HomeMy WebLinkAboutCA Ralph M. Brown Act (Government Code Section 54950, Et. Seq.) Compliance____________________________________________________________________________________
FOR CITY CLERK ONLY
Council Meeting: November 17, 2025
Disposition: Resolution 15477
Agenda Item No: 5.a
Meeting Date: November 17, 2025
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Department: City Attorney’s Office
Prepared by: Rob Epstein, City Attorney
Andrea Visveshwara, Chief Assistant City
Attorney
City Manager Approval: ______________
TOPIC: RALPH M. BROWN ACT (GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54950, ET SEQ.)
COMPLIANCE
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION RESPONDING TO A CEASE AND DESIST DEMAND DATED
NOVEMBER 3, 2025 WITH AN UNCONDITIONAL PROMISE –WITHOUT ADMITTING
ANY VIOLATION OF THE BROWN ACT-- TO CEASE AND DESIST CERTAIN
CONDUCT PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54650.2(c)
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt the above-referenced resolution responding to a cease and desist demand dated November 3,
2025 with an unconditional promise -- without admitting any violation of the Brown Act -- to cease and
desist certain conduct pursuant to Government Code Section 54650.2(c)
BACKGROUND:
On November 3, 2025, several City officials received a letter from attorney Paul Nicholas Boylan on
behalf of Ken Dickinson and an ad hoc citizens organization calling itself “Marin Citizens for Solutions
Not Secrecy”, collectively referred to as “Mr. Boylan’s Clients”. (Attachment 1.) Mr. Boylan’s request
touches on both public record act and Ralph M. Brown Act (Gov. Code sec. 94650, et seq.) (“Brown Act”)
issues. Mr. Boylan’s letter requests both specific records and general types of records related to the
City’s announcement regarding its proposed acquisition of the property located at 350 Merrydale
(“Property”). As described in further detail in the staff report to Public Hearing Agenda Item. 6.a, the City
is Council is considering the acquisition of the Property to use as an interim shelter followed by permanent
affordable housing. Mr. Boylan’s letter has been forwarded to the City Clerk’s Office for processing, and
per the City Clerk’s practice, the City will make responsive records available on a rolling basis, and will
make the responses to other public records act requests related to the Property available to the public.
In addition, the City Attorney’s Office has instructed that the City retain all City records related to the
City’s proposed acquisition of the Property. As for the Brown Act, Mr. Boylan’s Clients allege that the
City committed violation(s) by discussing and purportedly acting “upon its plan to build shelter on the site
in closed session.” They further request that the City “formally rescind all prior decisions and acts
connected to the Project that took place outside of a public meeting” and that the City “issue an
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 2
unconditional promise to cease and desist violating the [Brown] Act…through the process described in
Government Code Section 54960.2.”
.
ANALYSIS:
The district attorney or any interested person may file a lawsuit for the “purpose of stopping or preventing
violations or threatened violations of this chapter by members of the legislative body of a local agency or
to determine the applicability of this chapter to ongoing actions or threatened future actions of the
legislative body, or to determine the applicability of this chapter to past actions of the legislative body,
subject to Section 54960.2…” The district attorney or any interested person may seek a judicial
determination that an action taken by a legislative body of a local agency in violation of the Brown Act is
null and void. Prior to doing so, the district attorney or the interested person must make a written demand
on the legislative body to cure or correct the alleged Brown Act violation. The legislative body then has
30 days to either cure or correct the violation or decline to take action, and once informed of the legislative
body’s decision on the written demand, the district attorney or the interested person then has 15 days to
file a lawsuit.
An action to cure or correct a past Brown Act violation does not necessarily preclude or prohibit the district
attorney or interested person from filing a lawsuit for a determination that the Brown Act applied to past
conduct of the legislative body, and from seeking a court order that requires closed session meetings to
be recorded for judicial oversight of Brown Act compliance. Mr. Boylan’s Clients have also requested
that the City issue an unconditional promise to cease and desist violating the Brown Act, as provided for
in Government Code Section 54960.2. To issue an unconditional promise, the City must address the
written demand as prescribed by acknowledging receipt of the cease and desist demand and the
allegations in the letter, and then commit that it will cease and desist from, and not repeat the challenged
past action as described in the written demand. The City may rescind that unconditional promise at a
later City Council meeting after providing written notice of its intent to rescind such unconditional promise.
