room is not limited to just those experiencing homelessness; our free meals are available to people of all walks of life who need healthy, nutritious food.
EH: What are some of the current challenges with getting people housed in Marin County? CP: We have observed two key issues this year, in terms of challenges for getting people housed.
Older adult/senior homelessness. The number of older residents who are on fixed incomes and are unable to even afford to rent a room in Marin County has skyrocketed. If you were a low-income wage earner over the course of your working years, then your social security payments are low. The average cost to rent a room in Marin County is $1,300 per month. If you are a senior and your Social Security payment is just $1,300, then you are in an impossible situation. You might try to stay here in Marin and live in your car, or St. Vincent’s can help you move to a county far away, like Butte County, where you can have a roof over your head, but you won’t know anyone or have support.
By and large, these vulnerable older adults are women, because women live longer. These people are not strangers; they are the women who have been our school volunteers, served on committees, worked at our libraries, and taken care of their sick spouses, etc They have worked low-paying jobs and spent their whole lives giving to this community. For these older adults, if they end up moving away to a cheaper county, like Butte, where they can have a roof over their head, they then face social isolation; living in a new place where no one and nothing is familiar to them. Research shows that social isolation is deadly, especially for older adults.
Meredith Parnell (“MP”): Sanctioning encampments. Our second focus this year is the idea of sanctioned encampments. We are in favor of sanctioned encampments if it is done correctly. Encampments give people stability and the resources they need to be in a safer environment. Our case managers can have access to the folks in the encampments, and help them navigate their way out of homeless. Sanctioned, legal, safe encampments, are a good thing, but they need to be housing-focused. The idea is we connect the individuals living there to resources and help them navigate out of homelessness.
The current obstacle is getting the funding that sanctioned encampments require. But if we all work together; the cities, elected officials, businesses, service providers, and nonprofits, it can have a huge positive impact.
EH: How has the Bay Area’s housing crisis—the affordability challenge, the lack of inventory, etc.— impacted homelessness in Marin?
CP: Marin does not have enough housing inventory, and rents are higher than ever with an increasing cost of living. This dramatically impacts the precariously housed and those who are newly homeless. The County is housing many people, but if residents continue to fall into homelessness at this current rate, then we are at a crossroads.
These are people who have lived in Marin for many years, but now, for the first time, people are experiencing homelessness.
been required to build; but the in-lieu fees are not enough to actually build new properties in Marin.
The Bay Area Housing Finance Authority (“BAHFA”) is a joint powers authority across 9 Bay Area counties. It created this entity BAFHA that has the power to float bonds across the 9 Bay Area counties. Our big hope is that collectively across the Bay Area, we the voters can pass a $10 or $20 billion bond to build more affordable homes and help keep existing homes affordable. The bond would collect $100 per year from homeowners, per million of property value. So, for example, if your house is worth $1.5 million, you would pay $150 per year. Marin County could receive $300- $700 million over 10 years if BAHFA passes.
BAHFA is our opportunity to make a big difference; we could actually build housing. Please read about the BAHFA bond measure, which will be on the November 2024 ballot, HERE.
EH: How can readers in Marin County and the greater Bay Area community help?
MP: Members of the community can support the affordable bond measure (BAHFA), talk to people, write supportive letters, be an ambassador. Vote, but know the facts. By listening, reading this article, you are learning some of the facts.
CP: If you are a part of a community group, you can reach out to SVdP [website link here] and someone from our organization can come present to your group. If you are on Nextdoor (the neighborhood website) you can engage in conversations and be a resource for people to get accurate information. This in turn helps our Marin business community, our seniors, and our precariously housed population.
Financial support, through individual donations to organizations like SVdP is tremendously helpful too. Please visit our WEBSITE.
Interview with Sherilyn Adams, Executive Director of Larkin Street Youth Services:
Emily Harrington (“EH”) Please tell our readers about Larkin Street Youth Services–what does the organization do?
Sherilyn Adams (“SA”): Larkin Street Youth Services provides an array of services for young people at risk for, or experiencing, homelessness in San Francisco and Alameda. That includes everything from street outreach to engagement programming, our drop-in center, shelter, and a wide array of housing Marrying with those services is our goal of ensuring that young people have access to education, employment, behavioral health services, and life skills. Our mission is to provide life-saving and life-changing services that are easily accessible and help youth successfully transition into adulthood. Our intended impact is for the young people who exit our programs to have safe and stable housing.
