Is this where the bodies are buried?
“He needs to suffer more …”
“I just hope at all levels the County holds firm,” continued Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy Deputy Director Paul Edelman to then-Ventura County Supervisor Linda Parks, on May 4, 2021, at 12:54 p.m., about the Borchard Property owner, Shawn Moradian and the status of the Borchard Property. That’s one heck of an email to send to a supervisor who held the power to continue blocking a property owner’s development through what can be argued as an abuse of the intent of a temporary easement!
"He
Needs
To
Suffer
More."
But before we get into how it got there, we need to go back to the beginning.
This is a story about the 36.5-acre property known as “the Borchard Property.” To some, controversially, as “the wetland.”
And folks, it’s got it all: coverups, arguable abuse of power by an elected representative (in this writer's opinion), bad behavior by another one, lawsuits, soccer — ok not really, but like, stuff about goal posts being moved — local politics, hit campaigns, chocolate dicks (yes, you read that correctly), millions of dollars at stake, and so much more. Not to mention, you know, just the blocking of much-needed affordable and workforce housing for our community and like, contributing to the downfall of democracy as we know it. If you didn’t think a story about a city’s largest remaining parcel of undeveloped land could be as jaw dropping as how tiny the bikinis are on Love Island … you’re about to find out.
"He
Needs
To
Suffer
More."
But before we get into how it got there, we need to go back to the beginning.
This is a story about the 36.5-acre property known as “the Borchard Property.” To some, controversially, as “the wetland.”
And folks, it’s got it all: coverups, arguable abuse of power by an elected representative (in this writer's opinion), bad behavior by another one, lawsuits, soccer — ok not really, but like, stuff about goal posts being moved — local politics, hit campaigns, chocolate dicks (yes, you read that correctly), millions of dollars at stake, and so much more. Not to mention, you know, just the blocking of much-needed affordable and workforce housing for our community and like, contributing to the downfall of democracy as we know it. If you didn’t think a story about a city’s largest remaining parcel of undeveloped land could be as jaw dropping as how tiny the bikinis are on Love Island … you’re about to find out.
DISCLAIMER #1: If you don't care about the politics and the controversy surrounding the Borchard Property or you don't like to read long write-ups that include a lot of detail, this is not the piece for you. Seriously, bail now if you have an attention span best meant for consuming tweets.
|
I will preface this writeup with the following (because I'm keenly aware of all the ways in which folks will attempt to undermine it):
I officially met the Borchard Property owner in April 2021, when the company I work for was touring new office space (we didn't take) post COVID-shutdown. Some of you will rue that day. At that time, I had no real prior knowledge of the property owner, other than having heard his name mentioned in connection to the Thousand Oaks Boulevard Association (TOBA), as he is the president. I knew he had supported some of the same candidates I had in past elections, based on his donations and presence at fundraisers, but our paths at these events never formally crossed. Upon him learning I lived in Newbury Park, he asked if I had heard anything about the Borchard Property. I hadn’t. He asked if I could spare a few minutes to learn more and I said sure. We walked over to Tarantula Hill Brewing, I grabbed a beer (Liquid Candy, yes please!), and he brought his binder. He then showed me conceptual development vision plans for the property and I was immediately interested. GASP. Did I just write the word “development” in a piece that Thousand Oaks residents will read? I didn’t follow the golden rule. The one in which you only deserve to have an opinion in Thousand Oaks if you declare in a Facebook comment section, “Ugh, it’s like we’re becoming the next San Fernando Valley!” I know what happens next. Lashings in the town square. Oh wait, we don’t have one. HA. That’s kind of the whole point. Lashings on Nextdoor it is! Back to the binder. A vibrant town-center vision that includes affordable housing within a mixed-use concept, outdoor entertainment space, interconnected walk and bike pathways throughout the property, dining options, etc. What? We could have something right here, in Newbury Park, like that? Even a Tarantula Hill beer garden?! That was the hook for me. Not the beer garden. Ok, maybe the beer garden. ANYWAY. I basically went running back and shared about it on my blog’s Facebook page. I even coordinated a public zoom session between the property owner and those who were interested in learning more. I just genuinely thought folks should know what the vision for the property was since it had resonated with me. At that time, a city council vote was around the corner (in May 2021) that would determine a potential rezoning of the property … and this vision could only have a shot at becoming a reality if the zoning was changed from its current R1 residential-only (165 units) to mixed-use, low density. As the city council meeting neared, I learned that there was a lot of contention behind the scenes surrounding this property and its owner. I observed vitriolic statements being made about the property owner from a recurring set of people. I took note. These were people who I aligned with on most issues. What was I missing? Why were we supposed to be against this property being developed? We had all just been talking about how much we supported town center concepts! And why were folks so viciously against this specific property owner? So, I’ve spent some time, and years, gathering information, asking questions and learning about the history of this property. When I first started researching and asking questions, it was with the intent of being able to respond to social media “discussions” about the property factually. I mean, let’s be real. I’m not fighting someone on Facebook and being wrong. At least not by choice! I also, to be honest, was digging. From my circles, I was being told I should be hating this property owner. I really wanted to know why. |
|
Above is the concept for the property and attached is the presentation I referenced that was shared as part of the Zoom meeting with community members back in 2021.