Adoption of the unconditional promise pursuant to Section 54960.2 enables the City to avoid unnecessary
litigation without admitting any violation of the Brown Act.
As evidenced by the Public Hearing item on the same agenda, the City Council has taken no action
related to the acquisition of the Property. The City Council has met in closed session as allowed by
Government Code Section 54856.8 to provide direction to its real property negotiators over the price and
terms of the purchase of the Property.
Nonetheless, the City Attorney’s Office acknowledges that members of the public, including Mr.
Dickinson, have expressed their perception that certain City communications over the past few weeks
related to the proposed acquisition of the Property are inconsistent with the City’s commitment to
transparency and community engagement. Accordingly, the City Attorney recommends that the City
Council adopt the proposed attached resolution to confirm the City’s unconditional promise to refrain from
violating the Brown Act. Adoption of the proposed resolution will reiterate and confirm the City’s
commitment to transparency and community engagement. Specifically, the proposed resolution calls for
the City to acknowledge that Mr. Boylan alleges that there was: “no agenda item [that] informed the public
that the City Council would discuss and possibly approve the property’s purchase, and no one associated
with the City agreed to explain why the City wanted to purchase the Property”, and that such alleged past
action of the City Council violates the Ralph M. Brown Act, and that – without admitting any violation of
the Brown Act -- the City agrees to cease and desist such activity in the future.
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 3
FISCAL IMPACT:
No fiscal impact.
OPTIONS:
The City Council has the following options to consider on this matter:
1.Adopt a resolution.
2.Decline to adopt the resolution.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt the above-referenced resolution responding to a cease and desist demand dated November 3,
2025 with an unconditional promise to cease and desist certain conduct pursuant to Government Code
Section 54650.2(c)
ATTACHMENTS:
1.Letter dated November 3, 2025, from Mr. Boylan
2.Proposed Resolution
Paul Nicholas Boylan, Esq.
November 3, 2025
VIA EMAIL
520 Broadway #200
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Phone: 530 400 1653
Fax: 877 400 1693
Email: pnboylan@gmail.com
(kate.colin@cityofsanrafael.org; maika@cityofsanrafael.org ; eli.hill@cityofs amafael.org;
maribeth.bushey@cityofsanra.fael.org ; rachel.ke1tz@cityofsanrafael.org;
citymanager@cityofsam·afael.org)
The City of San Rafael
The City of San Rafael City Council
1400 Fifth Ave,
San Rafae l, CA 94901
RE: Citizens for Solutions not Secrecy v. City of San Rafael, et al.
Cure/Correct, Cease/Desist Demand and Records Request
Dear City of San Rafael City Council:
I am an attorney with a practice that includes providing counsel to public agencies and
private citizens -and represented them in litigation, w1its and appeals -pe1taining to the
California's Public Records Ac t ("CPRA") and the open meetings statute commonly
refened to as the Brown Act (the "Act").
I am writing to you on behalf of Ken Dickinson, and on behalf of the members of an ad hoc
citizens organization that calls itself Marin Citizens for Solutions not Secrecy (refened to
collectively in this letter as my "clients," "Marin Citizens" or "we"). Concerned Citizens
retained me because they believe that my efforts on their behalf are necessaiy to protect,
enforce, and remedy conupt governmental decision-making that has violated and continues
to violate their rights -and the rights of all California citizens -to pa1ticipate in ai1d
obs erve the City of San Rafael and the County of Marin (referred to in this letter respective
as the "City" and as the "County")'s make public policy and decis ions that require the
expenditure of public funds .
Citizens for Solutions not Secrecy v. City of San Rafael, et al – Brown Act/Public Records
November 3, 2025
Page 2
FACTUAL BACKGROUND:
For quite some time, agendas for City Council meetings have included closed session items
that informed the public the City intended to purchase property described as “350
Merrydale Road / 3833 Redwood Highway, San Rafael APNs 179-041-27 & 179-041-28
(referred to in this letter as the “Property”).
