31 (300)
Susana Barrios
From:Orin Abrams <orinabrams@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, October
To:Public Comment
Subject:\[EXTERNAL\] Liability-Mitigation-Morality
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important
Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open
attachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message.
This communication attempts to illuminate three particular areas of concern regarding City Council
potentially allowing the SALT development to proceed.
However, this is not to discount other areas of concern, including but not limited to those around natural
habitat destruction, unparalleled, untenable and unsafe traffic conditions, and more.
1-EVACUATION IMPACT LIABILITY
2-FIRE MITIGATION
3-MORALITY – RIGHT & WRONG
1-EVACUATION IMPACT LIABILITY
1A - In light of potential public safety repercussions, what might City liability exposure be, were it to allow
the SALT project to proceed?
Imagine Anaheim taxpayers having to fund future liability claims from insurance companies, other
residents, and even from themselves!!!
City liability for adopting policies that lead to public safety repercussions is a complex issue often rooted
in the legal concepts of governmental immunity, negligence, and sometimes constitutional law.
Here’s a breakdown of key factors:
1. Governmental Immunity and Discretionary Acts
Many states and municipalities have laws granting immunity to government entities, which can protect
cities from lawsuits, especially in cases involving discretionary acts. A "discretionary" act is one that
involves judgment or policy decisions rather than specific actions mandated by law. Courts typically
protect Cities from liability when policy decisions are made in good faith and within legal bounds, as
these decisions involve the balancing of complex social and economic considerations.
2. Negligence and Duty of Care
Cities can be held liable if they fail in a duty of care, particularly if a policy is implemented negligently or
without reasonable safety measures. For instance, if a policy leads to foreseeable harm, such as a reduction
in essential services (like policing or fire protection), courts may find the City liable. In cases where a
specific group or individual was harmed by a policy decision, and it was reasonably foreseeable that the
policy would increase risks, courts may find a breach of duty.
1
3. Constitutional Claims and Civil Rights Violations
Sometimes, policies impact certain groups disproportionately or limit access to safety measures. If a
policy leads to constitutional violations (such as equal protection or due process rights), affected parties
may bring claims under federal civil rights laws (e.g., Section 1983 in the U.S.). In such cases, plaintiffs
must show that the policy was a "deliberate indifference" to known or likely risks to public safety,
resulting in harm.
4. Case-by-Case Analysis
Courts usually consider each situation individually, taking into account whether the policy had an
adverse and direct impact on public safety. They examine the City's reasons for the policy, any risk
assessments conducted beforehand, and whether any mitigating measures were in place.
1B - What if allowing such ran counter to official staff recommendations and publicly expressed opinions of
City fire and police departments?
If a City adopts a policy counter to recommendations from public safety staff—such as the police or fire
departments—it could potentially increase liability, particularly if those recommendations indicated
foreseeable risks to public safety. Here’s how this could affect the City's liability:
1. Evidence of Foreseeable Risk
Staff recommendations from police or fire departments often come with assessments of risks, operational
limitations, or potential safety impacts. If a City ignores these recommendations and a safety incident
occurs, this record of ignored expert opinion can serve as evidence that the risks were foreseeable. Courts
are more likely to find liability if it is demonstrated that the City knowingly dismissed credible warnings that
directly outlined likely harms.
2. Heightened Standard for Reasonableness
Ignoring the informed recommendations of safety professionals may be seen as failing a "reasonable
standard of care," which is often applied in negligence cases. When City officials override expert advice, it
can make it difficult for them to claim that they acted in a reasonable manner, especially if the policy led
directly to unsafe conditions.
3. Impact on Governmental Immunity Protections
Governmental immunity protections often cover discretionary decisions, but those protections may not
apply if the decision is found to be grossly negligent or willfully disregards public safety. Ignoring expert
advice can be viewed as a willful disregard for safety, potentially stripping the City of immunity in a lawsuit.
In cases where a City's policy leads to harm after dismissing safety recommendations, some courts have
held that the immunity shield doesn’t apply because the decision wasn’t made in good faith or was made
with "deliberate indifference" to public safety.
4. Increased Scrutiny in Civil Rights Claims
In cases where a policy disproportionately impacts specific communities or creates unsafe
environments, civil rights claims may arise. Ignoring public safety staff advice can bolster a plaintiff's
claim that the City acted with deliberate indifference to the safety of certain groups, potentially leading
to federal claims under civil rights laws.
5. Administrative and Regulatory Review
In addition to lawsuits, Cities that disregard professional safety recommendations may face scrutiny from
regulatory or oversight bodies. For example, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) or
2
state-level emergency management agencies might investigate or cite the City for failing to maintain safe
public spaces or services.