As I made my way through the documents that were provided to me after I asked, what was originally supposed to be a fact-gathering mission for my own interest evolved into a full writeup that goes beyond just the history of the property itself, revealing a decades-long campaign to block development on this property through, what I believe to be, an unethical means and abuse of power in an elected position. That’s the story I’m interested in telling because it’s not the one being circulated. It’s not the one I observe being told online.
The following writeup includes supporting documentation, which I’ve seen in person, several times.
It also includes pictures because it's long as shit and I'm not a complete monster.
The following writeup includes supporting documentation, which I’ve seen in person, several times.
It also includes pictures because it's long as shit and I'm not a complete monster.
Obligatory Disclaimer
Let’s get a second “disclaimer” paragraph out of the way.
I am not a journalist. I am a blogger. The conclusions I’ve drawn, and am sharing here, are based on my opinions and understanding of the information provided to me. You are welcome to walk away with your own. The standards I hold myself to include a good-faith effort to tell this story through documentation and provide context and personal experiences to help capture a fuller story. I would like to be clear that I am not being paid by the property owner to write this, nor was I asked to write this. As with every other blog I write through my platform, I do not receive compensation. I choose issues that resonate with me, and then I write about them. I asked to see the history of the property and asked for whatever documentation the property owner could provide. The property owner answered every single question, took multiple, multiple calls, met with me several times in person, and has never once, ever, denied a request for more information or for more explanation on any component. In fact, the property owner asked if I really wanted to continue with my write-up, cautioning that I could face major backlash if I moved forward. I do not provide PR support for the property owner, free or paid. Anyone suggesting otherwise is at the very least, misinformed, and at the very worst, lying, hoping to undermine this writeup because it doesn’t benefit their agenda. (And yes, I’ve already been accused of that).
And if you want to know why now? … There are a few reasons.
I am not a journalist. I am a blogger. The conclusions I’ve drawn, and am sharing here, are based on my opinions and understanding of the information provided to me. You are welcome to walk away with your own. The standards I hold myself to include a good-faith effort to tell this story through documentation and provide context and personal experiences to help capture a fuller story. I would like to be clear that I am not being paid by the property owner to write this, nor was I asked to write this. As with every other blog I write through my platform, I do not receive compensation. I choose issues that resonate with me, and then I write about them. I asked to see the history of the property and asked for whatever documentation the property owner could provide. The property owner answered every single question, took multiple, multiple calls, met with me several times in person, and has never once, ever, denied a request for more information or for more explanation on any component. In fact, the property owner asked if I really wanted to continue with my write-up, cautioning that I could face major backlash if I moved forward. I do not provide PR support for the property owner, free or paid. Anyone suggesting otherwise is at the very least, misinformed, and at the very worst, lying, hoping to undermine this writeup because it doesn’t benefit their agenda. (And yes, I’ve already been accused of that).
And if you want to know why now? … There are a few reasons.
- There was a jerk on Twitter that was calling me a monkey everywhere, while tweeting about “saving the wetlands” and I am just that level of petty that I will write up a 17,000+-word response as to why he’s wrong. You might think I'm kidding, but I'm not. I got home from a soccer game a few weeks ago, pulled out my computer, and starting typing for basically the next eight hours, all the information that's been in my brain for the last few years.
- I hate seeing disinformation not being addressed and there's a lot of it out there about this property. I mean, at least be factual in your opposition.
- The General Plan vote is around the corner, and the anti-Borchard Property folks are trying to generate manufactured outrage in hopes of convincing the city council to not support the rezoning of this property.
I don’t expect this writeup to change the hearts and minds of folks that are anti-development or just want more park space and think they should be able to force/shame private property owners into donating their property. You’re not going to pick up what I’m putting down, no matter how well reasoned and data-backed this write-up is. But I do hope that it does encourage us all to more critically examine any information we take in, even if it’s inconvenient to our agendas — whatever they may be. Bad behavior lingers everywhere, especially when the stakes are high. No, not five stories high. But I bet if you live in Newbury Park someone knocked on your door and screamed that skyscrapers were slated for this property, right?
If there ever was a villain origin story, this is it. I'll let you draw your own conclusions about who it is. Shall we begin?
|
What is the "Borchard Property?"For as long as I’ve lived in Newbury Park, the Borchard Property has simply been the large vacant dirt lot sandwiched between The Alamo and the 101 freeway off of Rancho Conejo Blvd. At 36.5 acres (roughly 29 football fields!), the Borchard Property is the largest undeveloped parcel of land that remains in the City of Thousand Oaks. Some folks also call it the “Alice property,” or more incorrectly, “the wetland.”
