1 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
2 FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE
3
4
LOUIS A. DELMONICO, MAUREEN R. )
5 DELMONICO, ANDREW L. DELMONICO, )
SUSAN L. DELMONICO (by LOUIS A. )
6 DELMONICO), GREGORY L. DELMONICO )
(by LOUIS A. DELMONICO) and HELEN )
7 BELMONTE, )
)
8 Plaintiffs, )
vs. ) CASE NO. 718071
9 )
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, METROPOLITAN ) VOLUME III
10 WATER DISTRICT, THE COUNTY OF )
ORANGE, ORANGE COUNTY FLOOD )
11 CONTROL DISTRICT, ORANGE COUNTY )
SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 2, and )
12 DOES 1 through 200, )
)
13 Defendants. )
___________________________________)
14
15
16 Deposition of: GERALD M. STEINER
17 Taken on: June 13, 1997
18 Pages 361 through 565
19
Reported by: Kelly J. Schindele, CSR No. 8357, RPR
20 Certified Realtime Reporter
21
22
23
24
25
361
1 Deposition of GERALD M. STEINER,
2 VOLUME III, taken before Kelly J. Schindele, a
3 Certified Shorthand Reporter for the State of
4 California, with principal office in the County of
5 Orange, commencing at 9:08 a.m., Friday, June 13,
6 1997, at the law offices of Rutan & Tucker, 611
7 Anton Boulevard, Suite 1400, Costa Mesa, California.
8
9 APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL:
10
FOR PLAINTIFFS: LAW OFFICES OF
11 PILLSBURY MADISON & SUTRO
BY: WILLIAM E. STONER, ESQ.
12 725 South Figueroa Street
Suite 1200
13 Los Angeles, California
90017-2513
14
FOR THE CITY LAW OFFICES OF
15 OF ANAHEIM: RUTAN & TUCKER
BY: THOMAS S. SALINGER, ESQ.
16 611 Anton Boulevard
Suite 1400
17 Costa Mesa, California 92628
18 FOR HOECHST LAW OFFICES OF
CELANESE SCHWARTZ, WISOT & WILSON
19 CORPORATION: BY: BRUCE E. SCHWARTZ, ESQ.
315 South Beverly Drive
20 Suite 315
Beverly Hills, California 90212
21
FOR ANAHEIM LAW OFFICES OF COOKSEY,
22 RIDGE ESTATE HOWARD, MARTIN & TOOLEN
OWNERS BY: SUSAN LONG, ESQ.
23 ASSOCIATION: 535 Anton Boulevard
Tenth Floor
24 Costa Mesa, California 92626
25
362
1 I N D E X
2 Examination by:
3 Page
4 Mr. Salinger ------------------------- 365, 430
5 Ms. Long ------------------------- 429
6
7 EXHIBITS
8 Page
Defendant's Description Marked
9
55 Landslide Update #7 386
10
56 Landslide Update #8 416
11
57 5/20/93 letter to Mayor 426
12 Tom Daly from Gerald
Steiner
13
58 11/22/93 letter to Mayor 430
14 Tom Daly from Gerald Steiner;
11/19/93 letter to Dear
15 Neighbor from Gerald Steiner
16 59 Plaintiff's Responses to 511
the City of Anaheim's
17 Form Interrogatories
18 60 Photographs 512
19 61 Photographs 519
20 62 Floor plan of first floor 519
21 63 Floor plan of second floor 520
22 64 Plans 546
23 65 4/7/94 letter to Michael 551
Rubin from Gerald Steiner
24
25
363
1 EXHIBITS
(CONTINUED)
2
Page
3 Defendant's Description Marked
4 66 4/14/94 letter to Gerald 552
Steiner from Mark McLarty,
5 and attachments
6 67 5/18/93 Orange County Register 557
article entitled "County Scan"
7
68 L.A. Times newspaper article 558
8 Entitled "Anaheim Slide Turns
Resident Into Activist"
9
69 Orange County Register 561
10 article entitled "A tale
of two landslides: Cities'
11 reactions differ"
12
13
QUESTIONS WITNESS INSTRUCTED NOT TO ANSWER
14 PAGE LINE
411 24
15 422 2
451 15
16 453 10
553 16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
364
1 GERALD M. STEINER,
2 called as a witness by and on behalf of the
3 Defendant, and having been first duly sworn by the
4 Certified Shorthand Reporter, was examined and
5 testified as follows:
6
7 EXAMINATION
8 BY MR. SALINGER:
9 Q. Mr. Steiner, this is the third session
10 of your deposition. You understand that you're
11 still under oath so your testimony is as if given in
12 a court of law?
13 A. Yes, I do.
14 Q. Is there any reason that you cannot
15 give your best testimony here today?
16 A. No, there isn't.
17 Q. Have you talked to anyone between the
18 second session and today regarding this deposition,
19 the lawsuit, your house or the landslide?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Anyone other than your wife or your
22 attorney?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Who did you talk to?
25 A. Numerous people.
365
1 Q. Who are they?
2 A. Everybody from the governor on down.
3 Q. Well, I won't go into your conversation
4 with Pete Wilson, but when you say "numerous
5 people," can you give me an idea of how many?
6 MR. STONER: How many people that he's
7 mentioned or discussed the fact he's in a lawsuit
8 within the past 30 days?
9 MR. SALINGER: How many people he's talked --
10 the question is, how many people that he's talked to
11 about this deposition, the lawsuit, his house or the
12 landslide since the last session of his deposition.
13 THE WITNESS: Possibly 50.
14 BY MR. SALINGER:
15 Q. Of those 50, how many of them did you
16 discuss what transpired in these depositions with?
17 A. Those 50, yes.
18 Q. Can you give me an idea generically
19 whether we're talking about fellow homeowners or
20 workers or just sort of generically without giving
21 me names who those people are.
22 A. The answer is "yes" to those questions.
23 Q. So they are homeowners and fellow
24 workers. Anyone else?
25 A. Yes. I have discussed it with various
366
1 government agencies.
2 Q. What representatives of government
3 agencies?
4 A. Taxing bodies.
5 Q. This has to do with your appeal of the
6 property tax assessment against you?
7 A. No. It has to do with the harassment
8 I'm receiving by the Franchise Tax Board.
9 Q. And that has to do with what? Strike
10 that.
11 What --
12 A. They're asking the same questions you
13 are, verbatim, verbatim, verbatim.
14 Q. What is the context in which those
15 questions come up? Is there some sort of appeal or
16 proceeding that you have pending with the Franchise
17 Tax Board?
18 MR. STONER: And this is calculated to lead
19 to the discovery of admissible evidence, what he
20 told the Franchise Tax Board representatives about
21 his prior deposition?
22 MR. SALINGER: Yeah.
23 THE WITNESS: Please repeat the question.
24 MR. SALINGER: Can you read the question,
25 please.
367
1 THE REPORTER: "What is the context in which
2 those questions come up? Is there some sort of
3 appeal or proceeding that you have pending with the
4 Franchise Tax Board?"
5 MR. STONER: Objection. Compound. There's
6 two questions there.
7 BY MR. SALINGER:
8 Q. You're free to answer, Mr. Steiner.
9 MR. STONER: Make it clear on the record
10 which of his two questions you're answering if he
11 won't break it down.
12 THE WITNESS: I am not sure as to the
13 question. I find it confusing.
14 BY MR. SALINGER:
15 Q. Fair enough. Is there a proceeding
16 that you have pending with the Franchise Tax Board?
17 A. Yes, for the past eight months.
18 Q. And what is the nature of that
19 proceeding?
20 A. They're going over my taxes.
21 Q. And does this relate somehow to your
22 house on Avenida de Santiago?
23 A. Yes, it does.
24 Q. Can you tell me what that relationship
25 is?
368
1 A. The landslide.
2 Q. Is there a claim that you made in
3 connection with your house that is being disputed by
4 the Franchise Tax Board?
5 A. They have not found anything to
6 dispute. They are just going through my records.
7 Q. Are you represented by counsel in
8 connection with that proceeding?
9 A. Not so far.
10 Q. Was there any hearing or meeting within
11 the last 30 days in connection with that proceeding?
12 A. No, there wasn't a hearing or a
13 meeting.
14 Q. There was something that caused you to
15 talk to the Franchise Tax Board in which they asked
16 you a number of questions within the last 30 days;
17 is that --
18 A. It's been going on for eight months.
19 Q. Is there something specific that
20 happened within the last 30 days?
21 A. Page 189.
22 Q. Page 189?
23 A. Of the deposition.
24 Q. Okay. Page 189 of the deposition has
25 to do with some questions about Interval House. Is
369
1 that involved in -- your transaction with Interval
2 House, is that involved in your dispute with the
3 Franchise Tax Board?
4 A. I don't have a dispute with them. I'm
5 being harassed by them.
6 Q. Well, you indicated that 189, page 189,
7 somehow has to do with your involvement with the
8 Franchise Tax Board.
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Can you tell me what page 189 has to do
11 with your involvement with the Franchise Tax Board?
12 | A. | | The question you asked me on page 189, |
13 | | 24 hours prior to that the state asked me the same |
14 | | question word for word. |
15 | MR. STONER: | | Gee, what a coincidence. |
16 BY MR. SALINGER:
17 Q. What representative of the state asked
18 you that question?
19 A. Luxner.
20 Q. Pardon?
21 A. Luxner, Andrew Luxner.
22 Q. And are you implying, Mr. Steiner, that
23 there's some relationship between the Franchise Tax
24 Board asking you that question and my asking you
25 that question 24 hours later?
370
1 A. Explicitly, yes.
2 Q. And what do you believe that
3 relationship is?
4 A. You're both in the same boat, fishing
5 with the same rod.
6 Q. Maybe there are fish in that lake.
7 Anyway --
8 A. So you admit it.
9 Q. I'm saying maybe there are fish in that
10 lake.
11 A. You admit it.
12 Q. I said what I said, Mr. Steiner.
13 MR. STONER: It sounded like it to me.
14 THE WITNESS: Thank you, sir.
15 BY MR. SALINGER:
16 Q. You're absolutely welcome.
17 MR. SCHWARTZ: Maybe there's a reason I've
18 been sending Kathy to these rather than attending
19 myself.
20 MR. STONER: We get right to the meat of the
21 issues here.
22 BY MR. SALINGER:
23 Q. Okay, Mr. Steiner. Since you said
24 there were 50 people, approximately, that you
25 discussed your deposition, lawsuit, your house or
371
1 the landslide in the last -- since the last session
2 of your deposition, any other government agency
3 other than the Franchise Tax Board that's in that
4 category?
5 A. The other side of the Franchise Tax
6 Board, the -- what do they call themselves?
7 Q. Are you talking about state agency?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. State Board of Equalization?
10 A. Equalization, yes. I keep on thinking
11 of "Inequalization," but it's "Equalization."
12 Q. Who did you talk to with the State
13 Board of Equalization within the last 30 days?
14 A. I don't recall their name.
15 Q. What was the reason for that
16 conversation?
17 A. To tie it all together -- when they
18 go through me personally, they also go through
19 the business at the same time. They just go from
20 one to the other. So that's the reason.
21 Q. Is there any other governmental agency
22 that you've discussed those topics with within the
23 last 30 days?
24 A. Not so far.
25 Q. Anyone other than homeowners, workers,
372
1 people who work in your business or people involved
2 with government agencies, that you discussed those
3 topics with within the last 30 days?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Whom?
6 A. L.A. Times.
7 Q. Who at the L.A. Times?
8 A. Matt Lait.
9 Q. Anyone else?
10 A. That's all so far.
11 Q. Have you gone back and reviewed any
12 documents in connection with the landslide or your
13 house in the last 30 days -- or in the days since
14 your last session of your deposition?
15 A. You haven't requested it and I haven't
16 done it.
17 Q. Have you gone back and -- strike that.
18 Have you been to your house on Avenida
19 de Santiago in that time frame?
20 A. No, I haven't.
21 Q. Have you talked to anyone from Interval
22 House in that time frame?
23 A. No, I haven't.
24 Q. Have you looked at your Rolodex or done
25 anything else to determine who the lady was who gave
373
1 you the map, the lady you described at the last
2 session as a former employee of the County of
3 Orange?
4 A. As I recall, you didn't request it of
5 me and I didn't. I haven't, no.
6 Q. Have you recalled anything in the
7 interim that might help identify her?