Recent Examples
Cities have faced liability in recent years for policy decisions that neglected police or fire department
recommendations on staffing, resources, or emergency response plans. These cases often underscore the
importance of taking expert safety advice seriously, as courts may regard the dismissal of such advice as a
sign of recklessness.
Ignoring the expertise of safety staff can therefore significantly heighten a City's liability, both legally and
publicly. The specifics of any claim would hinge on how directly linked the recommendations were to the
resulting harm and whether other mitigating actions were considered or implemented.
1C - What about cases wherein a City Council approves a resolution, despite staff, fire & police department
recommendations for disapproval, when such recommendations are based in part upon public safety
concerns?
When a City Council approves a resolution despite staff, fire & police department recommendations for
disapproval, when such recommendations are based in part upon public safety concerns, the City may face
heightened liability if the policy results in harm or safety issues. Here’s a breakdown of potential implications:
1. **Increased Legal Vulnerability**
- When the City Council overrides staff recommendations—particularly on public safety—plaintiffs in
lawsuits can argue that the City Council acted unreasonably or with "deliberate indifference." If staff
recommended disapproval due to concrete safety concerns, the Council’s choice to proceed may be seen
as knowingly disregarding those concerns, making it harder for the City to claim immunity.
- Courts may interpret the Council’s decision as negligent, especially if the ignored recommendations were
based on well-documented safety risks.
2. **Documentation as Evidence**
- Disapproval recommendations from staff are typically documented and provide a clear paper trail. If a
safety incident occurs, these documents may serve as evidence that the Council had prior warnings but
chose to ignore them.
- This documentation can strengthen a plaintiff's case by demonstrating that the Council knew, or should
have known, that the decision posed safety risks.
3. **Negligence and Breach of Duty of Care**
- A City Council is expected to act with a duty of care toward residents, particularly on issues affecting
health and safety. If Council members override specific safety recommendations, plaintiffs can argue that
the Council breached this duty of care.
- Breach of duty is especially relevant when staff reports outline foreseeable harm, such as risks from
reduced emergency services or inadequate infrastructure.
4. **Loss of Governmental Immunity**
- Many cities are protected from liability under governmental immunity, which often shields "discretionary"
decisions. However, immunity is not always absolute. If the Council’s decision appears grossly negligent or
reckless—especially if it disregarded professional safety advice—this protection can be lost in some
jurisdictions.
5. **Impact on Civil Rights Claims**
- If the resolution disproportionately affects certain communities or leads to unsafe conditions, the city
may face federal civil rights claims. A Council’s dismissal of staff safety concerns can be viewed as
3
"deliberate indifference" toward those impacted, potentially exposing the city to federal liability under
Section 1983 for violations of due process or equal protection.
### Case Example and Public Perception
- Cities have faced lawsuits when Councils ignored safety-based staff disapproval, especially in cases of
rezoning, permitting high-risk businesses, or reducing emergency service budgets. Beyond legal liability,
ignoring these recommendations can also damage public trust, as residents may perceive council decisions
as prioritizing other interests over safety.
In sum, City Councils are generally held to a high standard when making decisions impacting public safety.
If a safety incident occurs, the fact that the council overrode its own expert staff’s recommendations could
significantly impact liability and public perception.
1D - Could City Council members be held personally liable?
City Council members can potentially be held personally liable under certain circumstances, but there are
important nuances to consider:
1. **Governmental Immunity and Official Capacity**
- Council members typically enjoy some degree of governmental immunity when acting within the
scope of their official duties. This means they may be protected from personal liability for actions taken
as part of their legislative functions.
- However, immunity is not absolute. If Council members act outside their official capacity, engage in
willful misconduct, or violate established laws or rights, they may lose this protection.
2. **Deliberate Indifference or Gross Negligence**
- If Council members knowingly disregard clear safety recommendations from their staff and this leads to
harm, they could potentially be found personally liable for gross negligence or deliberate indifference.
Courts may view such actions as outside the protection of governmental immunity.
3. **Civil Rights Violations**
- If the actions of Council members result in civil rights violations, such as discriminatory practices or
violations of due process, they may be personally liable under federal law (e.g., Section 1983 claims). In
such cases, personal liability could arise if it can be shown that the members acted with intent or
reckless disregard for the rights of individuals.
4. **Fraud or Corruption**
- Council members can also face personal liability if their actions involve fraud, corruption, or
malfeasance. Engaging in illegal activities or misusing their position for personal gain can lead to both
civil and criminal consequences.
