SIMI VALLEY, Calif. — Little has moved at the Simi Valley Town Center since the new owners closed escrow in October 2024. Nearly two years later the redevelopment is still unfiled and unapproved. The center carries significant vacancies. Macy's announced in January 2024 that it would close, leaving the mall with no anchor at all (Los Angeles Times, KCLU, Pacific Coast Business Times).

That is the fourth owner's problem now. It was the first three owners' problem too.

Three Owners, Three Failures

The $300 million open-air center opened in October 2005 under Forest City Enterprises (Los Angeles Times). Five years later Forest City put it up for sale, and in December 2010 handed it over in lieu of foreclosure to Walton Street Capital and Alberta Development Partners. The deed showed a property carrying more than $112 million in debt (Ventura County Star).

Those owners defaulted as well. In May 2019 the mall went to a trustee's auction with more than $41.7 million in unpaid debt, and Bayside SVTC took it for $27.5 million (Ventura County Star).

The plans have a pattern of their own. A proposal for more than 300 apartments was dropped in 2018 before it ever reached the City Council. An earlier plan to raze 140,000 square feet at the east end never got there either (Ventura County Star, via Yahoo News, Simi Valley Acorn). Twice, the public never saw the proposal die.

The numbers tell it without adjectives. Three hundred million dollars to build. One hundred twelve million in debt at the first handoff. Forty-one point seven million owed at foreclosure. Twenty-seven and a half million at auction. Thirty-eight million in the most recent sale, to SteelWave and Steerpoint Capital in October 2024 (Pacific Coast Business Times).

Their consultant told the council in January 2026 that they do not want to become the fourth failed owner of the site (CLAIR).

A Committee of Two

Then that consultant asked for something narrow and specific: a subcommittee of two.

Glen Becerra, a consultant for the owners, appeared before the council on Jan. 12, 2026. The project had stalled, he said, while the owners waited on a draft development agreement from city staff, and the delay had already cost the center Dick's Sporting Goods as a prospective tenant. His remedy was a two-member subcommittee devoted to the Town Center, which he described as a way to move with urgency and to hold both sides accountable (CLAIR).

Two is the number that matters. Simi Valley has five council members, so a quorum is three (City of Simi Valley). One below a quorum is where California's open-meeting law stops applying.

The Ralph M. Brown Act requires local governing bodies to post agendas, meet in public and take public comment. Government Code Section 54952(b) carves out an exception: an advisory committee made up solely of members of the governing body, and numbering fewer than a quorum, is not a legislative body under the act (California Attorney General). Two of five is fewer than a quorum. A committee that size may meet with a developer, review financial terms and shape a recommendation with no agenda, no notice and no resident entitled to speak (League of California Cities).

What such a committee would discuss is not small. On May 19, 2025, the council voted 4 to 1 to let SteelWave pursue a rezone of about 15.75 of the site's 44.7 acres to high-density housing, demolishing roughly 53 percent of the mall for 291 to 375 homes, or as many as 996 under state density bonus law. Elaine P. Litster, now mayor pro tem, cast the only no vote, calling the center the city's "crown jewel" (CLAIR).

The exemption is common, and Mr. Becerra did not create it. This council used it on July 27, 2026, to form an ad hoc committee on a proposed arena (Citizen Portal).

The request also did not come from a council member who wanted a working group. It came from a paid representative of the property owners, addressing the body that will vote on their application. As described, it would give the owners a standing channel to two of the five officials who will decide the rezoning, in a room residents have no right to enter.

The published account of his remarks does not explain why two members would move faster than five. What his request would remove is not delay but the posted agenda, the advance notice and the microphone at which residents have objected.

There is a limit on that exemption. The same statute says standing committees with continuing subject matter jurisdiction are legislative bodies under the act "irrespective of their composition" (California Government Code Section 54952). A two-member committee devoted solely to the Town Center could fall on that side of the line, which would mean the agendas and public comment apply after all. The city attorney has not said publicly whether he reviewed the request.

Whether Mr. Becerra intended that result is not established in any public record, and he has not said so.

The Forum That Filled the Vacuum

While the request sat unanswered, residents held the conversation somewhere else. On Aug. 10, 2026, a member of the Simi Valley Community Forum on Facebook posted in capital letters: "UNPOPULAR OPINION: JUST BULLDOZE THE SIMI VALLEY TOWN CENTER," and asked what residents would build if the site were cleared.

Hundreds answered. The most common answer was not a commercial one.

"Bulldoze it, turn it into an outdoor recreation facility," wrote one commenter. "Everyone is upset that these kids are riding their e-bikes. Give them a place to ride them."

"Turn it into multiple open space," wrote a second. "Open park. Baseball diamonds. Soccer fields."

Others were blunt about the limits. "It is private property owned by a corporation not the city," one wrote. Another treated the outcome as long since settled: "Decisions have been made by the owners and the City. Waiting for approvals."

That last comment is an opinion, not a finding. But it describes the fear precisely. Not that the wrong decision will be made, but that it will be made somewhere the public is not.

No Movement at City Hall

Seven months later, no council agenda has addressed it. The Aug. 24, 2026, agenda contains no reference to the Town Center, its owners, or a subcommittee, and its only closed session item is a labor negotiation. The council then adjourns until Sept. 21, 2026 (City of Simi Valley).

SteelWave's one-year window to file closed in May 2026 with no public filing or extension (Citizen Portal). All the owners have on file is the pre-screening request, GPPS-2025-0001, which only clears the way for the formal application, environmental review, and council votes still to come.

The Planning Commission's calendar says the same thing. A review of every agenda the commission posted in 2026, from January through its Aug. 26 meeting, found no item involving the Town Center, its owners or GPPS-2025-0001, and the city's list of hearing notices shows none either (City of Simi Valley, City of Simi Valley). A market review by the Dingman Group, a local brokerage, which carries no publication date but was online as of August 2026, put it plainly: "Still pre-application, no shovel in the ground" (Dingman Properties). An application does not become public until the city notices a hearing on it, so none of this proves nothing was filed. It does mean nothing the public can see has been filed.

Who Gets to Be in the Room

What the record shows is not a scandal. It is a pattern.

What finally goes on that land is a fair argument. Housing, an arena, playing fields, or the center standing as it is with no anchor: each has supporters, and none of it is settled. What should not be in dispute is who gets to be in the room. The Brown Act opens with the Legislature's own answer. Public bodies "exist to aid in the conduct of the people's business," their deliberations should be "conducted openly," and the people "do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know" (California Government Code Section 54950).

Every step still ahead of this project is a public one: environmental review, a Planning Commission hearing, a second council vote. The negotiation that shapes all three does not have to be, which is exactly why it should be. Whatever the council decides about the Simi Valley Town Center, residents should get to be heard at each step, before the decision rather than after it. Posting an agenda costs the city nothing. Not posting one costs residents the only leverage they have.

Glen Becerra, the City of Simi Valley, SteelWave and Steerpoint Capital were not contacted before publication, and no request for comment was made. No city attorney analysis of the proposed subcommittee has been made public. Ownership history is drawn from the news accounts cited above. Planning Commission agendas for January through August 2026 were reviewed directly. Facebook comments are quoted as posted, reflect their authors' opinions and have not been independently verified. This article describes what state law permits and does not allege a violation of it.

About

Contact

Submit a story

The Simi Valley Ledger is an Official Publication of The Freedom Project © 2026

The Simi Valley Ledger in Simi Valley's Investigative News Source.

Terms & Conditions

Privacy policy

We are telling Simi Valley's Story

Subscribe to our newsletter and never miss a story.

We care about your data in our privacy policy.