We have made significant progress with that goal; we have a 90% success rate with safe and stable housing for the youth who exit our programs. To give some numbers to paint a picture: this year, we are on track to serve 1,800 young people through our programs. 450 of those will be housed with us in some way. That also means, the difference between those numbers (the approximately 1,350 youth who participate in our services but do not end up in housing), are probably unstably housed, or continuing to experience homelessness.
EH: What are some of the unique challenges for youth experiencing homelessness, as opposed to the adult population?
SA: Young people experiencing homelessness are a fairly invisible population. Developmentally where they are at; they are trying to fit in with their housed peers. They see the stigma that older people experiencing homeless face. As one young person one said, “I didn’t tell anyone I was homeless, until I was housed.” Over the years, we ’ ve made progress on increasing the visibility of youth homelessness, but it is still a challenge.
Sherilyn Adams
Youth homelessness is caused by a variety of things: Family conflict, parental death, parental substance use, lack of basic safety net services, poverty, and other ways that families did not have sufficient resources. COVID was another challenge that uniquely affected youth: 2 million children did not return to school after COVID, particularly teens who were 16+ years old. Homelessness correlates very strongly with not having a GED. These are things that we are trying to work on: providing access to stable housing and intensive education.
Another data point to help paint the picture: San Francisco’s Point-in-Time Count (“PIT” Count), which is a survey conducted every 2 years, in which information is gathered about individuals currently sleeping on the streets, in cars, or in other unsheltered places, found that 50% of the folks who identified in the PIT Count as “homeless” had their first experience with homelessness under the age of 25. This underscores that a big part of addressing adult homelessness and chronic homelessness is interventions and resources directed toward youth homelessness.
EH: What do you think are the key services needed for young people as opposed to the adult homeless population?
SA: Intensive education and employment services. These youth have experienced a lot of trauma, so they need wellness and behavioral health services too, just as the adults do. With adults, you are focusing on retraining for employment. Adults probably had a job and lived in a house at one point. For young people, they have often never had a job and never had their own place; many of them have never had a checking account, they haven’t finished their education, and they don’t know how to apply for college These are the services that we focus on: access to intensive education, employment training, financial coaching, behavioral health, and wellness. We deliver those services in a way that is specific to the needs of young people; making
EH: How has the Bay Area’s housing crisis impacted youth homelessness?
SA: When we think about the housing crisis, we often think about adults and families, but young people are impacted too: they are trying to get their first apartment, trying to live and stay in their communities. The affordability issues have a huge impact: if you don’t have a degree, an apprenticeship, or a job, the ability to find and sustain housing is nearly impossible.
The housing affordability crisis disproportionately impacts lower-income people. Building new affordable housing is definitely part of the solution, but we can’t build new housing fast enough to solve this issue. We can’t just build our way out of this. So we need to have other solutions too. That means that things like subsidies; we offer short-term (2 or 3 years) subsidies through some of our programs. That allows the youth to get their own place and start building their education and employment path. Without stable housing,
y p
SA: Raising visibility about youth homeless is one our key objectives. But it's getting more and more difficult to raise visibility, because what people see around them is the chronically homeless, older adult population of unhoused people. Folks feel a lot of frustration when they see people living outside. Some people want them living inside because they think it’s not right, it’s a humanitarian crisis. Other folks just don’t want to see homelessness or they don’t want it in their neighborhood.
Our projects focus on raising visibility for the homeless youth population; trying to educate folks about the positive interventions that can happen when a young person receives supportive services earlier on, before they become part of the chronically homeless, older adult population.
EH: What are some projects that have not been put into motion yet, that you believe would help?
SA: We would like to see continued, new, sustained investment in the creation of housing for youth, whether that’s shelters, transitional housing, for supportive housing. We would like to see more investment from the State, whether that’s Project Home Key, or other preventions, and we would like to see funds set aside specifically for youth. To ensure that there is housing specific to young people in counties and communities.
There is a housing bond that we ’ re trying to push, SB 1079, which will combat homelessness and housing instability for vulnerable youth, including foster youth. Proposition 1 is also something that we are fighting for; it is another bond measure devoted mental health care and drug or alcohol treatment for people experiencing homelessness.
Essentially, we would like to see more resources invested at the local and state level to support young people specifically.
EH: How can readers in Marin County and the greater Bay Area community help?
SA: If there is an opportunity for housing to be created in your community for youth, support it, and advocate for it. Support programs and initiatives for young people experiencing homelessness. For example, we have a pilot program that provides direct cash transfers to young people who participate in this pilot. It an evidence evidence-based model, grounded on research that demonstrates that when you give young people money, they can reduce or eliminate their homelessness. Support programs that help young folks stay in school and get employed Be an advocate, an ambassador for these programs
Individual donations to organizations like Larkin Street Youth Services allow us to continue the important work that we discussed today.
