Official Admits Conflict on Votes : Lancaster: In apparent violation of law, Councilman William Pursley backed project by developer that had bought other land from him. State agency vows probe.

Lancaster Councilman William Pursley repeatedly voted to aid one of the state’s largest developers in its plan to build more than 550 houses just months after the builder agreed to pay Pursley and his partners millions of dollars in a separate real estate deal, public records show.

State law requires politicians to avoid voting on issues affecting entities that have provided them income in the previous year.

But Pursley, a millionaire real estate agent, voted three separate times to endorse planning proposals in late 1989 and early 1990 for Kaufman & Broad’s California Horizon tract in west Lancaster, according to city records. The Los Angeles-based developer’s project is under construction.

In an interview over the weekend, the councilman acknowledged that he should not have cast the votes but said he was not aware at the time of the legal restrictions. “Yes, I did vote. Yes, it was wrong,” said Pursley, who was Lancaster’s mayor for the year ending in March.

Pursley is the subject of ethics investigations in two other matters: his admitted failure to disclose many of his financial interests as required by law and his vote on a parcel of land on which he later earned a sales commission.

The councilman’s votes on the 559-house California Horizon tract came shortly after the developer bought 320 acres of land in east Lancaster in June, 1989, for about $6.7 million from two Pursley partnerships. The developer also paid Pursley a $109,146 real estate agent’s commission on the sale.

In addition, Pursley led the council in January, 1990, in authorizing a city lawsuit that proved unsuccessful against a planned 2,200-bed state prison across the street from the California Horizon project. Days earlier, Kaufman & Broad had complained to city officials that the prison would devalue its property.

The state’s conflict-of-interest law is intended to prevent politicians from taking official actions affecting their own income, investments or real estate holdings, or the interests of any source of income or gifts to them totaling $250 or more in the preceding 12-month period.

In the interview, the councilman maintained that he knew in 1989 and 1990 that he could not legally vote on issues affecting the land his partnerships had sold to Kaufman & Broad. But, Pursley said, he only later learned that his income from Kaufman & Broad prohibited him from voting on any of the developer’s projects in the city.

After he gained that knowledge, Pursley said, he twice cited the conflict of interest to avoid voting on the California Horizon project, in February and early March of last year. However, the councilman acknowledged that he made another mistake by voting on the project’s final planning approval on March 19, 1990.

Duane Betty, president of Kaufman & Broad’s Antelope Valley Division, said his company did not attempt to curry political favor by purchasing land from Pursley’s partnerships. “There was absolutely no connection” between the two, he said.

Betty added that the developer began negotiations with Pursley in 1987 and opened escrow on the property in January, 1988, more than a year before Pursley was elevated to the City Council in a special election after the death of a member. “I hardly see how we could have foreseen that,” Betty said.

Officials with the state Fair Political Practices Commission, one agency that has been investigating Pursley, said they were expanding their inquiry to include his California Horizon votes. The Los Angeles County district attorney’s office, the other investigating agency, had no comment on the latest disclosures.

Since December, the district attorney has been reviewing possible criminal charges against Pursley for voting in June, 1990, to reduce a city road easement on land from which he later earned a $9,780 sales commission. The seller, who was his client, said the council vote helped clinch the sale.

The seller of that one-acre parcel in east Lancaster was Antelope Valley insurance executive Clyde Golding. He also was part of one of the two Pursley groups that sold the 320 acres to Kaufman & Broad, along with engineer Lawrence Cushman and two Pursley relatives.

Since mid-1990, the FPPC has been reviewing Pursley’s easement vote and his admitted failure to fully disclose his extensive financial interests on his 1989 and 1990 conflict-of-interest filings. For 1989 alone, he failed to report nearly $240,000 in commissions, including the $109,146 Kaufman & Broad payment.

The actions by Pursley and the Lancaster council on California Horizon gave the developer permission to proceed with its plan to build 559 houses on a remote 154-acre site at the southwest corner of Avenue J and 60th Street West that had been zoned to allow only about 60 houses.

According to city records, Pursley cast three substantive votes on the California Horizon project:

On Dec. 14, 1989, on the developer’s request for a General Plan amendment permitting vastly increased development on the land; on Jan. 2, 1990, to give city staff instructions on the developer’s request for a zone change, and on March, 19, 1990, on the final vote for the change.

(In addition, on Feb. 19, 1991, Pursley voted to add the first phase of the project to the city’s landscape and drainage districts, according to city records.)

During the California Horizon votes in late 1989 and early 1990, the full extent of Pursley’s ties to the developer was not publicly known, including his commission on the land sale and income he received from nearly $3.3 million in mortgages the developer had with Pursley’s partnerships.