8 A. No, I haven't.
9 Q. At the last session of your deposition
10 we were talking about the newsletters or fliers when
11 we broke. Do you happen to have the exhibits from
12 that session in front of you?
13 MR. STONER: No.
14 THE WITNESS: Do you see them?
15 BY MR. SALINGER:
16 Q. No, I don't see anything in front of
17 you, but I was wondering, there could be a folder
18 there below the table.
19 In any event, let me put in front of
20 you Exhibit 50. This is the newsletter that says
21 "Public Notice" on the top.
22 Do you see in the second paragraph from
23 the bottom there's a reference to "This is the
24 second smoking gun found in the joined hands of
25 Texaco and the City of Anaheim"?
374
1 What were you referring to in that
2 paragraph as "two smoking guns"?
3 A. I haven't read this.
4 Q. Okay. Well, if you'd like to take a
5 moment or two to read it.
6 A. I think it's self-explanatory.
7 Q. Well, tell me what you had in mind,
8 what two smoking guns you were referring to.
9 A. The first was, as stated, 1978 and the
10 second in 1979.
11 Q. So --
12 A. The two landslides are the two smoking
13 guns.
14 Q. As you sit here today, do you have any
15 idea what facts you had in support of the statement
16 that there was a landslide that occurred in Rimwood
17 in 1978?
18 A. I'd have to review everything.
19 Q. What would you have to review?
20 MR. STONER: Objection. Calls for
21 speculation.
22 THE WITNESS: Everything.
23 BY MR. SALINGER:
24 Q. Well, just give me an idea of what
25 you'd have to review.
375
1 A. Everything.
2 Q. Sir, I don't know -- when you say
3 "everything," I don't know whether you're talking
4 about papers you have at your house. I just have no
5 idea what you're talking about when you say
6 "everything."
7 A. Everything that was turned in. I'd
8 have to review everything that was turned in.
9 Q. Everything that was turned in --
10 A. By me and that was made available to
11 you.
12 Q. You mean you'd have to review all the
13 documents that you produced in this case?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. So as you sit here today, you have no
16 independent knowledge of what facts you had in
17 support of that statement that there was a landslide
18 that occurred on Rimwood in 1978; is that accurate?
19 A. I'd have to review the documents.
20 Q. I'm saying, without reviewing those
21 documents, do you have any knowledge of what facts
22 you had in support of that statement?
23 A. Without reviewing those documents, I
24 would be making an inaccurate statement.
25 Q. So is it correct, then, Mr. Steiner,
376
1 that you don't have any information in your head
2 right now regarding those -- or that landslide, the
3 1978?
4 A. I do not wish to make an inaccurate
5 statement. Did you wish me to make an inaccurate
6 statement?
7 Q. No, sir. I'm just asking you to tell
8 me what information, if any, you have beyond those
9 documents that you alluded to.
10 A. None. I have no other information than
11 those documents.
12 Q. And you believe in those documents that
13 you submitted to us in this lawsuit is some
14 information pertaining to a landslide on Rimwood in
15 1978; is that the case?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Do you know who provided you those
18 documents?
19 A. I don't recall.
20 Q. Was it Pam -- is it Dogert?
21 A. I don't recall. And her name is
22 Dogris. We decided that last time.
23 Q. Okay. Pardon me.
24 A. Dyslexia again.
25 Q. Well, just mispronunciation.
377
1 In that newsletter that's in front of
2 you, when you say -- and you wrote this newsletter,
3 correct?
4 A. Yes, I did.
5 Q. At the very top when you say in bold
6 "Anaheim knew, Texaco knew," you're -- is it your
7 intent to say that Anaheim knew about these existing
8 landslides?
9 A. Yes, positively.
10 Q. And did you have any idea when you said
11 that as to who in the City of Anaheim knew, who
12 specifically?
13 A. My feeling is that everybody knew.
14 Q. And so it was your feeling then and now
15 that because these documents -- or because certain
16 documents were in the city files, that everyone with
17 the city knew of existing landslides in the Anaheim
18 Hills area?
19 A. Everybody in power, yes.
20 Q. And these documents that you believe
21 caused the City of Anaheim to know, these are
22 documents that you believe you produced to the city
23 in this litigation?
24 A. Documents that have been produced, yes.
25 Q. Documents that have been produced by
378
1 you to the city, can you just generally describe to
2 me which documents you produced you believe contain
3 this information?
4 A. The EIRs have blood all over them.
5 Q. Anything in addition to the EIRs?
6 A. There are many others.
7 Q. Have you read any of the EIRs that
8 pertain to development in this area in total, in
9 other words, the entire EIR?
10 A. I have never received an EIR, set of
11 EIRs with covers on them. So the answer to your
12 question is "no."
13 Q. You just received portions from one of
14 the homeowners?
15 A. The pertinent facts, the pertinent
16 facts.
17 Q. From Pam, correct? She's the one who
18 provided you portions of the EIRs?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Had you asked her to review the EIRs?
21 A. Pardon me?
22 Q. Had you asked her to review the EIRs?
23 A. No.
24 Q. Do you know how she came to review the
25 EIRs and provide them to you?
379
1 A. She's very conscientious.
2 Q. Did you ever have any discussion with
3 her about how she came to review the EIRs and
4 provide portions of them to you?
5 A. I don't recall.
6 Q. Did you have any discussion with her in
7 the last 30 days?
8 A. Yes, I did.
9 Q. About what?
10 A. A wedding.
11 Q. Anything pertaining to this lawsuit?
12 A. I mentioned the tie-in between the --
13 between you and Mr. Luxner.
14 Q. Now I'd like to ask you some follow-up
15 questions as to landslide update number 5, which was
16 marked at the last session as Exhibit 54.
17 See the portion of that flier that --
18 where you say, "The City of Anaheim plans to keep us
19 divided by addressing each of the associations
20 separately," and it goes on.
21 What was your basis for believing that
22 the City of Anaheim was addressing the homeowner
23 associations separately?
24 A. I don't recall.
25 Q. And the fact --
380
1 MR. STONER: I think that was the answer you
2 gave at your last deposition.
3 BY MR. SALINGER:
4 Q. In fact, you attended a lot of
5 meetings, didn't you, where the city invited all of
6 the homeowners in the impacted area?
7 MR. STONER: Objection.
8 THE WITNESS: They did segregate us too.
9 They did both.
10 BY MR. SALINGER:
11 Q. How did they segregate you?
12 A. As I recall, some of the meetings were
13 only for specific homeowners.
14 Q. It was a meeting for people who wanted
15 to deal with the SBA, correct?
16 A. There were meetings for specific
17 homeowners.
18 Q. Can you tell me what meetings for
19 specific homeowners you have in mind?
20 A. They classified us, some of us, as
21 being more impacted than others, so they eliminated
22 those that weren't impacted -- or that they felt
23 weren't as impacted from those meetings.
24 Q. Were there any meetings that the city
25 was responsible for calling that were just by
381
1 individual associations?
2 A. I don't recall.
3 Q. Did you attend any such meetings?
4 A. I don't recall.
5 Q. There were a number of meetings, were
6 there not, called by the city in which any homeowner
7 in Anaheim Hills could attend?
8 A. That is very true, and the opposite is
9 also true.
10 Q. And the opposite being that there were
11 some that were segregated for certain homeowners?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. But you don't recall the nature of the
14 segregation at this time?
15 MR. STONER: Other than what he's just
16 testified to. Asked and answered. He's just
17 explained there's some impacted, some less impacted
18 in the city's judgment and they were excluded. He's
19 already answered that question.
20 BY MR. SALINGER:
21 Q. Well, can you tell me the line that you
22 believe that was drawn by the city that excluded
23 some that were, in your words, less impacted?
24 MR. STONER: Objection. Vague.
25 THE WITNESS: Very vague.
382
1 BY MR. SALINGER:
2 Q. Okay. I'll try again, Mr. Steiner.
3 You've indicated that there were some
4 meetings you believe that the city called where less
5 impacted people were excluded. Do you recall
6 exactly how that was done, whether it was a
7 geographical area involved or by street or just
8 anything about how that was done by the city?
9 MR. STONER: Objection. No foundation, calls
10 for speculation.
11 THE WITNESS: I don't know that -- to my
12 knowledge it was, they picked certain people and
13 excluded others.
14 BY MR. SALINGER:
15 Q. Were you included in those meetings?
16 A. Yes, I was.
17 Q. And did you attend those meetings?
18 A. Yes, I did.
19 Q. Were those meetings -- strike that.
20 Was the line that was drawn by the city
21 at any meeting that you're aware of based upon who
22 was evacuated and who wasn't evacuated?
23 A. Yes, that was a line.
24 Q. Were you aware that certain homeowners
25 who were evacuated expressed to the city at the time
383
1 that they wanted to have a meeting just of the
2 evacuated homeowners?
3 A. There was a dichotomy of opinions.
4 Q. So there were some homeowners who
5 wanted a certain amount of segregation, to use your
6 word, for at least one meeting; isn't that correct?
7 MR. STONER: Objection. No foundation, calls
8 for speculation.
9 THE WITNESS: Did I use the word
10 "segregation"?
11 THE REPORTER: No.
12 THE WITNESS: I didn't use the word
13 "segregation." You used the word "segregation,"
14 sir.
15 BY MR. SALINGER:
16 Q. Sir, I thought you did, but we can
17 proceed.
18 A. I don't believe in segregation.
19 Q. I won't get into a debate with you, but
20 "segregation" has lots of connotations.
21 MR. STONER: Just ask your question.
22 MR. SALINGER: Let me finish, Mr. Stoner.
23 You can make your statement.
24 MR. STONER: You're not allowed to talk to
25 the witness. You're allowed to ask questions.
384
1 You're not allowed to talk to the witness.
2 MR. SALINGER: I'll do what I want to do and
3 you can do what you see fit.
4 MR. STONER: Well, if you won't --
5 BY MR. SALINGER:
6 Q. "Segregation" means a lot of different
7 things, Mr. Steiner. I'm sorry if I offended you.
8 I did not intend to make any sort of racial
9 connotation with that.
10 MR. STONER: Please proceed with your
11 questions, Mr. Salinger.
12 BY MR. SALINGER:
13 Q. So you believe, Mr. Steiner, that there
14 were meetings that took place in the beginning of
15 1993 in which the city improperly excluded certain
16 homeowners?
17 A. Yes, I do.
18 Q. But you do acknowledge that there was a
19 difference of opinion among the homeowners as to
20 that point?
21 A. Yes, I do.
22 Q. And you didn't mention that -- strike
23 that.
24 I'd like to show you now, Mr. Steiner,
25 another document. It's another flier prepared by
385
1 you, I believe. It's captioned "Landslide Update
2 Number 7."
3 (Defendant's Exhibit 55 was marked for
4 identification by the Certified Shorthand Reporter,
5 a copy of which is attached hereto.)
6 (Discussion was held off the record.)
7 BY MR. SALINGER:
8 Q. Regarding this exhibit, landslide
9 update number 7, Mr. Steiner, you prepared this one
10 as well?
11 A. Yes, I did.
12 Q. And you believed the information
13 contained in here was accurate at the time you
14 prepared it?
15 A. Yes, I do.
16 Q. And you still believe that today?
17 A. I haven't read it.
18 Q. Why don't you read it, then, and tell
19 me whether you believe this information here is
20 accurate.
21 A. I think it's very well written,
22 actually.
23 Q. My question, Mr. Steiner, didn't have
24 to do with whether or not it was well written or
25 not, but whether you still today believe that the
386
1 information contained in landslide update number 7
2 is accurate.
3 A. Yes, I do. I think after "The Smoking
4 Cannon," it is extremely accurate. The first
5 paragraph did have some flare to it, I'd say --
6 or the first two paragraphs. But after that,
7 everything else is, to my knowledge, exact and true.
8 Q. I'm not sure I understand the --
9 A. Oh, I call it "Disasterland" and I
10 use -- I call it "Blunder Mountain."
11 Q. I see.
12 A. So that's -- those statements are
13 somewhat facetious even though they accurately
14 describe the situation.
15 Q. So it's accurate, then, that when you
16 at this meeting were looking at this cut-and-fill
17 map, you, to use your words, quote, "finally
18 realized," closed quote, what the cause of the
19 disaster was?
20 A. Yes, yes. That's very true, and I hope
21 you haven't destroyed that map either.
