Investigation of the Conduct of the Santa Cruz City Council in the Public Trust Tidelands/Third Street Parking Lot Dispute

No evidence of impropriety was found. Principals from both sides of the dispute, their attorneys and attorneys from the California Attorney Generals Office and the State Lands Commission did meet in closed sessions to express their relative positions in the dispute in anticipation of litigation – permitted under the Brown Act – but, as stipulated by the Act, no ‘actions’ meaning in this case, settlements or decisions as to the outcome were made. Rather, the participants were emphatic in expressing no settlement could be enacted without the legally mandated involvement and consent of the public. Allegation 2 Participation in, condoning, or failing to properly contest improper or illegal transfer of title to public lands (the disputed parcel).

The case is extremely complex. Neither side is in a position of clear superiority. Neither side knows what compelling facts or rebuttals the other may or may not have. Litigation presents great cost, uncertainty and risk – if the matter is litigated, the winner will get everything, the loser nothing, hence, although it is an option, neither side wants to litigate. Both sides feel the wiser course is to find one or more win-win options.

However, because the possibility of litigation does exist, neither side wishes to get into open discussions where someone might even inadvertently, reveal ‘the cards it holds’. The City Council is almost in a no-win position; they do not want the citizens to feel deceived by not outlining their case publicly, but they do not want to risk losing by having something unintentionally disclosed. Meanwhile, the Seaside Company is under no obligation to discuss anything publicly, even if the Council were to do so. Page 3-2 Investigation of the Conduct of the Santa Cruz City Council in the Public Trust Tidelands/Third Street Parking Lot Dispute 2001–2002 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report Allegation 3 Suppression of information (a report of findings pertinent to the dispute, produced by a consultant paid with public funds) that should legally be public.