So the proposal to build a shopping center anchored by a 168,000-square-foot Lowe’s store in Westlake Village was defeated. No surprise really. The developer, Rotkin Real Estate, touted the 230,000-square-foot project as another town center, a fashionable concept in the wake of Caruso’s Calabasas Commons and Grove at Farmer’s Market. But those projects are anchored by movie theaters and stores like Nordstrom. Who wants to while away an afternoon sipping latte while watching construction workers haul two-by-fours out to their trucks? Under the proposal, Lowe’s would account for the vast majority of the shopping center, although some restaurants, retail shops and an ultra-luxury car dealership were also included in the mix. No, the Westlake Village proposal would not have created the kind of community gathering place the developers promised. Even if the project didn’t require a wholesale change in the city’s general plan, which calls for the site to be an office project, it would have been misguided. Throwing aside what many say is a well-developed general plan for growth in Westlake Village to make room for a Lowe’s anchored center made even less sense. Which makes the fact that two of the city’s council members supported the project all the more puzzling. So I called Mark Rutherford, one of the Westlake Village city council members who supported the project and asked him why he did. He told me he thought a retail project would not generate significantly more traffic than an office project. Those two things being equal, he said, city residents would like to have more restaurants, and the city would like to have more revenue. “What I was looking at is, if the negative impacts were fairly similar, no question that the retail had a huge financial benefit over the office, anywhere from $700,000 to $1 million more,” Rutherford said. Jim Bruno, one of the council members who voted to deny the proposal, said he may have voted differently if the project were different. He said he may have considered a movie theater or what he called a “more compatible anchor tenant that would bring both family-based recreation and cultural recreation to the community. “I just didn’t see where a big box as an anchor tenant could get us there,” he told me. All told, two members favored the proposal; two opposed it; and one recused himself because of a possible conflict of interest. Because a change to the city’s general plan requires the approval of at least three council members, the project neither passed nor did it get rejected. Call it a stalemate if you will. But the stalemate could give the developers an opportunity to come back to the city. Bart Hollander, who represents Lowe’s on the project, told the council that Lowe’s and Rotkin plan to go ahead and acquire the parcel anyway. They may flip it to an office developer. They can try to pull together another proposal that would win one more vote in their favor. Or they can wait until a new council is elected, until one council member changes his mind, until the city has a more overriding need for more revenues or until some other unforeseeable circumstance comes around. A spokeswoman for Lowe’s said in an e-mail, “Lowe’s is still evaluating our options.” The spokeswoman for Chuck Rotkin did not respond to phone calls seeking comment. But something tells me Westlake Village hasn’t seen the last of this project. Warner Center Project Sold Plans to develop a multifamily community in Warner Center have changed hands. The owners of the property, Pacific Properties LLC, sold it to a partnership of CalSTRS and Fairfield Residential, which is also developing the Noho Commons apartment community, for $60 million. The 11-acre parcel commanded a very high price, thanks to existing entitlements which will allow for more than 500 units and to the newly-passed resolution that requires housing developers in Warner Center to set aside 25 percent of units for workforce housing. This project is one of the last to receive entitlements before the workforce housing rule takes effect, although Pacific had not yet started construction. “We had about five qualified bidders, and they were all really close to the sale price,” said Randall Reel, senior vice president for Pacific Properties. Fairfield is shifting the mix of units. Pacific had planned for a rental complex. The new plans call for about half the units to be rentals and the other half to be condominiums. John Battle, a broker with Lee & Associates, represented the buyers. Lee’s Craig Stevens, along with Lyn Fields of Madison Partners and Stuart Taylor of Taylor Advisors, represented Pacific. Sherman Oaks Sale A 37,000-square-foot Sherman Oaks office building has been sold for $9,350,000. The building, at 12925 Riverside Drive, was acquired by LaeRoc Partners. Trevor Belden, a broker with Lee & Associates L.A. North/Ventura, and Scott Murphy, with Metropolitan Pacific, represented the seller, a private investment group. Country Comes to Encino A newly constructed office building in Encino has sold to the Academy of Country Music for $3 million. The 7,900-square-foot building was constructed unfinished on the inside, allowing the new owners to build it out to their own specifications, said Scott Romick, a broker with Lee & Associates L.A. North/Ventura, who, with Jeremy Barbakow represented the seller. Romick said the corner lot, which abuts the Ventura (101) Freeway, posed a challenge to development because it is surrounded by a residential neighborhood. The developers constructed a two-story building that looks more like a home than an office building. Brad McCarthy, a broker with CB Richard Ellis, represented the Academy, which is relocating from Burbank. Senior reporter Shelly Garcia can be reached at (818) 316-3123 or by e-mail at [email protected].