22 Q. Now, the fifth paragraph, the one that
23 starts out with "In order to create Serrano Street,"
24 the last sentence of that paragraph is a reference
25 to what you believed happened in Anaheim Hills was
387
1 "exactly the same situation as when Caltrans was
2 found liable for damages incurred due to their
3 widening of Pacific Coast Highway."
4 Can you tell me what situation you're
5 referring to in that sentence?
6 A. I believe, though it actually has
7 happened, to my knowledge, more than once, that
8 Caltrans has been found liable for removing lateral
9 support causing landslides. That one I believe was
10 up north, north of L.A.
11 Q. In the Malibu area?
12 A. I believe it was Malibu. That's what I
13 was referring to.
14 Q. Where did you get that information
15 from?
16 A. My research.
17 Q. What research did you do?
18 A. Everything I've turned in, all the
19 documents.
20 Q. I can represent you haven't turned in
21 anything having to do with the Malibu area, and I'm
22 wondering what documents you looked at regarding the
23 Malibu area.
24 A. To my knowledge, it was the Register.
25 Q. Was it an article in the Register?
388
1 A. To my knowledge it was an article in
2 the Register, in my mind's eye.
3 Q. The next paragraph talks about
4 compacting fill to a density of 92 percent -- or
5 "probably 92 percent." Where did you get that
6 information from?
7 A. That was from a contractor.
8 Q. Do you recall the name of the
9 contractor?
10 A. No, I don't. I mentioned him in a
11 previous -- in my previous testimony.
12 Q. You mentioned somebody who called you.
13 A. Right, in Laguna Hills, I believe he
14 is.
15 Q. Right.
16 A. Same person.
17 Q. Did you call anyone to obtain any
18 information for this newsletter, landslide update
19 number 7?
20 A. I don't recall.
21 Q. Did you place any call to anyone to
22 obtain any information for any of your newsletters
23 or fliers?
24 A. I was in constant communication at that
25 time with numerous people.
389
1 Q. Can you give me the name of any one of
2 those people?
3 A. The homeowners. Might as well put
4 everything on Pam. Pam Dogris, I contacted her
5 during this time.
6 Q. Anyone other than Pam Dogris that you
7 haven't already --
8 A. Most of the homeowners. I've talked to
9 many of the homeowners. This time I was extremely
10 active and I literally talked to dozens of
11 homeowners. Probably 50 of the homeowners I would
12 have talked to.
13 Q. Anyone that supplied you information
14 for this particular newsletter?
15 A. I don't recall.
16 Q. Anyone that you believe supplied you
17 information for any of the newsletters?
18 A. They all did. That was the purpose of
19 me contacting and talking to them. They all did.
20 Q. Any name that you can recall other than
21 Pam Dogris?
22 A. Steve.
23 Q. What's Steve's last name?
24 A. Dogris.
25 Q. Anyone else?
390
1 A. Oh, the fireman.
2 Q. Do you know his name?
3 A. No, I don't recall his name.
4 Arlen Steiner. That's an easy one to
5 remember.
6 Q. I would assume so.
7 What information did Mr. Steiner give
8 you?
9 A. Oh, just as far as the -- as far as
10 this, I don't recall.
11 Q. Any other homeowners you can recall by
12 name that you talked to about your newsletters?
13 A. I -- as I said, I talked to them all.
14 You could really get out a -- if you have a list of
15 the homeowners, I'll go down and mark which ones I
16 talked to.
17 Q. Well, any that you can, as you sit here
18 today, recall by name that you talked to other than
19 the ones you've already told us about?
20 A. Oh, there's a CPA who's down the street
21 from us.
22 Q. On Avenida de Santiago?
23 A. Yes. And then there's the train man
24 who's down the street from us.
25 Q. Cliff Springmeier?
391
1 A. Yeah, Cliff Springmeier.
2 And there's a fella that works for
3 Ford, and there's a little old lady who always
4 called me every other day. She had -- her hair was
5 about as thick as mine. I don't recall her name,
6 but she was a widow. She was telling me about
7 the -- you know, she had lost everything in this.
8 Q. Did she live on Avenida de Santiago?
9 A. No, no. She was off Serrano. I don't
10 know what street it was. I don't recall the street
11 name.
12 Q. Any other homeowners you can recall
13 getting information from in connection with your
14 publication of these fliers and that you can recall
15 by name?
16 A. I'm terrible with names. I had to look
17 your name up and we've been here across the -- and
18 the only reason I know his name is my father wanted
19 to change his name to his name.
20 And everybody else here -- I have to
21 apologize, I don't know your name either.
22 Q. I understand, and if you don't recall,
23 you don't recall.
24 So I gather you're saying you've given
25 us --
392
1 A. I'm terrible with names. I'm great
2 with faces, I'm great with events, things of that
3 nature, but as far as names, they are transparent to
4 my mind.
5 Q. So then you do not recall any other
6 names, correct?
7 A. My wife said that I don't know her
8 first name. Now, that's untrue, but she has said
9 that.
10 Q. Did you talk to any of the homeowners
11 about what happened in Malibu where Caltrans was
12 found liable?
13 A. I'm sure that was brought up as
14 discussions, but as far as actual conversations, I
15 don't recall.
16 Q. In landslide update number 7, the
17 paragraph that has the "92 percent compaction," the
18 sentence immediately below that reads, "A side
19 effect to this compaction process is that it plugs
20 up the natural rivers and springs that run beneath
21 the earth's surface, emptying into the valleys."
22 Who told you about the natural rivers
23 and springs that run beneath the earth's surface?
24 A. The contractor and actually Mark --
25 Mark McLarty, and that was part of the discussions
393
1 with him.
2 Q. Anyone else?
3 A. Mr. Springmeier was one that was
4 discussing that frequently.
5 Q. Mr. McLarty talked to you about
6 underground rivers?
7 A. That, I don't know. That -- we talked
8 about natural flow and the fact that the water
9 drains into the valleys naturally and that's their
10 course, and once those valleys are plugged -- there's
11 a product -- I'm not sure -- I think it's called
12 hardboard. Where you take wood and you compress it
13 with glue, you lose the whole grain. You end up
14 with something that's solid, but you've lost any
15 flow, and that's exactly what happened when they
16 compacted the earth in those valleys. They
17 eliminated -- they might as well have been putting
18 concrete in there, because there's no flow going to
19 go through that land.
20 Q. Did this contractor who called you who
21 you said either lived in Laguna Niguel or worked in
22 that area --
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. -- had he done work in Anaheim Hills?
25 MR. STONER: Objection. No foundation, calls
394
1 for speculation.
2 THE WITNESS: I really don't recall.
3 BY MR. SALINGER:
4 Q. Did you talk to anyone in the course of
5 preparing your newsletters who was actually involved
6 in the development of the Anaheim Hills area?
7 A. Yes. The woman that I had mentioned
8 before, and there was -- I believe I had mentioned a
9 man too.
10 Q. I don't recall you mentioning a man.
11 Who's this man?
12 A. He was in the city early on, or the --
13 he was -- he worked in the --
14 (Interruption at the door.)
15 THE WITNESS: I believe he worked in the
16 city.
17 BY MR. SALINGER:
18 Q. Do you recall his name?
19 A. No, I don't.
20 Q. How did you come to talk to this man?
21 A. He called me.
22 Q. Did he call you sometime around the
23 beginning of 1993?
24 A. Yes. It would have been probably
25 around February, I would think.
395
1 Q. Did you talk to him on more than one
2 occasion?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. How many times did you talk to him?
5 A. I believe I talked to him about three
6 or four times.
7 Q. Did he always call you?
8 A. No. I called him after -- I believe I
9 called him the following times.
10 Q. And he's somebody who was a former
11 employee of the City of Anaheim?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Do you know --
14 A. Though he might have been elected too.
15 I'm not sure.
16 Q. Do you know what position?
17 A. Again, I'd be inaccurate if I said, and
18 I don't wish to be inaccurate.
19 Q. I understand.
20 Did you take any notes of any of your
21 conversations with this individual?
22 A. No. I don't normally take notes.
23 Q. Did you ever meet with him?
24 A. No, I have never met with him.
25 Q. Did he ever provide you documents?
396
1 A. No, he never provided me documents.
2 Q. What information did he provide you?
3 A. History. Just the -- what was going
4 on, the reasons, things like that. He's the one
5 that explained to me the purpose of the city
6 approving the homes being built on the landslide
7 area, knowingly approving of homes being built on
8 the landslide area, the fact that they needed --
9 Anaheim needed an area for owners of businesses to
10 live.
11 He's the one that told me that they
12 didn't want to allow them to go further south and
13 bring their businesses with them.
14 Q. What else did he tell you in that
15 regard?
16 A. The whole history.
17 Q. Tell me as best as you can recall what
18 he told you.
19 A. That I -- actually, I just have. But
20 he reviewed -- he reviewed the Texaco situation, all
21 of those areas.
22 Q. When you say "the Texaco situation,"
23 can you tell me what he told you in that regard?
24 A. Again, I'd probably be inaccurate on
25 what he said.
397
1 Q. Well, give me your best recollection
2 what he said.
3 A. Oh, the fact that -- well, he went over
4 the acreage, he went over litigation, that it was
5 being put in a -- some sort of a nature preserve
6 category, and generally he actually was a wealth of
7 knowledge for me. That's why I called him probably
8 three times afterwards.
9 Q. Do you still have his number?
10 A. I'm sure I have his number in my
11 Rolodex. I feel that I have his number in my
12 Rolodex. I haven't looked for it.
13 Q. Was his name John Anderson?
14 A. Not to my knowledge.
15 Q. Was it Woody Higdon?
16 A. Not to my knowledge.
17 Q. How about Monte Ray?
18 A. Monte Python, but not Monte Ray.
19 Q. So as you sit here today, you have no
20 recollection of what his name is; is that accurate?
21 A. I believe his first name was Bill.
22 Q. You said he mentioned something about
23 litigation. What did he tell you about litigation?
24 A. Just that Texaco had been involved in
25 litigation over the properties, but I don't recall
398
1 it accurately.
2 Q. So, in other words, you don't recall
3 anything beyond what you've told us about litigation
4 that you can say under oath; is that what you're
5 saying?
6 A. That -- yes, that is true.
7 Q. Regarding the acreage, what did he tell
8 you?
9 A. As I -- as far as that, it was a matter
10 of there was something about putting it into some
11 sort of a reserve and the fact that they wanted to
12 get it back out and they needed some sort of
13 approval from county agents and I believe they
14 were -- there was corruption involved, payoffs,
15 things of that nature, just your normal city
16 politics.
17 Q. Well, corruption and payoffs -- what
18 did he tell you about corruption and payoffs
19 vis-a-vis city politics, namely, the City of
20 Anaheim?
21 A. That, I don't recall.
22 Q. And you alluded to last time that there
23 was some sort of charges brought against the
24 supervisor, county supervisor.
25 A. Yes.
399
1 Q. Is that what you're talking about when
2 you talk about corruption and payoffs?
3 A. Actually, I think it was you that
4 mentioned it was the supervisor.
5 Q. Well, I'm not under oath and not here
6 to testify. Do you recall what this person told you
7 about corruption and payoffs?
8 A. In regards to your statement that it
9 was a supervisor, I believe you are accurate and I
10 believe that it was the -- this is what he was
11 referring to.
12 Q. Did he make any references to
13 corruption and payoffs involving any City of Anaheim
14 officials?
15 A. I don't recall.
16 Q. Did he provide you with any information
17 that is -- or was used by you for this landslide
18 update number 7?
19 A. I don't see it here.
20 Q. Do you recall anything else that this
21 individual told you regarding Anaheim Hills?
22 A. What I have told you is the crux of our
23 conversations.
24 Q. Well, what I need to know, crux or
25 otherwise, is there anything that you can recall
400
1 about those conversations in addition to what you've
2 already told me?
3 A. Not at this time.
4 Q. Is there anything that you have that
5 you believe would refresh your recollection as to
6 the substance of any of those conversations with
7 this individual?
8 A. Yes. If I called him and talked to
9 him.
10 Q. No. Anything that you have?
11 A. No.
12 Q. You said, I believe, that he had
13 formerly been employed by the City of Anaheim or
14 been involved as an elected official with the City
15 of Anaheim.