Prior to these closed session agenda items, no City agenda item informed the public that the
City Council would discuss and possibly approve the property’s purchase, and no one
associated with the City agreed to explain why the City wanted to purchase the Property.
When members of the public asked City and County officials why the property was being
purchased, all City and County officials said it could not be discussed because of “closed-
session confidentiality.”
On March 17, 2025, the Marin Independent Journal published a news article with the
headline “San Rafael eyes Terra Linda property for purchase.” The article stated that
neither Mayor Kate Colin nor city officials would comment on the city’s reason for seeking
the property. The article went on to state:
“The city and the mayor’s statement is that there was a noticed closed session
regarding the property address, [City Manager] Alilovich said. ‘Under the Brown
Act, the city is forbidden from disclosing any information about what was
discussed during the closed session…’”
Seven months later, on October 15, 2025:
• The City conducted a well-attended press conference for the purpose of announcing
a City project to construct temporary shelter on the Property to shelter homeless
people (the “Project”). The press conference was attended by many local dignitaries,
including the City’s mayor, who lead the press conference and spoke at length
favorably about the Project. Two other City Council members attended.
• The City posted on the City’s webpage announcing the “350 Merrydale Project.”
• The City posted a FAQ (frequently asked questions) page.
• The Marin Independent Journal published a lengthy editorial promoting the Project.
Citizens for Solutions not Secrecy v. City of San Rafael, et al – Brown Act/Public Records
November 3, 2025
Page 3
On October 16, 2025:
• The Marin Independent Journal published a news article with the headline “San
Rafael Marin County to Provide Small Dwellings for Homeless.”
• The Marin Independent Journal published a second article stating “[The City of] San
Rafael and Marin County will create a village of 65 tiny homes on a Terra Linda
property to address homelessness, officials said Wednesday… city officials have
agreed to develop the 2.3-acre property into an affordable housing complex with a
minimum of 80 apartments…”
• The City announced that a community meeting about the “350 Merrydale Interim
Shelter Project” was scheduled for October 28, 2025.
On October 17, 2025, a member of the County Board of Supervisors contacted a member
of the public who had previously asked about the City/County’s plans for the Property, but
met a wall of silence. The Supervisor apologized for not being free to talk about the Project
sooner, and stated “I wasn't able to share information publicly until the project became
official…”
The foregoing facts demonstrate that the City and County agreed to the Project, took steps
to make it happen, and hid it all from the public through the pretense of closed session
confidentiality – which simply doesn’t apply to keep secret decisions to construct
temporary shelter followed by permanent housing.
When concerned citizens protested the City and County’s lack of transparency and
inclusion that shut them out of the decision-making process, the City responded with a
pattern of behavior that demonstrates the City has no intention of correcting its mistakes.
The City refused to meet with concerned citizens and, instead, rolled out a public relations
campaign designed to create the illusion of participation.
On October 28, 2025:
• The City conducted a webinar that was nothing like the “town hall meeting” the City
advertised would take place. Attendees could not speak or interact with each other,
and could not see who else was viewing the webinar. Attendees were invited to
submit questions, which City officials looked through and “cherry picked” the ones
they wanted to answer in order to further promote the Project.
Citizens for Solutions not Secrecy v. City of San Rafael, et al – Brown Act/Public Records
November 3, 2025
Page 4
• One of the questions that was read asked why this particular piece of property was
chosen for the Project. A City official answered that it was chosen because it is near
to other homeless services. But this is not true. There are no homeless services
walking distance from the Property.
• One of the questions submitted that Webinar presenters read was a request for a list
of the 20 cites for temporary homeless shelter that the City considered in addition to
the Property. A City official and Webinar presenter responded:
“We have a list of these sites that we’ll be able to post on our website
as part of our FAQ rather than reading through the list right now and
we'll have that up for everyone later this week”.
As of the date of this letter, the public has not been provided access to the list.
• Some of those observing the Webinar requested copies of all questions submitted.
