Steven Johnson Case Concludes Second Day

Councilman Steven Johnson, in dark suit and red tie, celebrates the official opening of the 99 Cent Only store in La Verne with other council members, business members and local officials.

Day Two of the trial in a West Covina Superior Court room to determine whether La Verne councilman Steven Johnson violated a conflict of law provision took a decidedly more technical turn, as the prosecution called a real estate appraiser, a geographic information systems (GIS) specialist and a city attorney to the witness stand.

Redlands-based real estate appraiser Steven Smith, called first by prosecutor Jonlyn Callahan, testified that it was his professional opinion that any expansion by the University of La Verne, as described in its master plan, would have a “positive effect” on local businesses closest to the college. He said his judgment was based on the growth patterns of other colleges, such as Stanford, MIT, Cal State San Bernardino and the University of Riverside, and on related stories he had researched on the Internet. He also cited Ontario Mills as another example of a “demand generator” that had benefited local businesses within its sphere.

The distinction of proximity is important because California’s Political Reform Act requires that public officials abstain from governmental decisions that will have “a material financial effect” on their own economic interests. Material financial effect is often interpreted as having real property within 500 feet of the property affected by the decision. This presumption may, however, be rebutted by proof that it is not reasonably foreseeable that the governmental decision will have any financial effect on the real property. Thus a property could fall within the 500-foot limit, and not constitute a conflict if there was no anticipation of financial gain to the owner.

Johnson owns two properties that fall within the 500-foot limit, but he maintained at the time of the January 16, 2007 vote on the University’s master plan proposal that neither of his properties, one separated by railroad tracks and a six-lane highway, stood to gain from the proposed expansion. On those grounds, he chose to participate in the vote.

In his cross examination, Johnson’s attorney, Richard Farquhar, noted that comparing the building of a large 515,000-square-foot research center at Stanford University was not the same as constructing a 50,000-square-foot student center with “50 beds,” as proposed by the University’s proposed expansion. He also questioned how Smith concluded that properties like Johnson’s would appreciate 5% or more from the proposed expansion. Smith said the University’s proposed west campus would create greater traffic flow on Arrow Hwy., along which Johnson’s business is located. In response, Farquhar noted that Johnson’s company was an insurance business, “not a convenience store.”

Next, Callahan called Jason Lebine, a GIS specialist with the Los Angeles County of Regional Planning for the purpose of situating Johnson’ two properties within the context of the 500-foot rule. He said Johnson’s insurance business was located 193 feet from a University boundary and his rental property was located within 467 feet of a University-owned property. He said the margin of error was roughly 5%.

The afternoon session concluded with La Verne City Attorney Robert Kress testifying about the sequence of events, discussions and emails leading up the Council’s vote on the University’s master plan. He said he recommended that both Johnson and then-councilman Don Kendrick, who owns a realty office on Bonita Avenue, recuse themselves from the vote, based on the 500-foot rule.

In an email, Johnson thanked the city attorney for his opinion, but said he would go with an alternative opinion furnished by his brother, Kirk, a long-time La Verne-based real estate appraiser and lawyer.

Noting that lawyers can have differences of opinions and interpretations of the law, Farquhar asked Kress if he was familiar with an old legal saw.

“You ever heard the saying,” Farquhar asked, “that if you ask three lawyers their opinion, you’ll get four?”
The trial resumes Thursday at 11 a.m. at West Covina Superior Court.