16 A. I believe both.
17 MR. STONER: Wait. I would prefer you not --
18 I mean, he just periodically gives you a memory test
19 as to what you testified about an hour ago or at the
20 last session, and if you can give me a chance to
21 object. It's highly improper for him to do that.
22 BY MR. SALINGER:
23 Q. Mr. Steiner, do you know, when you
24 spoke to this individual, how long it had been since
25 he had been involved in some capacity with the City
401
1 of Anaheim?
2 A. I believe four or five years.
3 Q. Did he tell you why he was calling you?
4 A. Did he tell me why? He felt that
5 knowledge he had would be of assistance to me.
6 Q. Did he tell you how he happened to call
7 you as one of a number of people who were evacuated
8 from the area?
9 A. My name was in the paper.
10 Q. Regarding your name being in the paper,
11 do you know how your name happened to get in the
12 paper with frequency during that period?
13 A. Malicious gossip.
14 MR. STONER: Objection. Vague.
15 BY MR. SALINGER:
16 Q. Malicious gossip? I'm not certain I
17 know what you mean.
18 Did you during that period, namely,
19 first couple months of 1993, call newspaper
20 reporters on occasion with information regarding the
21 Anaheim Hills area?
22 A. They called me.
23 Q. The first time that you were called by
24 the newspaper, did you have an understanding as to
25 how the newspaper was specifically calling you?
402
1 A. They called all of the evacuees, to my
2 knowledge, that they could get the phone numbers of.
3 Q. These three, four calls that you had
4 with the male individual we've been talking about
5 now for a few minutes, did they all take place in
6 the first couple of months of 1993?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Have you talked to that individual at
9 any time subsequent to 1993?
10 A. No.
11 Q. Do you know where that individual
12 lives?
13 A. No, I don't. Orange County.
14 Q. 714 number?
15 A. At least it used to be.
16 Q. Now, the Laguna Niguel contractor who
17 gave you information regarding compaction and
18 underground water, did he give you a theory as to
19 why the landslide occurred in Anaheim Hills?
20 A. He did have his opinion on why.
21 Q. What was his opinion?
22 A. His feeling was the only -- if you have
23 an existing landslide, the only way to eliminate it
24 is by eliminating it. You actually have to truck
25 that dirt out and remove it and then come back and
403
1 recompact it and then put horizontal wells in, and
2 even after doing that, you have to maintain those
3 wells because they tend to get plugged up. If
4 they get plugged up, you might as well not have
5 done anything.
6 Q. You say if they're not plugged up.
7 You --
8 A. When they become plugged up, you might
9 as well not have put the wells in in the first
10 place.
11 Q. So his theory as to why the landslide
12 in Anaheim Hills occurred was?
13 A. It's way too costly to solve the
14 problem. The problem hasn't occurred in 10,000
15 years; why should it happen now? That's his theory,
16 that the city wanted the property to be used and
17 didn't want -- didn't see the need for proper
18 mitigation to be done for some unknown reason.
19 Q. Did he and you discuss -- strike that.
20 Did you talk to him on more than one
21 occasion, this contractor?
22 A. I believe I talked to him twice.
23 Q. Did he call you on both those
24 occasions?
25 A. I believe I called him on the second
404
1 occasion.
2 Q. So do you also have his telephone
3 number on your Rolodex -- or in your Rolodex?
4 A. That, I am not sure. That, I am not
5 sure.
6 Q. Did he talk to you about the removal of
7 lateral support for the landslide?
8 A. No, not to my knowledge.
9 Q. Did the former employee of the City of
10 Anaheim talk to you about the removal of lateral
11 support?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. What did he say in that regard?
14 A. I'd like to retract that last
15 statement. I was referring to the woman, not to the
16 man. Actually, I misunderstood your question.
17 Q. The woman who you went to her house one
18 night and got the plan from, she talked to you about
19 the removal of lateral support?
20 A. Actually, it was during the daytime.
21 Q. Excuse me. She talked to you about the
22 grading of Serrano, removing lateral support for the
23 landslide?
24 A. That was discussed.
25 Q. What did she say in that regard?
405
1 A. The fact that if you remove the lateral
2 support, it could create or reactivate an existing
3 landslide.
4 Q. Did she believe that's what happened in
5 Anaheim Hills in 1993?
6 A. She didn't have a -- I don't know that
7 she stated that.
8 Q. Did you raise this issue with her then
9 to see what her opinion was?
10 A. I don't recall that.
11 Q. How did that topic come up?
12 A. She had the landslide map.
13 Q. And is this a comment that she made
14 when she was giving you the landslide map?
15 A. Probably so.
16 Q. Did she give you any opinions as to
17 what she believed caused the Anaheim Hills
18 landslide, what's referred to as the Santiago
19 landslide by some in -- strike that. Let me start
20 over again.
21 When you met this lady, did she give
22 you any opinion as to what in her view caused the --
23 what's referred to by some as the Santiago
24 landslide?
25 A. If I recall accurately, I believe she
406
1 put it -- stated it was zoning; it was improperly
2 zoned.
3 Q. "Improper rezoned"? I'm not sure --
4 A. Improperly zoned.
5 Q. So she was saying it never should have
6 been made into a residential area?
7 MR. STONER: Objection. Calls for
8 speculation.
9 BY MR. SALINGER:
10 Q. Well, can you tell me what she told you
11 in that regard?
12 A. I believe she stated it should have
13 been maintained as either a park land or a -- I
14 believe she said a five-acre density per home.
15 Q. Anything else that she said in that
16 regard?
17 A. Not that I recall.
18 Q. Looking at the paragraph right above
19 the all caps words "The Condemned," in other words,
20 the one that starts with "Each of these conditions,
21 the removal of lateral support," what were the
22 sources of information for your conclusions in that
23 paragraph?
24 A. Please rephrase your question.
25 Q. Well, let me read the paragraph. It
407
1 says, and I'm quoting now, "Each of these
2 conditions, the removal of lateral support plus a
3 constantly rising water table, can, in their own
4 right, be disastrous to a known active landslide,
5 but combined they become a ticking time bomb
6 threatening the very lives of all who live within
7 its proximity."
8 What were the sources of information
9 for your statements in that paragraph?
10 A. Everything that I had read. Each on
11 their own can activate a landslide. You put the two
12 of them together and you're just waiting for a
13 disaster.
14 Q. When you say everything that you have
15 read, you've talked about the map that you got from
16 the lady who used to be with the County of Orange,
17 you've talked about the EIRs that you got from Pam.
18 Is there anything else that you can point to that
19 you read that you utilized in making that statement?
20 A. Well, when you saw Auntie Lee's Meat
21 Pies, you also saw my library.
22 Q. So you read things in your library?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. You referenced last time that you had
25 some Time-Life books in your library.
408
1 A. Yes. You remember.
2 Q. Yes, I do. Is there any particular
3 Time-Life book you can recall that you read that
4 gave you information or background that enabled you
5 to make that statement?
6 A. We'd have to get the movie out.
7 Q. Well, I'm just asking you what you
8 recall right now as you're sitting here today. Is
9 there a particular Time-Life book that you read that
10 helped you make that statement?
11 A. I don't recall at this time which one
12 it was. If you had asked me prior, I could have
13 ascertained that information.
14 Q. Are there any books, treatises,
15 pamphlets, written material of any sort, that you
16 purchased in 1993 to help you understand the
17 geologic conditions in Anaheim Hills?
18 A. I don't believe so.
19 Q. Any that you checked out from a library
20 or some other source of materials?
21 A. I don't -- that, I don't recall.
22 Q. So the written materials that you're
23 aware of that enabled you to make the statements in
24 the paragraph we're just now talking about are the
25 EIRs that you were supplied -- the portions of the
409
1 EIRs, I should say, the map that you got from the
2 lady who used to work for the County of Orange and
3 whatever else there is in your personal library?
4 A. Yes, and all of the newspaper
5 publications, all that.
6 Q. Articles and newspapers?
7 A. Uh-huh.
8 Q. Is that "yes"?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Were you at the time in 1993 on line
11 with any computer service so that you could pull up
12 articles and other materials to assist you in
13 preparing these landslide updates?
14 A. Kind of interesting. We had
15 Lexis-Nexus, which the state is blaming on their
16 misknowledge of me.
17 I don't recall if I used Lexis-Nexus to
18 glean any further information.
19 Q. So I take it as you sit here today, you
20 are unaware or you don't have any knowledge that you
21 utilized that service to obtain materials; is
22 that --
23 A. I don't recall that as being the fact.
24 Q. The record's a little confusing here.
25 Perhaps my question was inartful.
410
1 You don't recall utilizing Lexis-Nexus
2 for your preparation of these landslide updates; is
3 that a fair statement?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Thank you.
6 Other than Time-Life series of books,
7 did you in your library have any treatise on
8 landslides, geology, subterranean water, anything of
9 that nature?
10 A. No. Encyclopedias, and I'd get them
11 out.
12 Q. Anything else that you can specifically
13 recall utilizing in the course of preparing your
14 landslide updates?
15 A. No. They are good, aren't they?
16 Q. They are interesting reading, I will
17 give you that.
18 Mr. Stoner doesn't want me talking to
19 you.
20 Have you ever talked to Dennis Evans?
21 A. I'm sure I have.
22 Q. When did you talk to him?
23 A. Actually, I don't recall.
24 Q. What was the substance of any
25 conversation you had with him?
411
1 MR. STONER: Instruct the witness not to
2 answer. Attorney-client work product.
3 BY MR. SALINGER:
4 Q. Was it after you prepared these
5 newsletters that you spoke with Mr. Evans?
6 A. I'm not sure.
7 Q. Did you talk to Mr. Evans and utilize
8 any information -- strike that.
9 Did you utilize any information given
10 to you by Mr. Evans in the preparation of these
11 newsletters, or landslide updates we're calling
12 them?
13 A. My main source was Mark McLarty. I
14 don't recall Dennis Evans -- any input from Dennis
15 Evans.
16 Q. Looking at landslide update number 7,
17 what information did you get from Mark McLarty
18 that's included in this landslide update?
19 A. I don't recall.
20 Q. Is there anything that could refresh
21 your recollection in that regard other than talking
22 to Mr. McLarty?
23 MR. STONER: Objection. Calls for
24 speculation.
25 THE WITNESS: Talking to him would help.
412
1 BY MR. SALINGER:
2 Q. Anything other than that?
3 A. No, I don't think so.
4 Q. Is it that you don't recall all the
5 information that Mr. McLarty gave you? Is that what
6 you're telling me?
7 A. I'm sure that there's information that
8 he gave me that I don't recall.
9 Q. Is it that you don't recall what
10 information is in this landslide update number 7
11 that you got from Mr. McLarty as opposed to getting
12 from some other source?
13 MR. STONER: Objection. Vague.
14 THE WITNESS: I would say that was true.
15 Vague, but true.
16 BY MR. SALINGER:
17 Q. Have you ever talked to G.A. Nicoll?
18 A. It sounds familiar.
19 Q. A geotechnical person retained by
20 Mr. Delmonico sometime in January of 1993. Does
21 that refresh your recollection as to whether you've
22 talked to Mr. Nicoll?
23 A. It is possible that I talked to him in
24 passing. I believe he was outside the residence and
25 I would have said hi.
413
1 Q. Did you use any information from
2 Mr. Nicoll in any of your landslide updates?
3 A. I don't recall.
4 Q. Are you saying you don't recall doing
5 so or you just don't know one way or the other?
6 A. "I don't recall" is the answer.
7 Q. What I meant to inquire about,
8 Mr. Steiner, is, I just don't know whether you mean
9 that you just don't know one way or another or you
10 don't believe you did so.
11 MR. STONER: Objection. Vague.
12 THE WITNESS: My answer is, I don't recall.
13 BY MR. SALINGER:
14 Q. All right. Do you have any
15 recollection of talking to Mr. Nicoll about the
16 cause of the landslide?
17 A. I don't recall that.
18 Q. Do you believe Mr. Nicoll gave you any
19 of the information that's contained in landslide
20 update number 7?
21 A. I don't recall.
22 Q. Moving to the last part of landslide
23 update number 7, the part that starts with "The
24 Condemned," the first sentence says that "there was
25 a meeting between the City of Anaheim and those
414
1 homeowners who wished to have their landslide
2 properties condemned."
3 Was it your belief that there was a
4 meeting that was specifically for people who said
5 they wanted to have their properties condemned?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. How many homeowners were at that
8 meeting?
