Picus Admits Popularity Drives Stand on Land-Use : Planning: Councilwoman describes the role of political considerations in her position on development.

Veteran Los Angeles City Councilwoman Joy Picus repeatedly admitted in a sworn deposition that her positions on land-use matters are driven largely by their impact on her popularity.

Picus’ responses to questions by attorneys for a group of thwarted developers also show her to be vengeful, attacking and embarrassing colleagues who oppose her and threatening those who could do her political harm.

In addition, statements by Picus and others, including former aides, provide glimpses of the inner workings of a city planning process that, despite appearances of rational analysis, apparently can be readily subverted for political purposes.

Given in nine sessions between June 20 and Sept. 23, the testimony comprises answers to questions by attorneys for Warner Ridge Associates, the plaintiffs in a $100-million lawsuit filed last year against the city, Picus and two other council members. The lawsuit is to go to trial in January, but the plaintiffs already have won several rulings, including one last month ordering the city to rezone the property within 30 days to allow construction of commercial buildings.

The 1,750-page text of the deposition was given to news organizations this week by Robert I. McMurry, an attorney for the plaintiffs, and has added to the bitterness of the case.

City attorneys on Thursday threatened to seek sanctions against McMurry for making the document public. It has not yet been filed in court. A hearing has been scheduled for Oct. 14 on a request by city attorneys for an order prohibiting any further release of depositions and to require an accounting of all copies of the Picus testimony. That hearing will be conducted by retired Los Angeles Superior Court Judge James N. Reese, who was appointed to act as referee in the litigation.

The lengthy deposition, which was interrupted once when Picus and her attorneys stalked out and had to be ordered by a judge to return, appears to support many of the plaintiffs’ allegations that politics, not prudent planning, led the City Council in 1990 to illegally deny them the value of their property.

Picus engineered the rejection of the developer’s bid to rezone the 21.5-acre ridge adjacent to Pierce College, formerly occupied by the home of movie mogul Harry Warner, to allow construction of 810,000 square feet of commercial offices. Even though the city Planning Commission and the general plan for the area endorsed commercial uses for the property, Picus was able to organize support on the City Council for zoning it for single-family houses.

Zoning decisions in Los Angeles frequently are surrounded by charges that political considerations have tainted the outcome. The Picus deposition and other documents in the case, however, contain frank confirmations of how fully she was guided by those considerations in opposing the Warner Ridge project.

She said, for example, that had she believed that a majority of the area’s residents supported the project, she would have gone along. “The whole process is political,” said Picus, referring to her efforts to lobby the city Planning Commission on the project.

Picus was highly critical of the city’s Planning Department, whose duty is to examine proposed projects and make recommendations on them to the commission. She refers to their work as “mediocre” and decries their “stupidity.” She said planners often rely too much on their academic training when making planning decisions and not enough on the views of the community.

Regarding the Planning Commission, she said she did not believe “the Planning Commission ever acts fair and objectively” and that it is usually “politically motivated.”

She admitted that she never read key documents related to the WRA proposal, although she was briefed on them by her staff. Those documents included an environmental impact report whose conclusions ran counter to her position and studies indicating that building single-family homes on the property, as Picus wished, was not economically feasible.

In another deposition in the case, Rev. Kirt Anderson, a former field deputy for Picus who had been assigned to the Warner Ridge project, states that political expediency rather than good planning guided her position on the issue.

Picus’ decision to oppose the commercial project was “completely political,” he said in his deposition. “The decision was made first, and then analysis was brought to try and justify the decision after the fact . . . then whatever concrete reasons that had to be generated, had to be generated.”

Anderson, now a minister in Ventura, said he later came to believe that the decision to oppose WRA “was a rather stunning injustice.” When he told Picus that he had changed his mind on the issue, she became outraged. In her deposition, she charges that Anderson’s views were changed in conversations with developer Jack Spound and his partners in Warner Ridge Associates. Anderson denied the allegation in an interview Thursday.