Why are we even talking about it? Why do we even care? We are living in the time of Taylor Swift and avocado toast. Surely, we must balance our priorities and passions! The good news is, you can eat avocado toast, while listening to Tay Tay on Spotify and STILL read this at the same time. I’m a giver. I care about you and your needs. |
If you’ve been around these parts long enough, you’ll know that the vibe in Thousand Oaks is one folks like to describe as “slow growth.” We’re a city with 15,000 acres of protected open space, and one that boasts dozens of parks and hiking trails. “We moved here for safe neighborhoods, good schools and no traffic,” folks write on Nextdoor or Facebook any time any development project is up for discussion. “We escaped from the valley and want to keep it that way!” By the way, we could NEVER "become the next San Fernando Valley" even, if we wanted to. SFV's population density is nearly three times the amount per square mile and we're 97% built out — falling 70,000+ residents short of the projected population estimates from the 1970 General Plan. In the last decade, less than 600 units, CITY-WIDE, have been developed, yet folks are still telling you we've been overdeveloping at an aggressive pace this entire time. Pictures of “the old days,” where there’s a man on a horse and one road garner celebrity-like engagement. “Why can’t we go back to those times?” ponder long-time residents who remember having a bottle of milk delivered to their porch each day. There’s also an unspoken hierarchy here. How long you’ve actually lived in the city gives you street cred amongst the locals. You know what I'm talking about. Only moved here a couple years ago? A renter, not a homeowner? A younger resident without a family? Know that public comments will not be kind to you or "your kind" when development is on the agenda.
And so, as one can imagine, development of any sort in our city is the town’s biggest show. If you want Thousand Oaks residents to get engaged, simply whisper: “development,” and pitchforks will be sharpened, and people will leave their houses to tell you how long they’ve lived here. And I guarantee you someone will scream on Nextdoor: "We're in a drought!" (I gave them the benefit of the doubt on spelling it correctly.)
Now, don’t get me wrong. I understand fiercely protecting what we love. I was 12 years old when I canvassed for a then-hopeful, soon-to-be-elected city council candidate named Linda Parks. Oh, wait. I didn’t start with my introduction! My name is Jess Weihe and I’m a Newbury Park resident who was raised in Newbury Park, and am now raising my family here. I’ve lived here my whole life outside of decade span post-college. (Can’t forget the most important part, ya know? That was close.) The big issue at that time (at least as my tween brain remembers) was related to an industrial complex development slated off of Old Conejo Road. My dad worked tirelessly on behalf of Linda Park’s first city council campaign. Protecting our open space was the key message. Fears of traffic on the Wendy overpass were one of our biggest concerns, let alone what would happen to the glorious trees along Old Conejo that would be impacted by the development. I even spoke at city council about this concern!
But here’s the thing. The complex was still developed. And life still went on. Not only that, when I first moved back to Newbury Park post-college, the job I landed was located in the very complex I fought against as a child. The Target across the freeway? When we first found out that the beloved stables where my sister would ride horses daily were being developed over, we were outraged. We’ll never go to that Target, we declared. Let me tell you what happened. I worked at that Target all throughout high school. It’s where I met my husband. I was there yesterday. I will be going back there tomorrow to buy a birthday party present. I will probably see most of you there. Unless you're fake boycotting it or something.
And none of that is to say I don’t also miss, or recall fondly, the city’s layout during my childhood. Nothing will take from the memories of grabbing a Frosty from Wendy’s with my dad and sitting in the parking lot watching my sister during a riding lesson. But, as an adult, I also understand times change, and growth to meet our city’s economic needs, while not always popular, is a necessity. And there are new memories and experiences to be made. I was privileged to grow up here and consider myself privileged to be able to raise my own family here now — something that wouldn’t have happened without growth in the city. Is there a place for my girls here? I'm not so sure. Million dollar starter homes are just a light stretch.
It was not long ago that I got my hair done for an event, and my hairdresser and I started talking about her family. She shared that her son — who had just finished medical school at UCLA — and his wife couldn’t find a place in Thousand Oaks within their budget. She cried while doing my hair. She didn’t want to leave her house because there’s nowhere for her to downsize to that she can afford here, but her house is too big for her as it is. This is a not an uncommon issue for residents of Rosa's age in our community.
And that brings us back to why are we talking about this property, other than my pettiness. The more important reason.
Around the corner, the Thousand Oaks City Council is slated to vote on the updated General Plan, a plan which has been three years in the making and includes decisions and priorities on everything from land use to environmental sustainability to housing to safety to parks to public health and equity, and beyond.
Within that plan, as mentioned, includes approval of land-use designations for various properties throughout our city. The first land-use vote related to the General Plan update took place in May 2021, where council members went through the city, parcel by parcel, and voted upon density limits and land-use designations. During this vote, the Borchard Property, in a 3-2 vote, was rezoned from R-1 Residential to Low-Density, Mixed Use.