9 A. Probably half a dozen.
10 Q. Do you recall names of any homeowners
11 there other than -- in addition to yourself, I
12 should say?
13 A. Yes. Actually, that's -- his name just
14 came into mind, Mr. Ruiz, Ruiz.
15 Q. Do you know where Mr. Ruiz -- is it,
16 R-u-i-z, Mr. Ruiz?
17 A. It would be on your records.
18 Q. Anyone else you recall being present at
19 that meeting?
20 A. I'm not sure if Arlen was there. I'm
21 not sure.
22 Q. Now, on the backside of this landslide
23 update there's a reference to homes that are
24 presently moving at the rate of one inch per week.
25 Where did you get that information from?
415
1 A. Actually, I prefer to call it page 2
2 rather than backside.
3 Q. Okay. We'll call it page 2.
4 A. That would have been from Mark McLarty.
5 Q. Do you know when this meeting took
6 place? You say Wednesday night. Was it February,
7 March? Do you have any recollection in that regard?
8 A. No. You would have to check with the
9 city.
10 Q. You don't keep a calendar or anything
11 of that nature in which you mark down going to
12 meetings such as this?
13 A. No, I don't. Mr. White should know
14 when the meeting was held, though.
15 Q. I suspect he does.
16 Was this information that the homes are
17 presently moving at the -- strike that.
18 Was Mark McLarty at this meeting of
19 homeowners who wished to have their landslide
20 properties condemned?
21 A. I don't recall.
22 Q. Okay. I want to show you another
23 landslide update. This is number 8.
24 (Defendant's Exhibit 56 was marked for
25 identification by the Certified Shorthand Reporter,
416
1 a copy of which is attached hereto.)
2 MR. STONER: We've been going about an hour
3 and 45 minutes without a break. Is it all right if
4 we take about five minutes?
5 MR. SALINGER: Fine with me.
6 (Recess taken from 10:41 a.m. to
7 10:52 a.m.)
8 BY MR. SALINGER:
9 Q. Mr. Steiner, regarding landslide update
10 number 8, were you and your family caused some
11 emotional distress by your dealings with the SBA?
12 A. Yes, from -- I was going to say, from
13 start to finish, but from ten percent into the -- 90
14 percent of our dealings were very hard.
15 Q. Were what?
16 A. Very hard.
17 Q. Do you believe that you've -- strike
18 that.
19 When was the last time that you had any
20 dealings with the SBA regarding your Anaheim Hills
21 property?
22 A. It would have been within a year of the
23 property -- within the year of the landslide.
24 Q. So are you saying that you believe you
25 ceased to have dealings with the SBA within a year
417
1 of January 18, 1993?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Do you believe you've gotten over the
4 emotional distress resulting from dealing with the
5 SBA?
6 A. No.
7 Q. Regarding this landslide update number
8 8, there's -- on page 2, as opposed to the backside
9 of page 1 --
10 A. Thank you, sir.
11 Q. -- at page 2 at the bottom there's an
12 invitation to a meeting on March 11th. Did you
13 discuss with anyone including an invitation to this
14 meeting in your newsletter?
15 A. Can I say your question is vague?
16 Q. Sure.
17 MR. STONER: Objection. Vague. Sorry.
18 BY MR. SALINGER:
19 Q. Before the newsletter was sent out, did
20 you discuss with anyone whether or not there should
21 be an invitation to this meeting on March 11th in
22 this particular newsletter?
23 A. It was requested of me to do that.
24 Q. By whom?
25 A. What was the group called? CIA.
418
1 Q. I appreciate your facetiousness, but
2 you mean the steering committee?
3 A. I think they called themselves the CIA.
4 Q. Who is the "they" that you were talking
5 about?
6 A. It ended up to be what you call the
7 steering committee.
8 Q. Is there any particular person you
9 talked to with the CIA, or steering committee,
10 regarding including this invitation?
11 A. Pam was an integral part, and then
12 there was that girl that I mentioned that moved out
13 of the area, and still I haven't looked her -- and
14 the fella from Ford, Mike, Mike Clayton.
15 Q. They all talked to you about including
16 this particular invitation in this newsletter?
17 A. They determined the wording. They
18 handed me the -- what they wanted to say.
19 Q. Other than this wording for this
20 invitation, this meeting on March 11th, 1993, was
21 there anything else in any of your newsletters that
22 was drafted by somebody other than yourself?
23 A. No.
24 Q. Pardon?
25 A. No, as I said previously. You've asked
419
1 that question before.
2 Q. Did you talk anytime to any lawyers
3 about what to include or not to include in these
4 newsletters, or landslide updates is what you call
5 them?
6 A. I don't know how to be more specific
7 than to say these are my letters. No, I did not.
8 Q. Why did you decide to write these
9 landslide updates?
10 A. Oh, it's much better than taking a gun
11 and it tends to be even more effective.
12 Q. When you say "more effective," what was
13 your objectives?
14 MR. STONER: This is calculated to lead to
15 the discovery of admissible evidence for some issue
16 in this trial?
17 MR. SALINGER: I believe it is, Mr. Stoner.
18 MR. STONER: What? We're so far afield, I'm
19 going to instruct the witness not to answer. This
20 is just harassment.
21 MR. SALINGER: I think it has a bearing on
22 this witness's emotional distress claim. It has a
23 bearing on other claims that he's advancing in this
24 lawsuit.
25 MR. STONER: How? What?
420
1 MR. SCHWARTZ: It also goes to the emotional
2 distress of others and his failure to mitigate his
3 own damages because these -- by these very letters
4 he's raising the emotional distress of the
5 homeowners who are reading them. So his motives are
6 important.
7 THE WITNESS: It's the dissemination of
8 knowledge.
9 BY MR. SALINGER:
10 Q. Well, there's a way to disseminate
11 knowledge and there are other ways to fan emotions,
12 but I don't mean to argue with you. I just want to
13 find out what your purpose was in sending out these
14 newsletters.
15 A. To inform my fellow homeowners.
16 Q. Was it also your desire to stir up
17 anger against the City of Anaheim?
18 A. No, it wasn't.
19 Q. Wasn't it also your intent to get more
20 people ultimately to sue the City of Anaheim?
21 A. No, it wasn't.
22 Q. Wasn't it your intent to attempt to get
23 the people to act as one?
24 A. I feel that if an action is taken, it
25 should be done in a unanimous format. Those are my
421
1 personal feelings.
2 Q. Unanimous? That doesn't seem to allow
3 for any dissenting views.
4 MR. STONER: Objection. Argumentative.
5 Instruct the witness not to answer.
6 BY MR. SALINGER:
7 Q. You had a point of view, didn't you,
8 when you first started writing these newsletters
9 that the City of Anaheim should be sued by the
10 homeowners, didn't you?
11 A. No. My viewpoint was they did a
12 terrible wrong to the people. They did a terrible
13 wrong.
14 Q. And --
15 A. They hurt all of us and they did it
16 with foreknowledge.
17 Q. And that was your viewpoint from --
18 A. That is my viewpoint.
19 Q. And you formed that viewpoint when?
20 A. When I found out the truth.
21 Q. And the truth that you believe you
22 found out was that there was information in the City
23 of Anaheim's files regarding prior landslides in the
24 area?
25 A. Yes.
422
1 Q. Any other information that you believe
2 is this truth that you are referring to that the
3 City of Anaheim had?
4 MR. STONER: Objection. Vague.
5 THE WITNESS: Other than what I've already
6 previously told you.
7 BY MR. SALINGER:
8 Q. And it's your view, Mr. Steiner, that
9 because of previous landslides in the area, the area
10 of Anaheim Hills should not have been developed?
11 MR. STONER: Objection. Vague, no
12 foundation.
13 THE WITNESS: It isn't a matter of the area
14 being built. It's a matter of mitigation.
15 Mitigation was not done.
16 Now, you can say minor mitigation was
17 done, but it had no effect. It was the wrong
18 mitigation and they knew it was the wrong
19 mitigation.
20 BY MR. SALINGER:
21 Q. And you believe the City of Anaheim
22 knew it was the wrong mitigation at the time, at the
23 time Anaheim Hills was built; is that --
24 A. Completely. They were totally
25 culpable.
423
1 Q. You believe they knew it was the wrong
2 mitigation when Anaheim Hills was built; is that
3 what you're saying?
4 A. That is exactly what I'm saying.
5 Q. And why do you believe they knew it was
6 the wrong mitigation?
7 A. Because they didn't do mitigation.
8 They didn't do mitigation.
9 Q. Do you know what was done by the
10 developers of Anaheim Hills by way of mitigation?
11 A. I know no mitigation was done that was
12 effective.
13 Q. But do you know what was done by the
14 developers of Anaheim Hills as mitigation, whether
15 it was effective or not? Do you know what they did?
16 A. I know you have alluded to them putting
17 drains in. I have never seen or read about them.
18 And if they did, they were all stopped.
19 Q. How do you know that?
20 A. We had the landslide. If the
21 mitigation worked, we wouldn't have had the
22 landslide. The landslide is the proof.
23 Q. Are you saying, Mr. Steiner, that
24 because the mitigation didn't work, you believe
25 that's evidence the City of Anaheim knew that the
424
1 mitigation wouldn't work when the mitigation was
2 being done?
3 A. It's exactly the same as putting a
4 Band-Aid on when you need a tourniquet.
5 Q. And you're saying that that's what was
6 done to the development of Anaheim Hills?
7 A. Exactly.
8 Q. And you're saying the developer and the
9 city knew that they were putting a Band-Aid on when
10 they also knew that a tourniquet was needed?
11 A. Positively.
12 Q. And using your analogy, what is your
13 basis for concluding that the developer and the City
14 of Anaheim knew a tourniquet was needed?
15 A. By talking to contractors.
16 Q. And the one contractor you recall is
17 the person who you've referenced who worked or lived
18 in Laguna Niguel, correct?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Is there anyone else you recall talking
21 to?
22 A. Not offhand.
23 Q. And you don't recall the name of this
24 person in Laguna Niguel, correct?
25 A. No, I don't.
425
1 Q. Correct?
2 A. That is correct.
3 Q. Let me show you a letter dated
4 May 20th, 1993, from you to Mr. -- or I should say
5 Mayor Tom Daly. Mark this as next in order.
6 (Defendant's Exhibit 57 was marked for
7 identification by the Certified Shorthand Reporter,
8 a copy of which is attached hereto.)
9 (Discussion was held off the record.)
10 BY MR. SALINGER:
11 Q. Okay, Mr. Steiner. We can proceed with
12 this document while we're waiting for the next ones
13 to be copied.
14 This is a letter -- by the way, it's
15 been marked as Exhibit --
16 THE REPORTER: 57.
17 BY MR. SALINGER:
18 Q. -- 57.
19 This letter that we've marked as
20 Exhibit 57, this is something that you sent to Mayor
21 Tom Daly, the City of Anaheim?
22 A. Was? I'm sorry, was that a question
23 or a statement?
24 Q. Yeah. Is this a letter that you
25 prepared and sent to Mayor Tom Daly?
426
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. And you also sent it to Laura-Lynne
3 Powell of the Orange County Register, and Matt -- is
4 it Lait? -- of the L.A. Times?
5 A. That's what it states. And Fred Hunter
6 and Bob Simpson, Frank Feldhaus, Irv Pickler, Mark
7 McLarty, Natalie Lockman, though she's changed her
8 name, and somebody by the name of Tom Salinger.
9 Q. Yeah, I noticed that.
10 MR. STONER: Is he with the Franchise Tax
11 Board?
12 THE WITNESS: I think so. They're both tied
13 together, anyway, handling the same bait --
14 BY MR. SALINGER:
15 Q. Or so you seem to believe.
16 Now, the fourth paragraph of this
17 letter you indicate that you believe that Mr. Daly
18 is hiding something.
19 MR. STONER: Objection. The document speaks
20 for itself.
21 BY MR. SALINGER:
22 Q. What is it that you believe Mr. Daly
23 was hiding?
24 A. His body.
25 Q. I take it you mean by that that he
427
1 wasn't at meetings that you attended?
2 A. He was totally invisible, totally
3 invisible.
4 Q. Is that what you were alluding to here
5 when you said "you're hiding something"?
6 A. Where do I say "you're hiding
7 something"? Did I miss that sentence?