Emily Harrington is an Associate Attorney at Maier Law Group, an employment law firm in San Rafael. Emily’s practice focuses on employment advice and counsel as well as serving as a neutral factfinder in workplace investigations Emily advises employers on all aspects of California and federal employment law, including hiring, worker classifications, equal opportunity, anti-harassment, discrimination, and retaliation, wage and hour, leaves of absence, and employee separations. Emily enjoys learning about organizational cultures, leadership styles, and behavioral skills.
DeMarco A. Garcia
Legal Aid of Marin
Scott D. Greenwood-Meinert Coblentz Patch Duffy & Bass LLP
Andrea L. Palash Coats | Palash LLP
Schuyler Haley Schwartz Redwood Public Law
Laney Meredith Silverman The Design Boutique
Jeanine S. Tede
Law Office of Jeanine S. Tede
Kat Todd J Supple Law PC
Becky Vaughan Fagen Friedman & Fulfrost LLP
ADR
Barristers
Business
Construction
Criminal
Diversity
Employment Labor
Estate Planning
Probate
Mentoring Grp
Family Law
Intellectual Property Litigation
Probate Litigation
Real Property Tax
NEW MEMBERS
If you are a current 2024 MCBA member, you can use the listserv to query your colleagues on legal updates, ask for recommendations for experts, share Court administrative processes, and use the platform to expand legal knowledge. To maintain engagement and sign-ups, we don't use the listserv for advertising, campaigning, or for public discourse To join the listserv Sign Up HERE Start using the listserv and email your message to current subscribed MCBA Members at mcba@groupvine.com or send to these specific practice
JOIN THE MCBA LISTSERV
THERE ARE MANY EXCELLENT REASONS TO BECOME A MEMBER OF MCBA! HERE ARE JUST A FEW:
NETWORKING
Build relationships with fellow attorneys and other professionals.
EDUCATION
In collaboration with our sections, we offer many CLE programs, covering topical and timely issues.
COMMUNITY OUTREACH
MCBA, with The Marin County Law Library, offers free legal consultations through our Lawyers in the Library program.
SUPPORT and RECOGNITION
MCBA supports financially disadvantaged students pursuing a law school degree and all high schools participating in Mock Trial.
INFORMATIVE
MCBA’s website and monthly Marin Lawyer newsletter deliver updates on events, court notices, timely legal articles, and legal community news.
LEADERSHIP
MCBA membership provides access to an exclusive community of attorneys and other legal professionals. Explore your leadership potential through board and committee involvement.
AUTO-RENEWAL
Renewal is even easier with our auto-renewal service.
MEMBERSHIP PERKS
Special offers from select partners.
Executive Board of Officers Officers
Scott Buell
President
Buell Law and Mediation
Kristine Fowler Cirby
President-Elect
Cirby Family Law Offices
Thomas M. McInerney
Treasurer
Ogletree Deakins
Lawrence Strick
5-Year Past President
Strick Law & Mediation
Julie Cervetto
Neusha Ghaedi
Secretary
DeMartini, Walker, & Ghaedi LLP
David M. Zeff
Client Relations Chair
Marin County Bar Association
Emily Harrington
2024 Director
Maier Law Group
Mary A. Stearns
2024 Director Alternate Defenders Incorporated
Jeffrey G. Knowles
2024 Director Coblentz Patch Duffy & Bass LLP
David L. Winnett
2024 Director
Liuzzi, Murphy, Solomon, Churton, Hale & Winnett, LLP
Morgan H. Daly
2025 Director Law Office of Morgan Daly
Alexander S. Vahdat
2024 Director Berman Tabacco
Robyn B. Christo
2025 Director Epstein Holtzapple Christo, LLP
Shanti Eagle
2025 Director Farella Braun + Martel LLP
Lucie C. Hollingsworth
2025 Director Legal Aid of Marin
Ingrid L. Carbone
2026 Director Carbone Family Law
Roni D. Pomerantz
2026 Director
California Department of Justice
Marrianne S. Taleghani
2026 Director
Nixon Peabody LLP
Elisha J. Yang
2025 Director Hanson Bridgett LLP
Christine O‘Hanlon 2026 Director County of Marin
Maxwell V. Pritt
2026 Director Boies Schiller Flexner LLP
To involve, encourage, and support Bar Association members, to serve as a liaison to the Marin County Courts, to educate the community and enhance access to legal services.