As it relates to NOW … there is hope from anti-development activists that they will be able to put pressure on the city council to change its vote related specifically to the Borchard Property before the General Plan is finalized this winter. They want it down-zoned, back to residential-only. Folks, do I need to remind you that we are in a housing and affordability crisis? KCLU News literally just tweeted out that Thousand Oaks is the second highest tri-county area in THE NATION in terms of highest rent prices. I'm sorry that a group of residents prefer having a view of the freeway in their backyard, but I don't believe it's appropriate to allow an anti-development activist group block our city's economic growth, no matter how much kicking, screaming and lying they do to gather your petition signatures.
Now it's time to take a spin in the time machine.
And so, as one can imagine, development of any sort in our city is the town’s biggest show. If you want Thousand Oaks residents to get engaged, simply whisper: “development,” and pitchforks will be sharpened, and people will leave their houses to tell you how long they’ve lived here. And I guarantee you someone will scream on Nextdoor: "We're in a drought!" (I gave them the benefit of the doubt on spelling it correctly.)
Now, don’t get me wrong. I understand fiercely protecting what we love. I was 12 years old when I canvassed for a then-hopeful, soon-to-be-elected city council candidate named Linda Parks. Oh, wait. I didn’t start with my introduction! My name is Jess Weihe and I’m a Newbury Park resident who was raised in Newbury Park, and am now raising my family here. I’ve lived here my whole life outside of decade span post-college. (Can’t forget the most important part, ya know? That was close.) The big issue at that time (at least as my tween brain remembers) was related to an industrial complex development slated off of Old Conejo Road. My dad worked tirelessly on behalf of Linda Park’s first city council campaign. Protecting our open space was the key message. Fears of traffic on the Wendy overpass were one of our biggest concerns, let alone what would happen to the glorious trees along Old Conejo that would be impacted by the development. I even spoke at city council about this concern!
But here’s the thing. The complex was still developed. And life still went on. Not only that, when I first moved back to Newbury Park post-college, the job I landed was located in the very complex I fought against as a child. The Target across the freeway? When we first found out that the beloved stables where my sister would ride horses daily were being developed over, we were outraged. We’ll never go to that Target, we declared. Let me tell you what happened. I worked at that Target all throughout high school. It’s where I met my husband. I was there yesterday. I will be going back there tomorrow to buy a birthday party present. I will probably see most of you there. Unless you're fake boycotting it or something.
And none of that is to say I don’t also miss, or recall fondly, the city’s layout during my childhood. Nothing will take from the memories of grabbing a Frosty from Wendy’s with my dad and sitting in the parking lot watching my sister during a riding lesson. But, as an adult, I also understand times change, and growth to meet our city’s economic needs, while not always popular, is a necessity. And there are new memories and experiences to be made. I was privileged to grow up here and consider myself privileged to be able to raise my own family here now — something that wouldn’t have happened without growth in the city. Is there a place for my girls here? I'm not so sure. Million dollar starter homes are just a light stretch.
It was not long ago that I got my hair done for an event, and my hairdresser and I started talking about her family. She shared that her son — who had just finished medical school at UCLA — and his wife couldn’t find a place in Thousand Oaks within their budget. She cried while doing my hair. She didn’t want to leave her house because there’s nowhere for her to downsize to that she can afford here, but her house is too big for her as it is. This is a not an uncommon issue for residents of Rosa's age in our community.
And that brings us back to why are we talking about this property, other than my pettiness. The more important reason.
Around the corner, the Thousand Oaks City Council is slated to vote on the updated General Plan, a plan which has been three years in the making and includes decisions and priorities on everything from land use to environmental sustainability to housing to safety to parks to public health and equity, and beyond.
Within that plan, as mentioned, includes approval of land-use designations for various properties throughout our city. The first land-use vote related to the General Plan update took place in May 2021, where council members went through the city, parcel by parcel, and voted upon density limits and land-use designations. During this vote, the Borchard Property, in a 3-2 vote, was rezoned from R-1 Residential to Low-Density, Mixed Use.
As it relates to NOW … there is hope from anti-development activists that they will be able to put pressure on the city council to change its vote related specifically to the Borchard Property before the General Plan is finalized this winter. They want it down-zoned, back to residential-only. Folks, do I need to remind you that we are in a housing and affordability crisis? KCLU News literally just tweeted out that Thousand Oaks is the second highest tri-county area in THE NATION in terms of highest rent prices. I'm sorry that a group of residents prefer having a view of the freeway in their backyard, but I don't believe it's appropriate to allow an anti-development activist group block our city's economic growth, no matter how much kicking, screaming and lying they do to gather your petition signatures.
Now it's time to take a spin in the time machine.
The beginning. The 1970s. Incorporation.
Prior to ownership by the current property owners, the property was owned by the Seventh Day Adventist Church (Church) and was used primarily for agricultural use and outdoor lessons. Was I alive? No. I know this because I've been provided the documentation.
With the adoption of the 1970 General Plan, the Borchard Property, once unincorporated land, became incorporated by the City of Thousand Oaks and was zoned for R-1 residential development, allowing for a by-right of approximately 165 single-family homes.