8 Q. The first sentence of what I'm calling
9 the fourth paragraph after the one-word paragraph,
10 "Obviously you're hiding something."
11 A. The documents. He was hiding the
12 documents.
13 Q. Was there anything that you had in mind
14 that was being hidden beyond the documents that you
15 requested by this letter?
16 A. The documents.
17 Q. Okay. That's what you were referring
18 to?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. I notice you've -- in addition to
21 sending a copy to me, you sent a copy to Bill Stoner
22 with Pillsbury Madison & Sutro.
23 Had you retained Pillsbury Madison &
24 Sutro by that date as your attorneys?
25 A. That, I don't know. I always like
428
1 sending things out to lawyers.
2 Q. Why is that?
3 A. To keep them from nodding off.
4 Q. That's all the questions I have about
5 that document. Let me -- I want to resume with the
6 other documents that I'm making additional copies of
7 right now, so let's take a break for a minute or
8 two.
9 MS. LONG: I'd like to ask a question.
10 EXAMINATION
11 BY MS. LONG:
12 Q. In the first sentence you say, "I have
13 retained the law firm." Is that a correct sentence
14 on May 20th, 1993, when you wrote the letter?
15 A. I really don't know.
16 Q. Do you have any information why you
17 would have written "I have retained the law firm" if
18 it was not true and accurate?
19 A. It may have been my plans.
20 Q. So you may have stated "I have retained
21 the law firm" when in fact you did not; is that
22 correct?
23 A. It's possible that those were my
24 intentions.
25 Q. Thank you.
429
1 MR. SALINGER: Let me see if I can get those
2 other documents so we can proceed.
3 (Recess taken from 11:14 a.m. to
4 11:16 a.m.)
5 FURTHER EXAMINATION
6 BY MR. SALINGER:
7 Q. Let me now, Mr. Steiner, show you
8 another letter. This one is dated November 22,
9 1993, from you to Tom Daly, and it is the first
10 page. And the next two pages are copies of a letter
11 that's apparently from you to some of your
12 neighbors.
13 And we'll mark these two letters as
14 next in order.
15 THE REPORTER: That will be 58.
16 (Defendant's Exhibit 58 was marked for
17 identification by the Certified Shorthand Reporter,
18 a copy of which is attached hereto.)
19 BY MR. SALINGER:
20 Q. Mr. Steiner, first talking about the
21 second two pages of Exhibit 58, something that on
22 the first page says "November 19th, 1993," it's
23 addressed to "Dear Neighbor," and then something
24 that purports to be your signature is on the second
25 page of that letter.
430
1 Did you prepare this letter?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. And you mailed it out to your neighbors
4 in Anaheim Hills?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. What was your purpose in sending this
7 letter out?
8 A. Informing.
9 Q. What were you informing your neighbors
10 of?
11 A. It's self-evident.
12 MR. STONER: Objection. The document speaks
13 for itself.
14 BY MR. SALINGER:
15 Q. Now, near the bottom of the first page,
16 actually above where it says "300,000 per year and
17 climbing," you have this sentence --
18 A. Which page?
19 Q. The first page of this second letter,
20 the November 19, 1993, letter, to your neighbors.
21 Right above where it says "300,000 per year and
22 climbing," you say this, and I'm quoting, "They're
23 all probably going to follow Natalie Lockman's lead
24 and change their names in order to hide their
25 misdeeds. Natalie's last name has been changed to
431
1 Meeks."
2 Was it your view at the time you wrote
3 this letter that the City of Anaheim's current
4 employees and elected officials were committing and
5 hiding misdeeds in 1993?
6 A. I would have thought that all of you
7 should have been embarrassed.
8 Q. Well, that's not my question.
9 A. That's my answer.
10 Q. My question is, did you believe that
11 the employees of the City of Anaheim and political
12 appointees, or elected officials, I should say, were
13 committing and hiding misdeeds in 1993?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. And what misdeeds did you believe were
16 being committed and hidden in 1993?
17 A. Information. We felt as though we were
18 being lied to.
19 Q. And who did you believe was lying to
20 you?
21 A. You and the city.
22 Q. When you say "you and the city," are
23 you talking about me?
24 A. You personally, yes.
25 Q. Did I ever speak to you prior to your
432
1 deposition?
2 A. No. I don't recall that. I don't
3 recall that. You were at the meetings.
4 Q. Well, I can assure you I never spoke to
5 you.
6 And so it's your view now and it was
7 your view at the time that -- strike that.
8 And so this is information that you
9 felt you wanted to disseminate to your neighbors,
10 that Natalie Lockman and others were lying to the
11 homeowners and hiding those lies?
12 A. They were hiding information and truth
13 from us.
14 Q. And the information and truth that they
15 were hiding was the fact that there had been
16 landslides in Anaheim Hills previously?
17 A. The documents also.
18 Q. Didn't the city make the documents that
19 it had in its files available to all the homeowners?
20 A. No.
21 Q. Did you go to --
22 A. It was like pulling teeth. It was --
23 no. It was worse than pulling teeth.
24 Q. Did you ever go to the city engineering
25 and public works department and see what documents
433
1 were available for public review?
2 A. No, I didn't.
3 Q. Did you know that many, many documents
4 were put in an area just so residents of Anaheim
5 Hills could review them?
6 A. In some cases after -- minor documents
7 were afforded to the homeowners.
8 Q. You say "minor documents"?
9 A. Documents that didn't show guilt.
10 Q. But you didn't go to review what
11 documents were available?
12 A. No, I didn't.
13 Q. How do you know that they were minor
14 documents?
15 A. Exhibit 57, second paragraph.
16 Q. Well, Exhibit 57 -- did you know what
17 documents you were asking Mayor Tom Daly to provide
18 your attorneys by virtue of Exhibit 57?
19 A. If I knew which documents, I would have
20 known what they were hiding.
21 Q. Well, looking at the last page, second
22 page, of Exhibit 57, you say, "Mr. Mayor, it is high
23 time that you come to your senses and allow our
24 attorneys to rightfully examine the reams of
25 information garnered by Mark McLarty of Eberhart &
434
1 Stone, all of which were paid for by our tax
2 dollars."
3 Didn't you understand when you wrote
4 this letter that the documents that were being asked
5 for were documents generated by Eberhart & Stone
6 once it had started working on -- in this area, I
7 should say, in or about July of 1992?
8 A. My attorneys stated that they --
9 MR. STONER: Excuse me. Don't tell him what
10 the attorneys told you.
11 THE WITNESS: No. Reached an impasse.
12 BY MR. SALINGER:
13 Q. But the documents that you're talking
14 about that you felt were being improperly hidden
15 from people and caused people to buy in Anaheim
16 Hills had to do with the development of Anaheim
17 Hills long prior to 1992, didn't they?
18 A. That was part of it.
19 Q. Well, isn't that what you're referring
20 to when you said in a newsletter I showed you
21 earlier, I think it was Exhibit 50, that Anaheim and
22 Texaco knew? You were talking about development
23 documents, right?
24 A. That is part of it, yes.
25 Q. Isn't that why -- strike that.
435
1 Looking at the second page -- strike
2 that.
3 You say "that is part of it." What is
4 the other part of it?
5 A. There are many other parts.
6 Q. Okay. Tell me.
7 MR. STONER: Objection. Vague.
8 BY MR. SALINGER:
9 Q. Please tell me what the other parts are
10 of what you feel the City of Anaheim was hiding from
11 the homeowners other than the original development
12 documents.
13 A. Problems in the area.
14 Q. What problems are you alluding to?
15 A. Ongoing problems.
16 Q. Tell me what you know about ongoing
17 problems that you felt the city was hiding from
18 people.
19 MR. STONER: You want him to repeat what he
20 already testified to about Exhibit 50?
21 MR. SALINGER: No. I want to know what -- he
22 said part of the misdeeds had to do with the city
23 not disclosing information regarding landslides that
24 the city had at the time of development. I want to
25 know the other part of the misdeeds that's
436
1 referenced in this letter.
2 MR. STONER: Actually, your question was,
3 when you were referring to Exhibit 50 and talking
4 about Anaheim and Texaco knew, and then he said
5 "That's part of it." You want him to go back and
6 retread the same ground about Exhibit Number 50 that
7 he's already told you about?
8 MR. SALINGER: No, I'm not talking about 50
9 now. I referenced 50.
10 Q. Let me clear it up, Mr. Steiner, just
11 in case there's any legitimate misunderstanding
12 here --
13 A. What's that?
14 MR. STONER: Believe me, the misunderstanding
15 about the question is very legitimate.
16 MR. SALINGER: I said I'm going to try and go
17 back and straighten it out, Mr. Stoner.
18 MR. STONER: I don't appreciate your
19 suggestion that the misunderstanding is anything
20 other than legitimate.
21 MR. SALINGER: Well, I don't appreciate a lot
22 of things that you've said, but I'll proceed anyway.
23 Q. Mr. Steiner, is it true that you
24 believe that the misdeeds -- strike that.
25 In your November 19, 1993, letter to
437
1 your neighbors, that's the second letter in
2 Exhibit 58, you reference misdeeds. Are the
3 misdeeds that you're talking about there the City of
4 Anaheim and its employees and elected officials
5 failing to disclose to homeowners the landslides
6 that occurred previously in Anaheim Hills?
7 MR. STONER: Objection. Vague. It's not a
8 question. It's a statement. Please ask a question.
9 MR. SALINGER: I think it's a question.
10 MR. STONER: There's no interrogatory in that
11 question. Please ask a question.
12 MR. SALINGER: Can I have it reread.
13 THE REPORTER: "In your November 19, 1993,
14 letter to your neighbors, that's the second letter
15 in Exhibit 58, you reference misdeeds. Are the
16 misdeeds that you're talking about there the City of
17 Anaheim and its employees and elected officials
18 failing to disclose to homeowners the landslides
19 that occurred previously in Anaheim Hills?"
20 MR. STONER: Well, Kelly, in the transcript
21 there's a printup to me that you had it broken out
22 as two sentences and there was no word "Are."
23 There's a period after "misdeeds" and then "The
24 misdeeds," the "T" was capitalized. There were two
25 separate sentences and I didn't hear the word "are."
438
1 MR. SALINGER: Well, I believe I said it. In
2 any event --
3 THE WITNESS: The problem is, your sentence
4 was so dragged out and there was such an
5 interminable space in between, no one had any idea
6 what you're talking about.
7 MS. LONG: I did.
8 MR. SALINGER: I think I did too.
9 THE WITNESS: I guess maybe I'm not a lawyer.
10 BY MR. SALINGER:
11 Q. Well, I want you to understand the
12 question, Mr. Steiner, so I'd be glad to repeat it.
13 A. Thank you. Please use a different way
14 of repeating it, then.
15 Q. I will be glad to.
16 A. Thank you.
17 Q. The misdeeds in that paragraph, what
18 were you referring to?
19 A. Action and inaction.
20 Q. Can you explain?
21 A. Things they should have done, things
22 that they didn't do.
23 Q. What things didn't they do that you
24 call misdeeds and what things did they do that you
25 call misdeeds?
439
1 A. The things they did do was to hide
2 documents from us.
3 Q. Okay. And what about the things that
4 they didn't do that you consider misdeeds?
5 A. Actually, it's the same answer. They
6 should have given us those documents, they should
7 have told us what was going on and they didn't. It
8 was their fiduciary responsibility.
9 Q. Okay. And which documents are you now
10 talking about?
11 A. All the documents that they withheld,
12 all the information they withheld.
13 Q. Well, I want to know which documents
14 specifically you believe the city withheld from
15 homeowners.
16 A. Innumerable documents.
17 Q. Well, please tell me which ones you can
18 enumerate.
19 A. It's going all the way back to the
20 EIRs, one thing after another.
21 Q. So the EIRs are documents you think the
22 city withheld from homeowners?
23 A. Yes. They -- the city knew of the
24 landslide; the city kept it hidden from us.
25 Q. And the way the city kept it hidden, if
440
1 I understand your analysis, is by not making -- not
2 giving these documents to homeowners?
3 A. They had the responsibility of telling
4 us that we are purchasing property on a landslide.
5 They had that responsibility. They did not fulfill
6 their responsibility.
7 Q. And is it your view, Mr. Steiner, that
8 each time somebody purchased or was about to
9 purchase a property in Anaheim Hills, the city of
10 Anaheim had a responsibility to provide the EIR --
11 all the EIRs involving development of that area to
12 the homeowners?
