Slavin might have conflict of interest with Lowe’s

Bob Slavin Westlake Village City Councilmember Bob Slavin could be forced to recuse himself from voting on the proposed Lowe’s development in Westlake Village because the decision might impact the value of an office building he owns in neighboring Thousand Oaks.

The Fair Political Practices Commission, the state-run agency that oversees elected officials in California, says that an elected official cannot vote on an issue if the decision “will result in an increase or decrease in the business entity’s gross revenues for a fiscal year in the amount of $20,000 or more.”

According to a report submitted in June by an independent real estate appraiser, the value of Slavin’s 13,000-square-foot office building located on the 120 block of Auburn Court in Thousand Oaks could be affected by the $20,000 amount depending on whether or not Lowe’s is built.

The law ensures that elected officials do not use their public office for personal financial gain.

A proposal is currently before the city council on whether or not to rezone a 22-acre lot off Russell Ranch Road to allow the construction of a 168,000-square-foot Lowe’s home improvement store, with an attached 31,000-squarefoot garden center. In addition to the hardware store, Rotkin Real Estate Group has submitted plans to develop 62,000 square feet of restaurant and retail space on the property. The development will feature a 20,000-square-foot highend car dealership.

The property in question is currently earmarked for 376,000 square feet of office space.

If the city does not accept Lowe’s proposal, the construction of the office park is almost certain. The additional office space would impact office rents in Thousand Oaks, Agoura and Westlake Village, according to real estate reports.

Westlake Village Attorney Terence Boga said a decision on whether or not Slavin has to abstain from voting on Lowe’s depends on a second opinion from another real estate appraiser hired by the city.

“We’re trying to make sure the original findings are defensible,” Boga said when asked why the city was requesting a second opinion. “(The first opinion) is fairly brief, and so we have some questions whether he looked at all of things that he was supposed to look at or that you would reasonably expect him to look at.”

Opponents of the Lowe’s development, however, are concerned about the ramifications of the second opinion.

A law firm hired by Jes Ruff, owner of the Do-It Center and a Lowe’s opponent, has asked the city to make public the facts surrounding the case.

Although Ronald Laurain, a general real estate appraiser with Long Beach-based R.P. Laurain and Associates, said he would not comment on his original report, he did say that in his 40 years as a real estate appraiser a second opinion for a report of this nature is rare.

“I don’t believe I’ve ever come across this situation before,” Laurain said.

Boga said he advised Slavin not to talk about the issue, as the case remains open and the second opinion is pending. Slavin was not available for comment.

Boga said Slavin notified the city about his property and a possible conflict of interest. The city then requested Laurain’s report.

Measuring Lowe’s impact

In order to determine the financial impact the additional office space would have on the surrounding cities, Laurain’s analysis took into consideration the 169 office buildings in Thousand Oaks, Agoura Hills and Westlake Village and current rent rates in the Conejo Valley. Slavin’s $2 million office building is about two-and-a-half miles from the Lowe’s site on Russell Ranch Road.

The report states there is nearly 7.1 million square feet of total office space in the three cities, about 9 percent of which is vacant. An office park in lieu of Lowe’s would bring a 5 percent increase in available office space, the report said. But because Slavin’s property is relatively small, the potential dip in rental rateaffecting hibuilding would not be significant enough to force his recusal, the reporsaid. T h p r o b l e m though, is thathe building’total value could possibly decrease by as much as $80,000 if the proposed office buildings are built, according to the report. Thus, Slavin would have to recuse himself as per state law.

“It is judged, therefore, based on the criteria established by the Fair Political Practices Commission, that . . . .Councilmember Robert Slavin (has) a financial interest in the outcome of the vote on the subject issue,” Laurain wrote.

Based on Laurain’s report, Boga wrote the Fair Political Practices Commission in mid-July to request “advice regarding the conflict-of-interest provisions of the Political Reform Act.”

Boga posed two questions to the state agency. First, Boga wanted to know the legal consequences of a disagreement between appraisers.

In a response in late August, the state agency said although the city could ask for a second opinion, it would not void findings of the first opinion.

The Fair Political Practices Commission warned the city to tread lightly when seeking a second opinion.

“A public official may not simply shop around until he or she finds an appraiser that will reach the conclusion he or she desires, and then rely on that conclusion in order to navigate a way out of the materiality standards provided under commission regulations,” agency officials wrote in their response to the city’s request for advice.

Boga also asked whether Slavin was exempt from recusal because of a clause in the Political Reform Act that allows elected officials to vote on an issue if their interest is “indistinguishable from the manner in which the decisions will affect the public generally.”

The state agency said evidence indicated that Slavin stood to gain more financially than the average person if Lowe’s were built and the offices were not.

The city will host two town hall meetings to give the public information on the Lowe’s development. The first meeting will be at 7 p.m. Thurs., Jan. 5 at First Neighborhood Community Center. The second meeting will be at 10 a.m. Sat., Jan. 7 at Calvary Community Church.