At the time, the Borchard Property was part of Tract 2790, which consisted of:
With the adoption of the 1970 General Plan, the Borchard Property, once unincorporated land, became incorporated by the City of Thousand Oaks and was zoned for R-1 residential development, allowing for a by-right of approximately 165 single-family homes.
At the time, the Borchard Property was part of Tract 2790, which consisted of:
- The current residential neighborhood known as Fox Meadows
- The site currently known as the Borchard Property
1971 Subdivision Map
1973.
FEMA updates its “100-year storm event” standards (referred to as the 1% annual chance of flood in the event of a 100-year-storm event) for floodplain areas, requiring local jurisdictions to map and plan for flood protection within FEMA’s boundaries.(Reference the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 and the Flood Protection Disaster Act of 1973 for additional context.)
FEMA identified Tract 2790 (yes, the one we’re talking about) and the surrounding area as a floodplain (flood zone) within its flood map boundaries. “Flood maps, known officially as Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), show areas of high- and moderate- to low-flood risk. They are shown as a series of zones. Communities use the maps to set minimum building requirements for coastal areas and floodplains; lenders use them to determine flood insurance requirements.” (source).
HOW IS A FLOODPLAIN DETERMINED? FEMA engages in a process that includes aerial mapping and measurement of the elevations at ground level. If there are areas where water could likely pool based on those elevations, these areas are mapped as floodplains. Once an area is mapped by FEMA, the onus is then on the city and/or county and/or property owner/developer to pay for any studies that would actually affirm or refute the validity of the floodplain mapping if they wish to do so. If analyses determine that the area is not a floodplain, a request for a letter of map revision (LOMR) can be submitted. This is not uncommon. Developments along T.O. Boulevard, like 299 T.O. Boulevard, submitted a LOMR request because of the flood channel that was situated behind the property, which led to it being designated a floodplain. Albertson’s is on a floodplain. The Collection/Riverpark in Oxnard is on a floodplain. You've definitely shopped or eaten at a restaurant on a floodplain.
OK. What does that all actually mean?
1) If your property is mapped as part of a floodplain, you have to pay flood insurance to the government. And if you want to develop on a property that's mapped as part of a floodplain, there are certain additional criterion you have to meet.
2) Being mapped as a floodplain in no way prevents or blocks development on a property; rather it means that any development on the property must demonstrate that it would not negatively impact surrounding areas in the event of the 1% annual event (a 100-year storm). It’s pretty much a “do no harm/do not make things worse” policy. This is done ALL of the time. People wailing that it's on a floodplain as though that, in and of itself, is a reason not to develop love to leave out the fact that so are the adjacent schools, the library, the neighbors next to the property (outside of Fox Meadows, since their development was elevated by taking dirt from the Borchard Property), etc.
FEMA updates its “100-year storm event” standards (referred to as the 1% annual chance of flood in the event of a 100-year-storm event) for floodplain areas, requiring local jurisdictions to map and plan for flood protection within FEMA’s boundaries.(Reference the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 and the Flood Protection Disaster Act of 1973 for additional context.)
FEMA identified Tract 2790 (yes, the one we’re talking about) and the surrounding area as a floodplain (flood zone) within its flood map boundaries. “Flood maps, known officially as Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), show areas of high- and moderate- to low-flood risk. They are shown as a series of zones. Communities use the maps to set minimum building requirements for coastal areas and floodplains; lenders use them to determine flood insurance requirements.” (source).
HOW IS A FLOODPLAIN DETERMINED? FEMA engages in a process that includes aerial mapping and measurement of the elevations at ground level. If there are areas where water could likely pool based on those elevations, these areas are mapped as floodplains. Once an area is mapped by FEMA, the onus is then on the city and/or county and/or property owner/developer to pay for any studies that would actually affirm or refute the validity of the floodplain mapping if they wish to do so. If analyses determine that the area is not a floodplain, a request for a letter of map revision (LOMR) can be submitted. This is not uncommon. Developments along T.O. Boulevard, like 299 T.O. Boulevard, submitted a LOMR request because of the flood channel that was situated behind the property, which led to it being designated a floodplain. Albertson’s is on a floodplain. The Collection/Riverpark in Oxnard is on a floodplain. You've definitely shopped or eaten at a restaurant on a floodplain.
OK. What does that all actually mean?
1) If your property is mapped as part of a floodplain, you have to pay flood insurance to the government. And if you want to develop on a property that's mapped as part of a floodplain, there are certain additional criterion you have to meet.
2) Being mapped as a floodplain in no way prevents or blocks development on a property; rather it means that any development on the property must demonstrate that it would not negatively impact surrounding areas in the event of the 1% annual event (a 100-year storm). It’s pretty much a “do no harm/do not make things worse” policy. This is done ALL of the time. People wailing that it's on a floodplain as though that, in and of itself, is a reason not to develop love to leave out the fact that so are the adjacent schools, the library, the neighbors next to the property (outside of Fox Meadows, since their development was elevated by taking dirt from the Borchard Property), etc.
1977.
