Sausalito/Marin County Chapter of the California Homeless Union v. City of…

Background

The court had previously issued a preliminary injunction, an order intended to preserve the situation while the case continued. That order barred the defendants and people acting with them from enforcing the day-camping prohibition in Resolution No. 6009 and from closing or clearing the Dunphy Park encampment. The court had said the defendants could seek to modify or dissolve the part concerning the encampment if they could show that Marinship Park posed no toxic risks and that a move there could be carried out safely.

The defendants moved to modify or partially dissolve the preliminary injunction. They relied on environmental testing at Marinship Park and argued that people could safely camp there. The court held oral argument on April 29, 2021, and an evidentiary hearing on May 14, 2021.

Court’s Analysis

A party seeking to modify or dissolve an injunction must show a significant change in facts or law warranting a revision. The court found that the defendants had shown a significant factual change through their environmental testing.

The court found that Marinship Park had more available space than Dunphy Park, no apparent problem with private-property encroachment, improved or prepared facilities, transportation arrangements allowing each camper to be moved individually, and mobile showers. The court also found no indication that the City planned to evict campers from Marinship Park after the move.

The court credited the defendants’ environmental expert, Mr. Deignan, who conducted air and soil sampling. The court focused on air sampling because the plaintiffs were principally concerned about fiberglass dust from the nearby boat-crushing operation. Testing conducted on March 11, 2021, included a day when three boats were destroyed or otherwise disposed of, including one fiberglass boat. Air samplers were placed at two locations in Marinship Park, and the court found the results consistent. The reported fiber concentration was less than 0.001 fibers per cubic centimeter, well below the workplace exposure limit of 1.0 fiber per cubic centimeter that the court used as a reasonable safety comparison.

The court considered the criticisms offered by the plaintiffs’ expert, Ms. Ray, including criticisms concerning the testing method, humidity, sampler orientation and height, and the number of sampling locations. The court found that the defendants had largely addressed those criticisms. It also concluded that even accepting all of Ms. Ray’s criticisms, the evidence would not show that Marinship Park was dangerous because the measured level was approximately one-thousandth of the comparison limit.

The court also discussed the plaintiffs’ argument that moving people to Marinship Park could cause psychological trauma, particularly for people whose boat homes had been crushed. The court found the argument had been raised late, did not appear to apply to everyone in the camp, and was conclusory. It did not decide that psychological trauma could never qualify as a state-created danger, but found the evidence insufficient here.

Ruling

The court granted the defendants’ motion to modify the preliminary injunction. The defendants were no longer enjoined from moving the encampment from Dunphy Park to Marinship Park, provided the City fulfilled the conditions and safeguards described in the order. The court stated that the ruling did not affect the other part of the preliminary injunction: the defendants remained enjoined from enforcing the day-camping prohibition in Resolution No. 6009. Judge Edward M. Chen stated that the order disposed of Docket No. 27.