The City refused to comply with this request.
Increasingly frustrated by the lack of any meaningful response from the City, members of
the public demanded a meeting with the City. City officials agreed to this request,
scheduling November 6th to meet. However, as public concern increased, the City
unilaterally changed the structure of the November 6th meeting from a face-to-face meeting
to a “informational display” where concerned members of the public could move from
booth to booth to get information from City staff and other persons connected to the
Project.
After public pressure, the City Mayor assured concerned citizens that all members of the
City Council would be attending the informational display, providing assurance that the
Project involved only temporary housing, and further assuring:
“Of course, any permanent housing project would go through the public
planning and review process, including opportunities for input from the
community and the City Council. It would be treated similarly to any other
proposed development project in the city.”
What the Mayor apparently fails to appreciate is that there is no temporary shelter/tiny
house exemption to the Brown Act. The City must use the same public process for
temporary housing/shelter as it does for permanent housing/shelter.
Citizens for Solutions not Secrecy v. City of San Rafael, et al – Brown Act/Public Records
November 3, 2025
Page 5
That did not happen. Make no mistake: what the City failed to do is not a trivial error. The
failure to comply with the Brown Act violated Concerned Citizens’ constitutional rights of
free speech and petition. Concerned Citizens protest the City and County’s decision, and
all acts taken to effectuate the decision to provide shelter – even if labeled as “temporary” -
to the homeless on property the City has referred to as “the 350 Merrydale Shelter Project.”
We further demand that the City push the “reset” button, and conduct the process
transparently with a full opportunity for the public to observe and participate before any
decisions are made and/or actions taken.
The importance of aiding the homeless is not the issue. The need is apparent to everyone,
and is growing every day. More has to be done. And, for these reasons, providing shelter
for the homeless is a topic that inspires extreme public interest.
The goal is proper. The desire cannot be contested. But the devil is always in the details.
The issues of how best to address the needs of the homeless – such as where best to provide
shelter, the proximity of shelter to other programs that provide services to the homeless,
the criteria that will be used to select recipients of the planning shelter (will formerly
housed San Rafael residents have priority, or will anyone be permitted to travel to San
Rafael from other places and receive shelter), and the issue of providing excellent services
at the lowest reasonable cost so that public dollars needed to satisfy many concerns are not
wasted – are all complex topics that require robust public discussion, the free-flow of
records and information, and open debate.
The California constitution expressly recognizes the public’s right to participate in the
decisions all California public agencies make and the right to be present to observe that
process. This protects the public from “back room” decisions made in secret – which is the
foundation of democracy as it is practiced in California.
The City and County have decided to build shelter for the homeless on a specific piece of
property without allowing the public to both participate in those decisions or observe the
decision-making process before those decisions were made. This violated the public’s
rights to participate in those decisions and observe the decision making process.
Instead of transparency that would have allowed all concerned to address both the City
Council and the County Board of Supervisors and to engage in the necessary, if not
mandatory, public debate on all issues that assures wise decision-making, the City and
County decided to make those decisions for the people in secret, and then announce their
decisions through a carefully planned public relations campaign designed to prevent public
Citizens for Solutions not Secrecy v. City of San Rafael, et al – Brown Act/Public Records
November 3, 2025
Page 6
debate, and chill the rights of free speech guaranteed by the California constitution and the
California Open Meetings law, commonly called “the Brown Act.”
It doesn’t matter if the secret decisions the City and County made were acts taken on behalf
of the public to promote the greater good. It doesn’t matter that the decisions were
intending to advance a greater good. What matters is that it was all done in secret, behind
closed doors, excluding the public, with the intent of setting the preferred narrative by
preventing public debate until the project plan was completed.
In California the ends achieved by public agencies – like cities and counties – do not justify
the means. The means by which public agencies make decisions are strictly regulated by
statutes that were designed to protect the public’s right to both know what an agency might
decide to do before the agency makes that decision, and the right to participate in the
decision before it is done.
The end the City clearly intended on achieving is providing additional shelter to the
homeless. We recognize that is a noble goal. However, the way to adopt that goal as policy,
and to make decisions to achieve that goal is specifically describe in California’s Open
Meetings law, more commonly referred to as the Act.