As a result of the new FEMA regulations, the Nov. 15, 1977 Environmental Impact Report (EIR) #135 for Tract 2790 as drafted by the Griffin Development Company (Griffin), proposed a 2-phase development approach to the tract in order to ensure development adhered to the new regulations. The EIR for the entire Fox Meadows/Borchard Property tract does not indicate any sign of “wetlands” on the property nor any protected or endangered species or vegetation. In fact, aerial maps from Fish and Wildlife dating back to the 1940s show no wetland indicators either. The fact is, the property was not, according to ANY agency, a “wetland,” when it was purchased.
Quick Aside: What's an EIR: "An EIR, which happens with any new proposed development, “must discuss the cumulative impacts of a project when the project's incremental effect is cumulatively considerable. (Learn more.) For example, as the City is currently going through the new General Plan process, a new EIR was conducted analyzing the various city sites whose land designations were adjusted at the May 2021 land use vote. The DRAFT EIR is now available to review."
As a result of the new FEMA regulations, the Nov. 15, 1977 Environmental Impact Report (EIR) #135 for Tract 2790 as drafted by the Griffin Development Company (Griffin), proposed a 2-phase development approach to the tract in order to ensure development adhered to the new regulations. The EIR for the entire Fox Meadows/Borchard Property tract does not indicate any sign of “wetlands” on the property nor any protected or endangered species or vegetation. In fact, aerial maps from Fish and Wildlife dating back to the 1940s show no wetland indicators either. The fact is, the property was not, according to ANY agency, a “wetland,” when it was purchased.
Quick Aside: What's an EIR: "An EIR, which happens with any new proposed development, “must discuss the cumulative impacts of a project when the project's incremental effect is cumulatively considerable. (Learn more.) For example, as the City is currently going through the new General Plan process, a new EIR was conducted analyzing the various city sites whose land designations were adjusted at the May 2021 land use vote. The DRAFT EIR is now available to review."
The EIR also confirmed that a second access point to the area of Tract 2790 could be achieved to address traffic concerns. The second point of access being analyzed was specific to the plan for the Phase 2 development.
|
|
|
The above is relevant, especially with folks stirring up outrage online about it in recent weeks. There are posts about this bridge (see screenshot), attempting to suggest that the bridge is only being recommended because the land-use designation has been changed. You can see as far back as the 1977 EIR, this was always part of the plan, even when the property was zoned for residential-only. Not only was it part of the plan, but a desired part of the plan, for safety reasons.
Additionally, in the 2023 Draft EIR that was just released, its traffic analysis concluded no detrimental impact with an estimation of possibly 5,000 new trips per day, which is significantly under the existing capacity of the roads. And these estimates are pre-construction. Any development would include street upgrades and improvements. We will be getting into much more depth as to why these folks have been coached to fight against the land-use designation change as you read on. |
Shall we continue?
Based on the recommendations in the EIR, the plan was for Fox Meadows (Phase 1) to be developed first, followed by Borchard Property (Phase 2). So we are clear, Borchard Property was always planned as a Phase 2 development following Fox Meadows. REMINDER: Fox Meadows and Borchard Property were all ONE tract originally with the SAME land conditions.
During this time, the County of Ventura determined that there was a deficiency in its flood control channel which runs parallel to the south side of the Borchard Property (known as the South Branch Arroyo Conejo), and requested — by submitting a public comment to City Council — the following:
Based on the recommendations in the EIR, the plan was for Fox Meadows (Phase 1) to be developed first, followed by Borchard Property (Phase 2). So we are clear, Borchard Property was always planned as a Phase 2 development following Fox Meadows. REMINDER: Fox Meadows and Borchard Property were all ONE tract originally with the SAME land conditions.
During this time, the County of Ventura determined that there was a deficiency in its flood control channel which runs parallel to the south side of the Borchard Property (known as the South Branch Arroyo Conejo), and requested — by submitting a public comment to City Council — the following:
- That Griffin remove soil from Borchard Property (the Phase 2 development) to raise the base elevation for Fox Meadows (the Phase 1 development.) This would essentially lift Fox Meadows out of the floodplain area by elevating it.
- The placement of a temporary easement on the Borchard Property until the County could complete channel improvements to address the deficiency (this channel improvement project, officially known as the Borchard Road/Route 101 Interchange Improvements Federal Project No. STPL 5392(008) Project, will be referred to as the 101 Interchange Project upon future reference in this document)
|
|
The above document is important because it sets the context AND THE INTENT for the request for the easement.
Specifically, this letter from VC Public Works states: “The Flood Control District would request that the “cut” area (Borchard Property) be encumbered by a flowage easement until such time as the flood control project (the 101 Interchange Project) is completed.”
Specifically, this letter from VC Public Works states: “The Flood Control District would request that the “cut” area (Borchard Property) be encumbered by a flowage easement until such time as the flood control project (the 101 Interchange Project) is completed.”