The councilman had a 33% share in one partnership that owned 160 acres, and a 20% share in another partnership that owned the other 160 acres sold to the developer.

Under state law, Pursley was required to disclose that income in an annual financial interest statement for the prior year, which he had to file by April, 1990. But Pursley’s statement, filed with the city on March 29, 1990, less than two weeks after the council’s final action, gave at best a muddled account.

The FPPC, which typically investigates conflict-of-interest allegations, can fine politicians up to $2,000 for each improper vote or other violation. The district attorney can file misdemeanor criminal charges, but has not won a conflict conviction against a politician that prosecutors could remember.

Kaufman & Broad, which bills itself as the largest single-family home builder in the state, recently opened a sales office at the California Horizon tract, where houses will be offered from the low $100,000 range.

State officials, meanwhile, are well into construction of the more than $200-million Mira Loma prison several hundred feet away, near the northeast corner of Avenue J and 60th Street West. The city recently gave up its $170,000 legal campaign against the prison after losing a series of court battles.

Since Kaufman & Broad was not the direct subject of the council’s legal fight--even though the value of its project clearly stood to be affected by the outcome--FPPC regulations spell out a different test for whether Pursley should have abstained on that issue.

The councilman said he had never been told and had no idea that voting on the prison issue might be construed as a conflict because of his dealings with Kaufman & Broad. “That’s something that has never entered my mind,” he said.

Because Kaufman & Broad is a large corporation traded on the New York Stock Exchange, FPPC regulations say Pursley should have abstained if the lawsuit decision stood to affect the developer’s expenses for a year by $100,000 or more, or the value of its assets by $250,000 or more.

Under FPPC regulations, the issue would be whether the council’s decision to file a lawsuit against the prison had the potential to affect the value of the Kaufman & Broad site by about 10%, enough to meet the state’s threshold of $250,000.

In a December, 1989, letter to city officials on its project, the developer noted that it had “vigorously joined the city” in fighting the prison “because of our certainty that a prison will undermine property values and erode the market for high-quality housing in its immediate vicinity.”

The Council and a Builder

Here is a look at the dealings between Lancaster Councilman William Pursley and housing developer Kaufman & Broad. State law generally requires elected officials to avoid voting on issues affecting entities that provided them with income in the preceding 12 months.

JUNE 15, 1989: In a multimillion-dollar deal, Kaufman & Broad buys about 320 acres in east Lancaster from two Pursley partnerships. The councilman has a 20% share in one and a 33% share in the other. Pursley, a real estate agent, also receives a $109,146 commission on the sale.

DEC. 14, 1989: The City Council considers a General Plan amendment proposed by Kaufman & Broad that would permit urban densities on 154 acres in west Lancaster. Pursley urges the council to accept the project’s environmental impact report and to approve the plan change. He joins in 5-0 votes on both.

JAN. 2, 1990: At a study session, Pursley and other council members discuss Kaufman & Broad’s follow-up request for a zone change that would allow nearly 650 houses on the site, a tenfold increase over the existing zoning. However, Pursley says the developer would be “responsible” and voluntarily build only about 510 houses.

JAN. 2, 1990: Later, at its regular meeting, the City Council considers the developer’s zone change request. The Planning Commission had urged that all houses in the project be built on at least 8,500-square-foot lots. But, in a 3-2 vote, Pursley and two colleagues direct city officials to work out a deal that would allow a mix of the larger lots sought by the planners, plus many smaller, 7,000-square-foot lots sought by Kaufman & Broad.

JAN. 2, 1990: At the same meeting, Pursley leads the council in a 5-0 vote to file legal action to block the state’s plan to build a 2,200-bed prison opposite the Kaufman & Broad site. Pursley says he is “distressed” about the prison location. Days earlier, the developer had complained to city officials that the prison would hurt its project’s property values.

FEB. 20, 1990: With Pursley abstaining for the first time after declaring a conflict of interest, the council on a 4-0 vote directs its staff to explore designs allowing a mix of lot sizes. The council calls for mostly 7,000- and 8,500-square-foot lots sought by the developer. But the lawmakers, without Pursley, impose a new requirement that would make Kaufman & Broad carve out some 10,000-square-foot lots, effectively reducing the number of houses in the development.

MARCH 5, 1990: The council again considers Kaufman & Broad’s zone change request. With Pursley again abstaining, the council votes 3 to 1 to approve the final mix of three different lot sizes it had requested Feb. 20, giving the developer 603 lots on the site. The developer ultimately decides to use 559 lots for houses.

MARCH 19, 1990: The council, including Pursley, votes 5 to 0 to approve the consent calendar, a list of routine items that includes the final approval of Kaufman & Broad’s zone change.

SOURCE: Lancaster City Council meeting minutes; public records.