13 A. It's the same as a pack of cigarettes,
14 "This can cause cancer."
15 Q. So it's your view, Mr. Steiner, that
16 the city should have told anyone purchasing in
17 Anaheim Hills in some fashion prior to close of
18 escrow that there were landslides in Anaheim Hills?
19 A. It was the city's responsibility to
20 tell us that we were buying property that they knew
21 of that was on a landslide.
22 Q. And I'm just trying to determine when
23 you believe that should have been done; when, before
24 escrow closed, before any development in the area by
25 precluding development in the area. I'm just not
441
1 certain what you're telling me, Mr. Steiner.
2 A. You've actually answered it. All of
3 those. If you have -- if you have sinners in the
4 past, you shouldn't be covering them up. Anaheim
5 says that they're clean now and it was the other
6 guys that were dirty, the old Anaheim.
7 Q. So it's your belief that, one, the city
8 of Anaheim should have never allowed development of
9 Anaheim Hills?
10 A. That's not true.
11 Q. Let me modify it based upon something
12 you said this morning. It's your belief that the
13 City of Anaheim never should have allowed
14 development without proper mitigation of landslide
15 in the area?
16 A. That's one aspect.
17 Q. Okay. What's the second aspect?
18 A. Change the zoning. Zone it for
19 something more appropriate. There are many things
20 they should have done.
21 Q. So they could have -- could have or
22 should have, as you -- strike that.
23 You believe they should have had a less
24 intensive zoning by, you know, fewer properties,
25 one -- or five-acre lots, as suggested to you by the
442
1 lady that you met, correct?
2 A. That was her opinion; though, I do not
3 feel that way. I don't care if -- if it's a
4 hundred-acre zoning, if you're residing on the
5 landslide, you can go. No residences should be on a
6 landslide. I don't think it takes a nuclear
7 scientist to figure that one out.
8 Q. Whether or not it's moved within the
9 last 10,000 years?
10 A. Well, if you do everything to cause it
11 to move, I think you can assume it will move.
12 Q. So getting back to this sentence that
13 precipitated this discussion. The misdeeds that
14 you're talking about are the misdeeds in allowing
15 development to proceed in the fashion it did and the
16 misdeeds of not disclosing it to purchasers that
17 there had been landslides in the area?
18 A. That is true.
19 Q. Anything else?
20 A. Possibly.
21 Q. What else?
22 A. I don't recall.
23 Q. Going to the second page of this
24 November 19 letter, the last paragraph, middle of
25 the paragraph you say, "But the word 'mitigation' is
443
1 more important in that no mitigation has taken place
2 to date according to the city's geologist, Mark
3 McLarty."
4 What did Mr. McLarty say in that
5 regard?
6 A. I don't recall other than what I see.
7 Q. Do you recall when you had this
8 discussion with Mr. McLarty?
9 A. No, I don't.
10 Q. Do you know where this discussion took
11 place?
12 A. I don't recall.
13 Q. Is there anything that you can tell me
14 about this discussion?
15 A. I don't recall.
16 Q. There is nothing that you are able to
17 tell me about this conversation other than what
18 you've -- what's in this letter?
19 A. This is -- that's true at this time.
20 Q. Okay. You go on to say that
21 Mr. McLarty states, quote, "Dewatering is a
22 temporary stopgap measure and has nothing to do with
23 mitigation."
24 A. That's an exact quote.
25 Q. This letter went out November 19,
444
1 1993. Did you talk to Mr. McLarty about this topic
2 in November of 1993?
3 A. I don't recall.
4 Q. Is this something that Mr. McLarty told
5 you at one of the town hall meetings in the
6 beginning of 1993?
7 A. I believe so.
8 Q. And you didn't take notes at any of
9 those meetings; you've told me that. Isn't that
10 correct?
11 A. That is correct.
12 Q. But you're certain that many months
13 later you are able to quote him verbatim; is that
14 ac- -- is that fair?
15 A. What I do is frequently I'll write down
16 a thought, and when I write the letter, I destroy
17 it.
18 Q. So --
19 A. That's my manner of writing.
20 Q. So you did have some notes --
21 A. No.
22 Q. -- or thoughts --
23 A. That's true. That's true.
24 Q. And all of the thoughts that you wrote
25 down during the course of the town hall meetings
445
1 you've destroyed?
2 Let me rephrase the question because
3 it's not clear.
4 A. Yes. You're adding a lot of things to
5 this purposefully.
6 Q. The thoughts that you put on paper from
7 the town hall meetings -- and by "town hall
8 meetings," I'm talking about what was said during
9 the meetings and what was said afterwards, because
10 you've described that you had certain conversations
11 afterwards.
12 Namely, those thoughts that you wrote
13 down on those occasions, do you still have any of
14 the papers on which those thoughts were put down?
15 A. No.
16 Q. So they've all been thrown away?
17 A. Well, you just press "delete."
18 Q. I'm not sure I understand. When -- you
19 came away from these meetings with some scraps of
20 papers with some thoughts on that?
21 A. That's not true. I never said that.
22 Q. Oh, I misunderstood, then.
23 A. I never said that.
24 Q. So describe to me how you kept these
25 thoughts.
446
1 A. I would make notes in my computer
2 relating to it and then I'd put it together as a
3 thought, as a letter, and then delete it.
4 Q. Did you have your computer at these
5 meetings?
6 A. No, I didn't.
7 Q. So you would come home and that
8 evening --
9 A. Or the next day or a couple days later.
10 Usually a thought takes a while for me to ferment,
11 to put together. I'm slow.
12 Q. Now, the next sentence says, and I'm
13 quoting, "Mitigation, according to the geologists,
14 is the process by which the land is brought back to
15 its prior stabilization factors."
16 A. That's Mark McLarty.
17 Q. Right. You say "geologists," plural.
18 Was there some other geologist in addition to Mark
19 McLarty that you gained this information from?
20 A. It would have been in my readings. It
21 would have been Mark and my readings.
22 Q. And at this point you don't recall any
23 specific reading that gave you that information; is
24 that accurate?
25 A. I just -- I stand by my previous
447
1 statements.
2 Q. So you don't recall a specific thing
3 that you read that gave you that information; is
4 that accurate?
5 A. That is accurate.
6 Q. The next sentence says, I'm quoting,
7 "In our case, mitigation is the process of removing
8 the destabilizing weight at the top of the
9 landslide."
10 A. That's Mark.
11 Q. And, again, these are all things Mark
12 expressed to you at the time of the town hall
13 meetings in the beginning of 1993?
14 A. And our meetings, yes.
15 Q. And that you --
16 A. And that's his term too, "destabilizing
17 weight at the top of the hill" -- "of the
18 landslide." So I guess I would have to say Mark
19 helped me on this quite a bit.
20 Q. Now, the next sentence says, "While no
21 accurate estimate of the cost for such a monumental
22 project has yet been made, a reasonable range would
23 be between 10,000 and 50,000 per home in all of the
24 five impacted associations, which would then be
25 amortized over a 30-year period, thereby letting
448
1 future buyers share in our misfortune."
2 Where did you get that range of numbers
3 from?
4 A. In my readings. Actually, not -- I
5 don't know if it was so much in my readings or in
6 the conversations with the contractors, construction
7 people.
8 Q. Well, your readings wouldn't be giving
9 you a cost estimate.
10 A. That's why I just corrected myself.
11 Q. Okay. I just wanted to make sure I
12 understood.
13 A. Yeah.
14 Q. What is this cost for here, this
15 10,000, 50,000 per home? What is that the cost of?
16 A. Curing the problem.
17 Q. Do you know if that's --
18 A. Feasible?
19 Q. -- a grading cost or dewatering cost or
20 construction cost? I'm not sure what that's
21 referring to.
22 A. It depends on who you're talking to,
23 what the contractor is suggesting being done.
24 Q. The contractor that gave you that range
25 of numbers, did you have an idea as to what he was
449
1 telling you that would cover?
2 A. It was, in his opinion, that those
3 would be mitigating measures.
4 Q. Is this the guy from Laguna Niguel?
5 A. Actually, it's various people.
6 Q. And you don't remember anything about
7 these other people other than the guy from Laguna
8 Niguel who you've told us a little bit about; is
9 that accurate?
10 A. Other -- one man was -- I believe he
11 was Indian by his name.
12 Q. And this is a guy who called you again?
13 A. Yes, and he had -- his solutions were
14 to go underneath and shoot concrete under, things of
15 that nature.
16 Q. Now, this November 19, 1993, letter,
17 you -- by virtue of this cover letter dated
18 November 22, you sent that to Mayor Tom Daly,
19 correct?
20 A. Yes, that would be true.
21 Oh, let's see. Yes. I don't know
22 that that's --
23 Q. Well, take a look at the first sentence
24 under "Dear Mayor Daly." It says, "I thought you'd
25 like to see a copy of the update I sent" --
450
1 A. Oh, yes. I was looking at the dates.
2 The dates confused me. I was looking at the wrong
3 date. Yes, that's true.
4 Q. Third paragraph of this letter to Tom
5 Daly, let me read it. "Initially, I was very
6 surprised to read your letter, but pleased.
7 Recently, general interest in the lawsuit, for many
8 of the litigants, has been somewhat waning due to
9 the passage of time and the healing of the mental
10 wounds caused by the disaster. But your letter has
11 changed all of that. Once again blood pressures are
12 rising and anger is mounting. I have to thank you
13 for this infusion of unity you have once again
14 created in our community."
15 I take it from this that you didn't
16 like the healing of the mental wounds that the
17 passage of time was causing to happen?
18 A. That's not true.
19 MR. STONER: Objection. Argumentative,
20 vague. Instruct the witness not to answer.
21 BY MR. SALINGER:
22 Q. Was it your purpose in sending out the
23 November 19 letter to cause blood pressures to rise
24 and anger to mount?
25 A. No.
451
1 Q. You did believe when you sent out
2 your -- sent your letter of November --
3 A. I think I was inferring that Mayor Daly
4 was causing the blood pressures to rise.
5 Q. You did believe in November 22nd when
6 you sent the letter to Mr. Daly that prior to his
7 letter there had been a healing of the mental wounds
8 by virtue of the passage of time?
9 A. What I'm saying is that he made it
10 worse for us than it already was.
11 Q. But my question is, prior to Mr. Daly's
12 letter, did you believe that the passage of time had
13 been healing the mental wounds caused by the
14 disaster?
15 A. No.
16 Q. You don't believe that that had been
17 happening?
18 A. No, I don't.
19 Q. You don't believe that time causes
20 these sort of wounds to heal?
21 A. Does time heal all wounds?
22 Q. Does time heal this wound?
23 A. No.
24 MR. STONER: Objection. Vague.
25 /////
452
1 BY MR. SALINGER:
2 Q. Pardon me?
3 A. No.
4 Q. Why is that?
5 A. Because it's an ongoing condition.
6 Q. And you don't believe time heals a
7 wound even where there's an ongoing condition?
8 A. Not if it's cancerous, and this is
9 cancerous.
10 Q. And you diagnose it as such?
11 MR. STONER: Instruct the witness not to
12 answer.
13 THE WITNESS: Mark McLarty has diagnosed it
14 as such.
15 BY MR. SALINGER:
16 Q. At the very outset of this letter to
17 Mr. Daly you say that you sent your update to
18 homeowners in the five impacted areas. What areas
19 were you talking about?
20 A. The five impacted areas.
21 Q. Can you tell me what those areas are as
22 you understood it when you prepared this letter?
23 A. I'd have to -- I'd have to get the map
24 out.
25 Q. Which map are you now talking about?
453
1 A. Of the Anaheim Hills.
2 Q. Is there one that you still have?
3 A. Is there one that I still have?
4 Q. Well, strike that. That's not a good
5 question, I agree.
6 A. Rand McNally, if you'd like to borrow
7 it.
8 Q. I appreciate the offer.
9 Without benefit of a map, can you tell
10 me what the five impacted areas you had in mind when
11 you put that phrase in this letter?
12 A. No, I can't.
13 Q. Are you talking about homeowner
14 association areas? Because I think there may be
15 five associations in the area.
16 A. I think that's true.
17 Q. Did you believe when you sent this
18 letter out -- strike that.
19 Did you believe prior to Mr. Daly's
20 sending his letter regarding a geologic hazard
21 abatement district, prior to that letter going out
22 from Mr. Daly, that interest in the lawsuit was
23 waning?