1978. A Temporary Easement.
On July 13, 1978, the Church granted the County its request for a temporary easement (blanket easement) on the Borchard Property based on the agreement, understanding, and representations of the intent of the County to pursue and complete the County’s 101 Interchange Project, which would meet the conditions necessary to remove the easement upon project certification.
So, HERE'S where things got wonky. The easement language is blanket language. And it gives a lot of interpretative power to the County.
This is the language:
It states: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF SEVENTH DAY ADVENTISTS,
a California Corporation does hereby grant to Ventura County Flood Control District:
An easement and right of way for the flood control purpose of periodic inundation with flood and/or storm drainage waters and the right to prohibit the construction of any structures or channel improvements in, on, over, under and across the following described real property …
It is this blanket language that would enable bad-faith actors to take advantage of it later on, as a result.
Reader. If you've journeyed with me this far ... you've reviewed the Public Works letter above that stated clear as day, the purpose of the easement. REFRESHER: "Specifically, this letter from VC Public Works states: “The Flood Control District would request that the “cut” area (Borchard Property) be encumbered by a flowage easement until such time as the flood control project (the 101 Interchange Project) is completed.”
" ... until such time as the flood control project (the 101 Interchange Project) is completed.”
" ... until such time as the flood control project (the 101 Interchange Project) is completed.”
Yes, I have repeated that line. I cannot emphasize enough the importance of understanding the expressed intent of this easement. And, as you'll read on, you'll notice that there are multiple discussions between the property owner and the County, that, during the 80s and 90s, are all done in the spirit of this being viewed and understood by all parties as a conditional/temporary easement. The history documents the true intent. It should also be noted, that never — prior to the easement or with the easement in place — has any spillover occurred. Therefore, the concern that drove the original establishment of the easement has, to date, never been proven to be legitimate.
Now this next part is a crucial distinction I want to be clear. The Borchard Property is not a flood protection zone nor does FEMA recognize it as one. When folks tell you that this property is meant to act as a flood protection site for the adjacent areas, and assert that is the reason for the easement, this is not accurate. In the actual event of a 100-year-storm, this property would NOT be the solution or property to prevent any projected flood damage to surrounding areas. Per FEMA (see official letter they sent to the property owner below in 2010), any development on this site would simply need to adhere to the standard criterion for development on a floodplain.
So, HERE'S where things got wonky. The easement language is blanket language. And it gives a lot of interpretative power to the County.
This is the language:
It states: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF SEVENTH DAY ADVENTISTS,
a California Corporation does hereby grant to Ventura County Flood Control District:
An easement and right of way for the flood control purpose of periodic inundation with flood and/or storm drainage waters and the right to prohibit the construction of any structures or channel improvements in, on, over, under and across the following described real property …
It is this blanket language that would enable bad-faith actors to take advantage of it later on, as a result.
Reader. If you've journeyed with me this far ... you've reviewed the Public Works letter above that stated clear as day, the purpose of the easement. REFRESHER: "Specifically, this letter from VC Public Works states: “The Flood Control District would request that the “cut” area (Borchard Property) be encumbered by a flowage easement until such time as the flood control project (the 101 Interchange Project) is completed.”
" ... until such time as the flood control project (the 101 Interchange Project) is completed.”
" ... until such time as the flood control project (the 101 Interchange Project) is completed.”
Yes, I have repeated that line. I cannot emphasize enough the importance of understanding the expressed intent of this easement. And, as you'll read on, you'll notice that there are multiple discussions between the property owner and the County, that, during the 80s and 90s, are all done in the spirit of this being viewed and understood by all parties as a conditional/temporary easement. The history documents the true intent. It should also be noted, that never — prior to the easement or with the easement in place — has any spillover occurred. Therefore, the concern that drove the original establishment of the easement has, to date, never been proven to be legitimate.
Now this next part is a crucial distinction I want to be clear. The Borchard Property is not a flood protection zone nor does FEMA recognize it as one. When folks tell you that this property is meant to act as a flood protection site for the adjacent areas, and assert that is the reason for the easement, this is not accurate. In the actual event of a 100-year-storm, this property would NOT be the solution or property to prevent any projected flood damage to surrounding areas. Per FEMA (see official letter they sent to the property owner below in 2010), any development on this site would simply need to adhere to the standard criterion for development on a floodplain.
|
|
Our review of LOMR Case No. 05-09-0439P determined that the South Branch Arroyo Conejo Debris Basin, Unit 2 located upstream of the Borchard Property is owned by WPD, and the application did not indicate that the Borchard Property is owned by WPD nor was it identified as an area of flood storage.
The Borchard Area is currently delineated, as it has been in the past, in Zone AE, a flood insurance rate zone that will be inundated and convey flood flow during the 1% annual chance (base) flood with a base flood elevation derived from detailed hydraulic analyses.
If, as indicated in your letter, development is planned for this area, FEMA floodplain management regulations
require that the property owner demonstrate through hydraulic analysis that the proposed development, when
combined with all other existing and anticipated development, will not cause base flood elevations to increase
by more than one foot at any point within the community. The City of Thousand Oaks has adopted this
regulatory requirement as part of their flood damage prevention ordinance. If the analysis indicates that the
proposed development will cause greater than a one foot increase, the property owner can apply to FEMA for
a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR).