“I felt that, on the basis of my own set of principles that . . . our office simply abandoned Jack Spound based upon the political heat that was being generated,” Anderson said in an interview. “Perhaps Joy can’t comprehend that . . . and thinks that I was wooed or bought off, because I made this decision based on principle.”

Picus’ deposition also gives insight into how she operates in the political arena. She said, for example, that she attempted to embarrass former fellow Councilman Robert Farrell for supporting the Warner Ridge commercial project.

Asked in the deposition why she released information that linked the Johnson Wax Development Co., one of the Warner Ridge Associates partners, to South Africa, she said:

“Actually, as I think about it, I don’t think it was intended so much to influence council votes as to embarrass Mr. Farrell,” she said.

“Why would it embarrass Mr. Farrell?” she was asked by McMurry, the WRA attorney who asked most of the questions in the deposition.

“Well, Mr. Farrell was the most ardent advocate” of a city ordinance aimed at preventing the city from doing business with companies with ties to South Africa, Picus said, “and the most ardent advocate for Mr. Spound, and I thought that would make him very uncomfortable, and I rather relished the fact.”

Picus also said she enjoyed out-maneuvering Mayor Tom Bradley. The City Council measure aimed at thwarting the developers was approved in 1990, just before Bradley, who Picus believed would have vetoed the measure, left town. So Picus arranged for John Ferraro, who was serving as acting mayor, to sign the measure in Bradley’s absence.

Asked in the deposition whether she enjoyed outwitting Bradley, she replied: “It brought me an extreme degree of pleasure to do that. Extreme degree.”

She said she immediately notified the press. “I hate to use the word, but ‘gloat’ fits really well,” Picus said.

In an interview Thursday, Picus said the deposition demonstrates that “I worked very, very hard on behalf of my constituents” in defeating WRA’s office building proposal.

She said, “I don’t think it’s possible to go too far” in representing constituents. “I had to go to the mat to win this in the face of opposition from a lot of powerful people . . . and I did it.”

McMurry, however, said he believes that “her testimony will be tremendously damaging to the city. We think she provided support for many of the allegations in the complaint . . . and, in fact, was quite candid and unabashed about saying, ‘Yeah, that was what happened.’ ”

The main force pushing Picus on the project was the Woodland Hills Homeowners Organization, whose leaders, the lawsuit alleges, threatened to work against Picus at the polls if she did not support their position.

Bob Gross, the president of the homeowners organization, on Thursday denied that his group had ever threatened Picus. He said the homeowners’ efforts to persuade Picus that the project would clog already crowded streets with traffic were completely appropriate “and, when we get our elected officials to see this and respond to it, we feel good about it, obviously.”

But the degree to which such homeowner groups and other interests influence city planning has become a hot issue. Bradley several months ago spoke to the Planning Department and chided City Council members for attempting to influence the outcome of what should be an objective analysis of proposed projects.

In September, a management audit of the Planning Department also concluded that the City Council, pressured by homeowner organizations or developers, routinely seeks to pressure the city’s department to incorporate those views in its analyses.

In her deposition, Picus alleges that Bradley also lobbies city planners and planning commissioners with his views. Bradley spokesman Bill Chandler denied that the mayor had tried to influence the Planning Commission to support an office project on the Warner Ridge property. Bradley did endorse the commission’s recommendation in favor of the project.

Chandler also suggested that Picus’ pursuit of her constituents’ interests was excessive in the Warner Ridge case.

He said he was referring to Picus’ admission that she threatened to kill Spound’s project if Spound released a poll he had commissioned before the April, 1989, City Council election. Picus said in the deposition that she feared the poll results on Warner Ridge and other issues would be distorted and distributed to her political opponents, damaging her reelection chances.

Referring to a conversation with Councilman Zev Yaroslavsky, she said: “I know that I told Zev that if Spound released that information, he was--I don’t think I used the phrase--but the equivalent of chopped liver.”

“As far as I was concerned, if he released that, he was finished,” she remembers telling Yaroslavsky.