BROWN ACT VIOLATIONS:
The primary decision to build temporary shelter – and all decisions associated with that
primary decision - violated Brown Act mandates that all local agencies must follow,
including but not limited to:
• failing to publish meeting agendas that provide the public with notice at least 72
hours (for regular meetings) and 24 hours (for special meetings) prior to any
discussion and decision on an agendized item (Government Code §§ 54954 and
54955:
• failing to follow the process of conducting an open meeting, as provided in
Government code § 54953(a);
• failing to providing the public with the opportunity to comment as required by
Government Code §§ 54954.3;
• failing to provide the public with the opportunity to record meetings where the
public’s business was conducted (Government Code § 54953.3); and
Citizens for Solutions not Secrecy v. City of San Rafael, et al – Brown Act/Public Records
November 3, 2025
Page 7
• conducting a series of unlawful secret meetings with the purpose of avoiding the
public’s attendance, participation, and oversight (Government Code §§ 54952.2 and
54959.) 1
Your violations of the Act involved many City Council decisions made in secret.
It is clear that the City discussed and acted upon its plan to build shelter on the site in
closed session. We know this because both City and County officials said so when asked
why they weren’t willing to explain how the City and County planned on using the
Property.
CURE AND CORRECT DEMAND:
Per Government Code § 54960.1, we demand, on our own behalf, and on behalf of the
public, that the District cure and correct the City’s failure to comply with the Act as
described herein. Failure to effectively cure and correct will result in an order voiding any
decisions made or actions taken that violated the Brown Act.
Each Brown Act violation a public agency commits is unique, and every cure and correct
effort is shaped to address the circumstances of each particular unlawful act. In this case,
the City and County’s violations are unusually robust, taking place over time and involving
many acts that were authorized/ordered in secret, manifesting a well thought out scheme to
disenfranchise the public from important constitutional rights. To be effective, the City’s
cure/correct must be robust enough to cure the depth and scope of the City’s secret
decisions and acts.
The City must first formally rescind all prior decisions and acts connected to the Project
that took place outside of a public meeting. There is no administrative regulation, no
statute, no appellate opinion, that allows a quorum of a public agency’s legislative body to
decide to build shelters for the homeless - temporary or permanent - and then make
decisions needed to enact that decision, anywhere other than during an open public meeting
1 Government Code § 54959 declares that it is a crime if any member of a legislative body
who attends a meeting of that legislative body where an action is taken in violation of any
provision of the Brown Act, and where the member intends to deprive the public of information to
which the member knows or has reason to know the public is entitled to. Neither I nor my clients
intend on instigating, or will instigate, any administrative or criminal prosecution of any kind
against any member of the City Council. Section 54959 is brought to the City’s attention only to
demonstrate the importance of the rights the Brown Act protects, and the seriousness of the
legislature in enacting the Brown Act.
Citizens for Solutions not Secrecy v. City of San Rafael, et al – Brown Act/Public Records
November 3, 2025
Page 8
– and only after the discussion and potential action are placed on an agenda that is then
distributed to the public.
In rare circumstances some decisions are allows to be made in closed session – for example,
discussions with attorneys about litigation and with real estate negotiators But the decision
to enter into negotiations to purchase property and the decision to build homeless shelters
aren’t the kinds of decisions that are allowed to be made in closed session. These kinds of
decisions must be made in public after providing the public, with notice and an opportunity
to comment to the City Counsel, and an opportunity to watch the discussion and vote.
After the City rescinds its past decisions and actions that violated the Brown Act – without
any admission of wrongdoing – then the process can begin where an informed public is
fully involved in the decision making process that it was denied due to the City’s unlawful
secret decisions and actions as described in this letter.
CEASE AND DESIST DEMAND: Concerned Citizens
Per Government Code §§ 54960 and 54960.2, Concerned Citizens demand, on their behalf,
and on behalf of the people of the state of California, that the City issue an unconditional
promise to cease and desist violating the Act, as described herein, through the process
described in Government Code § 54960.2.
