Here is the sequence of events and pointers to copies of the original documents.  It is based on the Declaration of Bradly S. Torgan including exhibits which was submitted shortly prior to our initial court hearing on November 19, 2007.  (See FOLF legal action for our recent case.)

Anti-dog Lawsuit "Wins" but Loses
After nearly two years of public hearings and countless hours of staff study, it was clear that by an overwhelming margin the community supported the continuation of off-leash recreation at Lighthouse Field and Its Beach. The Santa Cruz City Council voted unanimously in 2003 to continue the compromise solution introduced in 1993, making off-leash access available for half of the day.

A small disgruntled group calling itself "Beach Rescue" couldn't live with the decision. Having lost in the court of public opinion, they hired Susan Brandt-Hawley, a high powered attorney who specializes in this kind of case. They went to the California Superior Court (See the original lawsuit) and they lost completely, but appealed. In August, 2005 the appeal court ruled against them on most points, but did agree that the City's attempt to change the park General Plan might lead to an increase in the number of people with dogs. The court did not say there was a problem with the current level, but only that the City had not studied a possible increase. (See the Appeals Court Decision) It was ruled that the City had to set aside the plan revision, nothing more.

The disgruntled group completely failed to achieve its real goal: to drive out the community of people with dogs. But since their lawsuit was "won" (on the plan revision only) the court awarded them reimbursement of their attorneys' fees. Brandt-Hawley submitted a fee claim against the City of Santa Cruz which State Parks General Counsel Bradly Torgan described as "exorbitant." (See Torgan letter of 9/28/05)

Back-Room Meetings Begin
Bradly Torgan had met Susan Brandt-Hawley during a legal seminar in Santa Monica. For reasons unknown to us, Torgan and/or other State Parks officials apparently hatched a plan to give Brandt-Hawley what she couldn't win in court. On September 28, 2005, Torgan wrote to Santa Cruz City Attorney John Barisone stating his desire to give the lawsuit plaintiffs the result they wanted, and offering the City a financial incentive to change its policy and subvert the earlier decision reached by an open democratic process. State Parks would kick in some cash and Torgan would arrange for Brandt-Hawley to reduce her exorbitant fee demand, in exchange for letting her win through a fee settlement agreement with the City. (See Torgan letter of 9/28/05)

The Silent Deal is Done
Unfortunately the City Attorney agreed. But there was a catch: The City needed "political cover" (See page 1 of Torgan's Declaration) and did not want to take full responsibility for the decision. So on October 19, Barisone ghost-wrote a letter that Torgan would then send back to Barisone. (See Barisone letter of October 19, 2005) This letter was designed to make it appear that State Parks had compelling policy and legal reasons to expel people with off-leash dogs while enabling the City to be silent about the City's surrender agreement.

On October 26, 2005, Torgan sent a letter to the City that was almost word-for-word identical to Barisone's ghost-writing. (See Torgan letter of October 26) This letter told the City that people with off-leash dogs were to be expelled from the park when the City/State 30 year operating agreement expired on November 15, 2007.

So behind the scenes, the City made a legal commitment to Brandt-Hawley and her clients. The City surrendered the community interest and agreed it would no longer operate Lighthouse Field State Beach with off-leash access, in exchange for the financial incentive. FOLF requested and obtained a copy of the settlement agreement. (See documents recently provided by the City Attorney.)

A Wrong Decision, Wrongly Made
This major land-use policy decision was made with no public review, no public comment and none of the required study.

The City/State operating agreement for Lighthouse Field had an automatic 20 year renewal if the parties wanted to take advantage of it. (See the Operating Agreement, paragraph 18.) Other than the threat by a disgruntled group to keep suing, there was nothing to prevent the City and State from simply renewing the agreement. While State Parks doesn’t seem to like people with dogs, no law prevents them from authorizing off-leash recreation.  (See our analysis of the applicable law.)

The obvious solution of simply renewing the operating agreement for 20 more years at no added cost could no longer be considered because the City had already made other commitments.

Post-Disclosure Commentary
In the November 22 Santa Cruz Sentinel, City Attorney John Barisone said: "The state and the court said we had to stop the off-leash hours." That is incorrect: The court never said any such thing.  State Parks did (and still does) desire to eliminate people with off-leash dogs, but the City's October 2005 surrender agreement was driven by financial incentives connected to the settlement of attorneys' fees.

The documents uncovered by FOLF's legal action paint a bad picture. The City Attorney has a different view, and we're making his view available to you. See documents recently provided by the City Attorney.

For two years the City was silent about this critical deal.  In early December 2007, the City Attorney was quoted as saying he had informed FOLF about the surrender agreement in late 2005.  FOLF Board members did indeed meet with him at that time and there was a discussion of the overall situation.  It's certainly possible that Mr. Barisone made some oblique reference to the final settlement deal, and perhaps people with legal training would have known to ask more questions.  We accept that Mr. Barisone honestly believes he made such a disclosure.  However, the October 2005 surrender agreement was of such enormous negative impact that it is simply not possible that any FOLF Board member could have understood it existed without that fact being burned indelibly into memory.

We'll continue to provide the most accurate information we can, including original documents so you can make your own judgment.  We welcome additional comments or updates from public officials.