That information was communicated to Spound and he withheld the poll information.

“We are confident that councilwoman’s constituents don’t support her Chicago-style tactics of blacklisting someone, just because they don’t agree with her,” Chandler said.

In one of the most serious allegations in the document, Picus contends that city planners, Spound and Pierce College officials “conspired” to make a case for building a commercial development on the property.

She acknowledges, however, that she has no proof of her claim and attorneys for Spound deny the charge.

“My client’s reaction was that it is a bizarre accusation,” McMurry said.

“We certainly did not participate in anything like that and we would be amazed that the people at Pierce College or the Planning Department participated in anything remotely resembling that.”

Picus’ Answers

The following are excerpts of sworn depositions by Councilwoman Joy Picus in a lawsuit over a Woodland Hills development by Warner Ridge Associates:

Embarrassing Farrell

In January, 1990, Councilwoman Joy Picus’ office issued a news release pointing out that Johnson Wax Development Co. was doing business in South Africa. Johnson Wax Development was a partner with developer Jack Spound in Warner Ridge Associates. Former City Councilman Robert Farrell was an ally of Spound.

WRA Attorney Robert I. McMurry: In issuing that press release, was the idea that this would influence council votes? . . .

Picus: Actually, as I think about it, I don’t think it was intended so much to influence council votes as to embarrass Mr. Farrell.

McMurry: Why would it embarrass Mr. Farrell?

Picus: Well, Mr. Farrell was the most ardent advocate of (a city ordinance aimed at preventing the city from doing business with companies with ties to South Africa), and the most ardent advocate for Mr. Spound, and I thought that would make him very uncomfortable, and I rather relished the fact.

McMurry: Why did you relish the fact of making Mr. Farrell uncomfortable?

Picus: Because he was the most active person in opposition to my position.

Equivalent of Chopped Liver

Before the April, 1989, council election, Picus learned that Spound had conducted a poll in regard to the Warner Ridge development that she feared could damage her chances of reelection. She spoke with Councilman Zev Yaroslavsky about the poll.

Picus: I know that I told Zev that if Spound released that information, he was--I don’t think I used the phrase--but the equivalent of chopped liver.

McMurry: I take it by saying Mr. Spound was chopped liver you were communicating to Mr. Yaroslavsky and ultimately to Mr. Spound that his chances of getting his project approved would be zip if he released that poll?

Picus: You interpret it very correctly.

McMurry: And I take it that you represented that your colleagues on the City Council would have similar feelings about such a matter?

Picus: I don’t know that I did that at all. I said that as far as I was concerned, if he chose to release that, he was finished.

Planning Commission Questioned

Picus repeatedly referred to her lack of confidence in the Los Angeles City Planning Commission.

Picus: I’m not enamored of the fact that the Planning Commission ever acts fair and objectively; occasionally, but not on a regular basis. That isn’t the way I describe their behavior.

Political Poll

Prior to running for reelection in 1989, Picus conducted her own poll and asked questions regarding Warner Ridge.

McMurry: Would it be safe to say that it was your understanding of this poll . . . that you would be more likely to get votes within your district by opposing the commercial project . . . ?

Picus: That’s correct.

McMurry: So it was a political advantage to you to publicly oppose the Warner Ridge commercial project?

Picus: It was certainly a more accurate reflection and representation of my constituents’ wishes.

Outwitting the Mayor

The City Council measure aimed at thwarting the developers’ plans was approved in 1990 just before Mayor Tom Bradley, who Picus believed would have vetoed the measure, left town. In an almost unprecedented move, Picus arranged for John Ferraro, who was serving as acting mayor, to sign the measure in Bradley’s absence.

McMurry: Did it bring you some degree of pleasure that you were able to outwit the mayor in this fashion?

Picus: It brought me an extreme degree of pleasure to do that. Extreme degree.

McMurry: In fact, you were certain to see to it that the press was immediately aware of it?

Picus: I hate to use the word, but “gloat” fits really well, and we did notify the press right away.