DEMAND TO RECORD CLOSED SESSIONS:
Evidence shows, and discovery will confirm, that the City misused closed session
confidentiality as a means to secretly decide to build homeless shelter and to secretly
discuss the plan to do so. This flagrant, persistent, shockingly casual, history indicates the
strong probability that the City has done it before and is likely to do it again.
Under these circumstances, Government Code § 54960 allows relief via mandamus,
injunction, declaratory relief, and orders requiring the City to record their closed sessions.
We demand that the City do so, if for no other reason than to discourage the City from
using closed session confidentiality to make decisions and plans based on those decisions in
secret, outside of the light of a public meeting.
ANTICIPATED DEFENSE:
I anticipate the possibility that, because the City did not actually meet publicly to authorize
City and County staff to take actions to effectuate the Project, that all actions taken were
Citizens for Solutions not Secrecy v. City of San Rafael, et al – Brown Act/Public Records
November 3, 2025
Page 9
ultra vires, and need not be publicly remedied through City/County actions during properly
noticed meetings.
There are a number of reasons why this tactic might appear appealing. However, please be
on notice that shifting responsibility to staff will not provide the City, the City Council
members in their official or personal capacities with any cover for the constitutional and
statutory violations committed. Each individual City Counsel occupies a position of utmost
trust resulting in the same fiduciary relationship toward the citizens of their community as a
trustee bears to their beneficiary, requiring them to act with the utmost honesty, care and
good faith. No action to intentionally deprive any citizen of their constitutional rights can
be considered as being part of any elected official’s official duties and responsibilities.
Evidence shows, and discovery will confirm, that the unlawful acts described in this letter
were committed knowingly by the City Council and publicly approved by a quorum of City
Council members. The City Council was present as a quorum at October 15th’s press
conference, where the City Mayor excitedly and proudly proclaimed the Project as a
decision that the City had made and which was going to happen. The two other Council
members didn’t speak, but were visibly supporting the Mayor, essentially demonstrating
that the decision was made by the City Council to build shelter for the homeless on the
Property.
Additionally, the Mayor’s assurance that the entire City Council would be present at
November 6th’s informational display, this was an admission that the City Council had
made the decision to enact the Project, all smaller decisions associated with the Project, and
would be present to support those decisions.
SPOLIATION WARNING:
The Brown Act specifies that a party seeking to enforce their rights under the Act must
allow the culpable public agency to cure and correct the violation before the aggrieved
party files a lawsuit to enforce the Act. Because there is an inherent foreseeability
of litigation between the parties if the City fails to cure and correct its many Brown Act
violations. Consequently, we demand that the City put in place a “litigation hold” to
preserve all records pertaining to the Project – including but not limited to physical records
that are not maintained in an electronic format and records maintained in an electronic
format (e.g., memoranda, letters, emails and text messages). To enact a litigation hold, the
City must do what is necessary to avoid the intentional or accidental loss or destruction of
records pertaining to the Project by taking all steps necessary to preserve all such
records/information. Such steps include immediately (1) disabling all electronic "records
retention" deletion protocols that could result in the deletion of electronic records, (2) make
server backups, and (3) make "snapshots" of electronic records and information that could
Citizens for Solutions not Secrecy v. City of San Rafael, et al – Brown Act/Public Records
November 3, 2025
Page 10
be deleted or destroyed. There are, of course, serious consequences for failing to preserve
records under the circumstances the parties find themselves within.
RECORDS REQUEST:
We do not want to ask a judge to decide these issues. We are hoping the City agrees to
engage in a transparent and public interactive process – to be negotiated by the parties –
that will provide the transparency and access to information necessary to allow Concerned
Citizens to come up to speed on everything associated with the project.
It is a common truism that the right of free speech means nothing if the person attempting
to exercise that right doesn’t know what they are talking about. For this reason, we request
access to and copies of all records associated with the Project, including but not limited to
all memoranda, contracts, emails and text messages.