5. **Indemnification Policies**
- Many municipalities have indemnification policies that protect Council members from personal liability
for actions taken in their official capacity. However, these policies may not cover actions deemed outside
the scope of their duties or those involving gross negligence or willful misconduct.
6. **Case Law and Precedents**
- There have been instances where individual Council members faced lawsuits and personal liability.
Specific case outcomes depend heavily on jurisdiction, the nature of the actions taken, and the context in
which those actions occurred.
4
In summary, while City Council members are generally protected from personal liability when acting within
their official capacity, there are circumstances—particularly involving gross negligence, civil rights
violations, or illegal actions—where they could face personal liability. The specifics of each case and
jurisdictional laws play a significant role in determining liability.
1E - Could the City and or its Council members have increased liability exposure for financial losses,
including but not limited to reduced County property tax revenue, stemming from reduced property values?
Liability for financial losses resulting from a City Council decision contradicting staff, fire & police department
recommendations — if/when such leads to reduced property values and lower county tax revenues—can be
complex. Here are the main considerations:
1. Legal Basis for Liability
Generally, government entities enjoy a degree of immunity from liability, particularly for policy decisions.
However, if it can be shown that the Council acted with gross negligence or willful disregard for the
foreseeable consequences of its actions, this immunity might not apply.
The key question would be whether the Council’s decision was a direct cause of the financial losses. If
there’s a clear causal link between the Council's actions and the decline in property values, the
City could potentially face liability.
2. Negligence Claims
For a successful negligence claim, the plaintiff (in this case, potentially the county) would need to
demonstrate that the City owed a duty of care, breached that duty by ignoring staff recommendations,
and that this breach directly caused financial harm. The argument would hinge on whether the City
Council had a duty to consider the long-term economic impact of its decisions on property values
and tax revenues.
3. Economic Loss Doctrine
Some jurisdictions have an "economic loss doctrine," which limits recovery for purely economic losses
(like property value decreases) unless there is a corresponding physical harm or a special relationship
that gives rise to a duty. The applicability of this doctrine would depend on local laws and precedents.
4. Public Policy Considerations
Courts may be hesitant to hold cities liable for policy decisions that are meant to serve the public
interest. If the Council believed the decision served a greater public benefit (even if it was contrary to
staff recommendations), they might have a defense against liability claims.
5. Impact on Other Stakeholders
If property values decline and tax revenues decrease, it may also affect residents and businesses,
potentially leading to a broader set of claims. Affected parties could argue that the City’s actions harmed
their economic interests.
6. Political and Public Pressure
Even if legal liability is limited, the city may face significant political pressure and public outcry if decisions
lead to visible economic decline. This could affect future policy decisions or lead to legislative changes.
In conclusion, while it is theoretically possible for a City to be held liable for financial losses incurred by
the County due to Council decisions that contradict public safety recommendations, actual cases would
depend heavily on local laws, the specifics of the decision-making process, and the ability to establish a
5
direct causal link between the Council's actions and the economic harm suffered. Legal outcomes
would likely vary based on jurisdiction and case specifics.
2-FIRE MITIGATION
It has been suggested that the SALT project would actually be 'good', because concrete & steel are less
flammable than the natural terrain which it is slated to replace, and would therefore reduce fire risk. The
argument is that WHEN there’s fire, it will spread less quickly, through the structured areas than if those
areas were not developed.
While that may or may not be true, the +/-1,000 additional automobiles and lives, and the human activities
which said concrete & steel are facilitating, promoting & supporting, are most definitely MORE apt to
CAUSE fire than the natural terrain they replace. If approved, the SALT project will undoubtedly increase the
net likelihood of additional fires starting in the first place (now also originating from within Anaheim Hills).
Additionally, WHEN there are fires anywhere within 10's of miles of Anaheim Hills;
there will be +/-1,000 additional automobiles & lives (prioritized life and property) to protect,
which will
compound the well known and documented strain upon already challenged resources,
thereby further overburdening widely acknowledged emergency evacuation response
deficiencies and inadequacies,
increasing life and property casualty risk to the entire surrounding areas.
3-MORALITY – RIGHT & WRONG
Respectfully, to those still considering SALT project approval:
In the face of clear and imminent public safety concerns, is approval of the SALT project the
commonsense ‘right thing to do’, given the position of trust which your constituents have
bestowed upon you?
How would you feel and what would you tell your children (and your children's children)
when they ask you why you voted as you did, if/when the SALT project were indeed found to
have been the cause of unnecessary additional loss of life and/or property, after the next fire
induced mandatory evacuation occurs?
Please listen to your hearts and please do what you know is right.
Please listen to your constituents.
Thank you,
Orin Abrams
27-year Anaheim Hills Resident
6