24 MR. STONER: Objection. Assumes fact not in
25 evidence.
454
1 THE WITNESS: I don't know that to be the
2 truth.
3 BY MR. SALINGER:
4 Q. So when you wrote that in this letter,
5 that interest in the lawsuit had been waning due to
6 the passage of time prior to Mr. Daly's letter going
7 out, you didn't know that that was true -- whether
8 or not that was true?
9 A. What I was saying by that statement was
10 that he was increasing the interest. He was fanning
11 the fires.
12 Q. When you say in this letter "Once again
13 blood pressures are rising and anger is mounting,"
14 what was the basis for you making that comment?
15 A. The total disgust of the homeowners.
16 Q. Had you talked to homeowners after
17 Mayor Daly's letter had been received as to their
18 reaction to that letter?
19 A. I had calls.
20 Q. From whom?
21 A. The homeowners.
22 Q. Do you recall the names of any
23 homeowners you had calls from?
24 A. You could get the list out and we could
25 probably go down and have a hundred -- it was normal
455
1 for me to get calls.
2 Q. And so you think you got many, many
3 calls?
4 A. My phone number was on everything. My
5 phone number was on everything and I was called
6 constantly.
7 Q. So you believe -- or strike that.
8 You got many calls in response to the
9 Daly letter?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And they were all saying their blood
12 pressures were rising and anger is mounting, or
13 something to that effect?
14 A. Well, they were very hurt. You know,
15 first you get stabbed in the front and then in the
16 back. So, yes, they were hurt.
17 Q. And they were hurt at the concept of --
18 A. Paying for the damages that the city
19 did.
20 Q. They thought the whole city should pay
21 for making Anaheim Hills -- reducing the water
22 levels in Anaheim Hills?
23 A. The tragedy is that it is the citizens
24 that pay for the misdeeds of the government. That's
25 the tragedy.
456
1 Q. If you had your way, you would tax Tom
2 Daly, I take it, for that?
3 A. Yes. I'd tax Tom Daly --
4 MR. STONER: Objection. Argumentative.
5 BY MR. SALINGER:
6 Q. You don't need to answer that.
7 A. I was going to include your name also
8 until I stopped.
9 Q. This is probably as good a time as any
10 to stop and take our lunch break.
11 MR. STONER: If you want. I mean, we're
12 prepared to continue. If this is a good time,
13 that's fine. How long do you need?
14 THE WITNESS: Half an hour?
15 MR. SALINGER: I can do it -- I've got to
16 make a couple of calls. I could do it in 45
17 minutes.
18 MR. SCHWARTZ: It's tough to go to any of
19 these establishments and get back here in a half
20 hour.
21 MR. STONER: Yeah, that's the problem with
22 stopping right at 12:05. It's peak traffic.
23 MR. SALINGER: We can go a little bit longer
24 and go until 12:30.
25 MR. SCHWARTZ: I don't know that it makes it
457
1 any better, but whatever you guys want to do.
2 MR. SALINGER: I don't care.
3 MR. STONER: If you have more questions -- I
4 mean, I think it's as crowded now as it could ever
5 be, at 12:05. If we want to try and do a 45-minute
6 lunch, maybe we should proceed and break at 12:30.
7 MR. SALINGER: Is that okay with everybody?
8 (Discussion was held off the record.)
9 BY MR. SALINGER:
10 Q. Mr. Steiner, are you aware of any leaks
11 in city waterlines?
12 A. No.
13 Q. Have you at any time seen any evidence
14 of what you believe to be leaks in city waterlines?
15 A. I have witnessed water flowing, but I
16 cannot say -- state it was from city waterlines.
17 Q. The one place you mentioned previously
18 that you had seen water flowing is on the east fork
19 of Hidden Canyon just before it interfaces -- or
20 runs into, I should say, Serrano. Is that the area
21 you're talking about?
22 A. That is true and accurate, yes.
23 Q. Have you seen water flowing in any
24 other location?
25 A. No, not that I recall.
458
1 Q. Have you had any problems with the
2 city's water supply service to your house on the
3 unnamed cul-de-sac off of Avenida de Santiago since
4 you owned it?
5 A. It was always unbelievably strong.
6 Q. So strong that it caused you to contact
7 anyone about it being too strong?
8 A. I loved it. As I said previously, it
9 would peel paint it was so strong.
10 Q. Did you ever contact the city in the
11 belief that it was too strong?
12 A. I personally felt it was an attribute.
13 Q. So I take it you didn't contact the
14 city about any problem with it; is that correct?
15 A. I didn't have a problem. For me it
16 was -- the pressure at being that high was great.
17 Q. Did you --
18 A. The city contacted me, though, and said
19 that the pressure was too great.
20 Q. When was that?
21 A. Whenever they sent out a letter saying
22 that the water pressure was so high that we should
23 have a -- what's the proper word for the pressure --
24 Q. Regulator?
25 A. Regulator. We should have that
459
1 installed, and we hired a plumber and had it
2 installed, and the plumber brought it down. And I
3 was really surprised at the massive drop in the
4 water pressure when it came down to a normal level
5 as to where it was when we had it.
6 Q. Approximately when was that pressure
7 regulator put on by a plumber at your house?
8 A. I don't recall.
9 Q. Do you know if it was in the '90s?
10 A. I'd be giving you an inaccurate
11 statement if I stated that.
12 Q. And I don't want you to guess. So you
13 have no idea as you sit here?
14 A. I don't recall.
15 Q. Did you ever see any wet spot in the
16 street outside of your house -- or let's put it this
17 way, see a wet spot anyplace on the unnamed
18 cul-de-sac that you were concerned could be a
19 leaking waterline?
20 A. That's an interesting question. The
21 sprinklers from time to time blew on the opposite
22 side of us. We both -- we both -- my next-door
23 neighbor, the prior person to Arlen, both of us used
24 to go over there and replace sprinkler heads, even
25 though it wasn't our property.
460
1 Q. That's on the slope --
2 A. The slope.
3 Q. -- that's on the south side of the
4 unnamed cul-de-sac?
5 A. Yeah. Yes. So obviously the pressure
6 there was too high and it was blowing it.
7 Q. Talking now -- my question had to do
8 with the street. Did you see --
9 A. Well, the water flowed into the
10 street. That's -- when you asked me that question,
11 I recall seeing the water flowing into the street
12 and the cause was as stated.
13 Q. How many times did you personally
14 replace sprinkler heads that were there?
15 A. Personally? Probably three or four
16 times. And my next-door neighbor said he had done
17 it, I assume a similar number of times. He said he
18 replaced them quite a few times.
19 Q. This is the person who owned Arlen
20 Steiner's house before Mr. Steiner?
21 A. Prior, yes.
22 Q. And what is his name?
23 A. I don't recall. He owned a -- as you
24 will notice, I remember things by -- people by what
25 they do, quite often. He owned a lock company in
461
1 Anaheim near the Mercedes Benz dealer, I believe.
2 Q. Do you recall the name of his company?
3 A. No, I don't. It's probably something
4 as simple as American Lock.
5 Q. Other than instances when you saw
6 sprinkler heads off causing water to go into the
7 street, did you see any wet spots in the street that
8 you attributed to a leaking line or some sort of
9 waterline problem?
10 A. No, I didn't.
11 Q. Are you aware of any of your neighbors
12 complaining to you about leaking lines or wet spots
13 in the street or anything of that nature other than
14 what you've told us about Arlen Steiner's
15 predecessor?
16 A. Mr. Springmeier had mentioned
17 problems. But, again, this -- other than what I've
18 related, I don't have personal knowledge.
19 Q. What did Mr. Springmeier talk to you
20 about in that vein?
21 A. Excessive pressure, blowing lines.
22 Q. So Mr. Springmeier didn't talk to you
23 about wet spots in the street or water flowing from
24 some unknown source or anything of that nature?
25 A. I don't recall.
462
1 Q. Other than what you've described when
2 the regulator was put on your water service into the
3 house, did you experience at any time a drop in
4 pressure that was noticeable to you?
5 A. Never.
6 Q. Mr. Steiner, are you claiming any
7 personal property damages as a result of the
8 landslide? And by "personal property," I mean
9 something other than your real estate claim and
10 something other than any sort of personal injury and
11 emotional distress claim.
12 A. I don't believe so.
13 Q. Are you claiming any loss of income or
14 diminishment in earning capacity as a result of the
15 landslide?
16 A. I don't believe so.
17 Q. You hesitate. Is there some item of
18 damage --
19 A. Well, it's kind of interesting. You
20 know, I just have to -- loss of income. I've had to
21 work so much harder.
22 Q. Well, let's talk about that. Are you
23 making any monetary claim based upon the fact that
24 you've had to work harder?
25 A. I don't believe so.
463
1 Q. What do you believe the value of your
2 property on the unnamed cul-de-sac is today?
3 A. I wouldn't know that.
4 Q. You have no opinion; is that accurate?
5 A. To me it's worth nothing.
6 Q. When you say to you it's worth nothing,
7 you mean it has no value to you personally; is that
8 what you're saying?
9 A. That's what I'm saying.
10 Q. And do you have an opinion as to what
11 its value is to other people?
12 A. Value is in the eye of the beholder.
13 It depends on who's beholding it.
14 Q. I agree with that.
15 So is it fair to say, then, that you
16 don't have any opinion as to what your property
17 might be worth to others?
18 A. It depends on who the others are.
19 Q. So based upon that, is it accurate that
20 you don't have an opinion as to what the value is to
21 others?
22 A. I don't know the minds of others.
23 Q. I understand.
24 Do you have an opinion as to what the
25 value of your property would be in the open market
464
1 but for the landslide?
2 A. Presently?
3 Q. Presently.
4 A. If it had never occurred?
5 Q. Right.
6 A. I would say probably a million four.
7 Q. What is that based on?
8 A. Based on that's what I thought it was
9 worth at the time the landslide occurred.
10 Q. And are you attributing a 1.4 value to
11 it today without the landslide because you don't
12 have anything more current than January of 1993
13 information, or do you believe that it would have
14 remained the same?
15 MR. STONER: Objection. Vague.
16 MR. SALINGER: I'll withdraw that question.
17 Q. Do you believe the real estate values
18 in that portion of Anaheim Hills have remained the
19 same from January of 1993 to the present?
20 MR. STONER: Objection. No foundation, calls
21 for speculation.
22 THE WITNESS: Positively not. You forgot to
23 add in the fact if the landslide never happened.
24 BY MR. SALINGER:
25 Q. Oh, well, we're -- I'm assuming for
465
1 this question that the landslide has not happened or
2 it doesn't impact the value of your property.
3 A. In that case, I stand by my statement
4 on the value, which would mean I feel that the value
5 then would be the same value now.
6 Q. Okay. Have you talked to any realtors
7 about values of properties in that area since
8 January of 1993?
9 A. January of 1993. I did talk to
10 realtors, yes, during that time frame of the first
11 three or four months.
12 Q. Have you talked to any realtors about
13 values in that area since the first three or four
14 months after the landslide?
15 A. Of that area, no.
16 Q. Do you have an opinion as to whether or
17 not the lawsuits are having a negative effect on the
18 values of properties in that area?
19 A. Just as much as milk causes hair loss.
20 No, I don't feel that there is any -- I think that's
21 a -- my thought is to say a ludicrous statement, but
22 I know I shouldn't say that what you've said is
23 ludicrous. I think it's a misconception on your
24 part.
25 Q. It's merely a question on my part.
466
1 A. Which you -- I strike that.
2 Q. Are you aware of any of the sales that
3 have taken place on the unnamed cul-de-sac or
4 Avenida de Santiago in the last three years?
5 A. I'm not -- I don't recall. I'm not
6 familiar.
7 Q. Is it fair to say that -- strike that.
8 Is it accurate that since you purchased
9 your property in Mission Viejo that you haven't
10 tracked land values in that portion of Anaheim
11 Hills?
12 A. That is fair to say.
13 MR. SALINGER: I'm about to start another
14 area, so this would probably be a good place to
15 break.
16 MR. STONER: Okay.
17 THE REPORTER: Off the record?
18 MR. SALINGER: Okay.
19 MS. LONG: Yes.
20 MR. SCHWARTZ: Sure.
21 (Lunch recess taken from 12:17 p.m. to
22 1:24 p.m.)