We anticipate that the City complain that we are requesting a large number of records and
that it will take time to collect them all together. We mean no disrespect, but we are not
receptive to such a complaint. If the City had been transparent throughout the process of
making all of the decisions associated with the Project, and followed the open government
procedures clearly described in the Brown Act, then there would have been time for all
interested persons to request records relevant to the particular decisions that were might be
made in order to provide informed comment. If that had happened, there would be no
burden now to collect and disclose records.
Only when all records requested have been disclosed and time is allowed for Concerned
Citizens to review them can this process continue. To soften the burden and avoid delay,
we insist that the City produce records on a “rolling” basis. This means that, instead of
waiting until all records are collected to disclose them, the City should disclose records as
they are located and processed.
We also suggest that the City post all records produced in response to this records request
on a webpage that all interested persons can access and review. This disclosure will serve
the cause of transparency and empower the public discussion and debate that must happen
before the City Council takes any action pertaining to the question of placing temporary
homeless shelter on the Property.
Finally, all records requests contain within them the possibility of litigation if the public
agency holding the requested public records fails to provide the public with access to those
records. This provides an additional need for a litigation hold, as described above.
Citizens for Solutions not Secrecy v. City of San Rafael, et al – Brown Act/Public Records
November 3, 2025
Page 11
CONCLUSION:
This morning the Marin Independent published an article characterizing Concerned
Citizens’ growing frustration as “indignation.” It isn’t indignation. It is rising anger at being
methodically and unlawfully locked out of the decision making process.
Concerned Citizens are justifiably concerned that the City believes it can use PR tactics like
press conferences to foster fast and favorable public sentiment in favor of the Project to
convince the public that Concerned Citizens are heartless and that it is acceptable for the
City to deprive Concerned Citizens of their free speech and petition rights if it achieves a
noble goal.
I have reassured my client that they need not worry about such tactics working. First, in my
experience representing news media outlets, the press is not that easily manipulated. More
importantly, I am willing to bet that there isn’t a person who lives in Marin County who
doesn’t realize that, if Concerned Citizens’ rights of free speech and petition can be
violated, then it opens the door for it to happen to anyone.
We are not against sheltering the homeless. We just want to know if the Project – created
and planned in secrecy - is the best use of public dollars and if the Project will effectively
address the needs of our homeless community.
At this moment in time, it appears there are better options. The Merrydale property is far
from the sources of other services the homeless need. It will take a very long time to
provide temporary shelter, and Winter is here.
On the other hand, the City, and the County, already own many properties that are vacant
and can be adapted faster and cheaper to provide temporary shelter than the Merrydale
property. And these properties are walking distance to resources the homeless want and
need. The Merrydale property is not.
All of this leads to an obvious, but very important, question: why spend enormous amounts
of public money to purchase the Merrydale property when the City already owns property,
already paid for, that could meet the needs for temporary shelter faster, cheaper, and better
than any that could be provided on the Merrydale property? Could it be that the vacant
properties the City and County own are worth more than the Merrydale property? If so, it is
a poor reason to buy property. We should use what we have instead of buying something
we don’t need.
Citizens for Solutions not Secrecy v. City of San Rafael, et al – Brown Act/Public Records
November 3, 2025
Page 12
The people of our City and County want and deserve a public, transparent process that
addresses these and many, many other questions that must be considered before a decision
is made.
We look forward to your response. Please contact me if you wish to open up a dialogue
with the intent to settle this dispute amicably.
Sincerely,
PAUL NICHOLAS BOYLAN, ESQ.
PAUL NICHOLAS BOYLAN
RESOLUTION NO. 15477
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL RESPONDING TO A
CEASE AND DESIST DEMAND DATED NOVEMBER 3, 2025 WITH AN UNCONDITIONAL
PROMISE –WITHOUT ADMITTING ANY VIOLATION OF THE BROWN ACT -- TO CEASE AND
DESIST CERTAIN CONDUCT PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54650.2(c)
WHEREAS, beginning on March 17, 2025, the City Council began meeting in closed session
pursuant to Government Code Section 54856.8 to consider the price and terms of payment for the
purchase of the property located at 350 Merrydale (APNS 179-041-27 & 179-041-28) (“Property”); and
WHEREAS, on November 3, 2025, several City officials received a letter dated November 3,
2025, (the “Letter”) from Paul Nicholas Boylan, an attorney representing Ken Dickinson and an ad hoc
citizens organization called “Marin Citizens for Solutions not Secrecy” (collectively referred to as “Mr.
Boylan’s Clients”); and
WHEREAS, Mr. Boylan’s Clients allege that the City committed violation(s) of the Brown Act by
discussing and purportedly acting “upon its plan to build shelter on the site in closed session”; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Boylan’s Clients further request that the City “formally rescind all prior decisions
and acts connected to the Project that took place outside of a public meeting” and that the City “issue an
unconditional promise to cease and desist violating the [Brown] Act…through the process described in
Government Code Section 54960.2.”; and
WHEREAS, on October 15, 2025, elected officials from the City attended a press conference
announcing the City’s consideration to purchase the property located at 350 Merrydale for use as an
interim shelter and permanent affordable housing; however, no City Council action was taken at that
press conference or at any time prior to or after the press conference; and
WHEREAS, on the City Council’s regular November 17, 2025, meeting, after the close of a
noticed public hearing where the public will have the opportunity to provide meaningful comments, and
after considering all of the written and verbal comments, as well as the staff report and presentations, the
City Council will consider a series of actions related to declaring a shelter crisis and the purchase of the
Property for use as an interim shelter and permanent affordable housing as outlined in the Staff Report
and its attachments for that agenda item, which is incorporated by reference; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to (1) respond to the letter, (2) issue the unconditional
promise requested by Mr. Boylan’s Clients; (3) deny any violation of the Brown Act, and (4) reiterate its
commitment to transparency and community engagement with the Public, and
.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL RESOLVES that:
1. The City Council for the City of San Rafael finds that it has ,received Mr. Boylan’s cease and
desist letter dated November 3, 2025, on behalf Mr. Boylan’s Clients alleging that: prior to meeting
in closed session on March 17, 2025, to discuss the price and terms for the purchase of the
Property, there was “no agenda item [that] informed the public that the City Council would discuss
and possibly approve the property’s purchase, and no one associated with the City agreed to
explain why the City wanted to purchase the Property” and that such aforementioned past action
of the City Council purportedly violates the Ralph M. Brown Act.
2. In order to avoid unnecessary litigation and without admitting any violation of the Ralph M. Brown
Act, the City Council hereby unconditionally commits, consistent with the prescribed language in
Government Code Section 54960.2 that it will cease, desist from, and not repeat the challenged
past action as described in Section 1 of this Resolution. To the extent anyone could interpret that
there was any City action on October 15, 2025, the City hereby rescinds that action, and any
action taken by the City Council prior to November 16, 2025, specific to the purchase of the
Property, excepting the City Planning Commission’s meeting taken on November 4, 2025, at a
duly noticed public meeting.
3. The City Council may rescind this commitment only by a majority vote of its membership taken in
open session at a regular meeting and noticed on its posted agenda as “Rescission of Brown Act
Commitment.” Mr. Boylan, on behalf of Mr. Boylan’s Clients, will be provided with written notice,
sent by any means or media Mr. Boylan provides to the City Clerk’s Office, to whatever address
or addresses he specifies, of any intention to consider rescinding this commitment at least 30
days before any such regular meeting. In the event that this commitment is rescinded, Mr.
Boylan’s Clients will have the right to commence legal action pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section
54960.2 of the Government Code. That notice will be delivered to Mr. Boylan by the same means
as this commitment, or may be mailed to an address that Mr. Boylan has designated in writing.
4. The Mayor of the City of San Rafael is hereby directed to transmit a copy of this resolution to Mr.
Boylan on or before November 30, 2025.
I, LINDSAY LARA, Clerk of the City of San Rafael, hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was duly
and regularly introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City on Monday,
the 17th day of November 2025, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Councilmembers: Bushey, Kertz, Llorens Gulati & Mayor Kate
NOES: Councilmembers: None
ABSENT: Councilmembers: Hill
Lindsay Lara, City Clerk