The Borchard Area is currently delineated, as it has been in the past, in Zone AE, a flood insurance rate zone that will be inundated and convey flood flow during the 1% annual chance (base) flood with a base flood elevation derived from detailed hydraulic analyses.
If, as indicated in your letter, development is planned for this area, FEMA floodplain management regulations
require that the property owner demonstrate through hydraulic analysis that the proposed development, when
combined with all other existing and anticipated development, will not cause base flood elevations to increase
by more than one foot at any point within the community. The City of Thousand Oaks has adopted this
regulatory requirement as part of their flood damage prevention ordinance. If the analysis indicates that the
proposed development will cause greater than a one foot increase, the property owner can apply to FEMA for
a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR).
We're still discussing 1978. LOL.
Around this time, the County reserved $5 million for the construction of the 101 Interchange Project. As a result, the City of Thousand Oaks ordered Griffin and the Church to not only grade and improve Tract 2790, but also to outfit the Borchard Property with storm drains, sewers, water and power utilities, access road easements and connection, and the acquisition of a third access point off the commercial shopping center on Michael Drive. The Borchard Property has had all of this infrastructure in place and has since the adjacent Fox Meadows was developed. (Why would they do all this, if the easement wasn't meant to be temporary?)
In 1978, the Church sells the Borchard Property to the Moradians. The Fox Meadows portion of the tract was sold to Griffin. At that time, Griffin didn’t have enough funds to purchase the entire tract, which is why the Church sold the Borchard Property portion of the tract to the current property owners (the Moradians). That said, Griffin (also a developer) had always intended to be the developer for both phases of development (which is documented by them in a letter to city council).
So, let’s recap. The Borchard Property owner bought a piece of property that, according to all previous documentation, was …
1) Zoned for R-1 residential development with a byright of 165 units
2) Planned for Phase 2 development following Phase 1 Fox Meadows developpment, with infrastructure and grading to be completed by Griffin and put in place during Fox Meadows development
3) According to the 1977 EIR and all previous aerial maps, not a wetland, nor contained any protected vegetation or wildlife
4) Temporarily encumbered by a temporary easement of which funding for a construction project by the County was already set aside to complete, and would thus remove the need for the easement
Y’all we’ve made it a decade. Just like four more to go. I told you this would be long.
Around this time, the County reserved $5 million for the construction of the 101 Interchange Project. As a result, the City of Thousand Oaks ordered Griffin and the Church to not only grade and improve Tract 2790, but also to outfit the Borchard Property with storm drains, sewers, water and power utilities, access road easements and connection, and the acquisition of a third access point off the commercial shopping center on Michael Drive. The Borchard Property has had all of this infrastructure in place and has since the adjacent Fox Meadows was developed. (Why would they do all this, if the easement wasn't meant to be temporary?)
In 1978, the Church sells the Borchard Property to the Moradians. The Fox Meadows portion of the tract was sold to Griffin. At that time, Griffin didn’t have enough funds to purchase the entire tract, which is why the Church sold the Borchard Property portion of the tract to the current property owners (the Moradians). That said, Griffin (also a developer) had always intended to be the developer for both phases of development (which is documented by them in a letter to city council).
So, let’s recap. The Borchard Property owner bought a piece of property that, according to all previous documentation, was …
1) Zoned for R-1 residential development with a byright of 165 units
2) Planned for Phase 2 development following Phase 1 Fox Meadows developpment, with infrastructure and grading to be completed by Griffin and put in place during Fox Meadows development
3) According to the 1977 EIR and all previous aerial maps, not a wetland, nor contained any protected vegetation or wildlife
4) Temporarily encumbered by a temporary easement of which funding for a construction project by the County was already set aside to complete, and would thus remove the need for the easement
Y’all we’ve made it a decade. Just like four more to go. I told you this would be long.
An Aerial Palate Cleanser.
I'm really proud of you. You've made it a decade. Treat yourself to this gallery of aerial photos of the property dating back to the 1940s. Pretend it's a scoop of green tea sorbet served in a delicate silver spoon.
1980.
Funding from the County for the 101 Interchange Project was delayed in the 1980s after a huge storm caused damage to Simi Valley, and the funding that had been set aside was reallocated to address the immediate need. You can read about the series of six Pacific cyclones struck the Southwestern United States during February 13-21, 1980 via a report prepared jointly by the U.S. Geological Survey and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration titled “Floods of February 1980 in Southern California and Central Arizona.” (U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1494.) I leave no stone unturned!
This postponement sets the stage for the whole saga. It would be 21 more years before the construction project began, and it would change everything.
So, what were the property owners doing during that time? Learning how to knit? Braiding each other’s hair? Honestly all of that sounds better than what they were actually doing.
To start, understand that three entities are at play here: Caltrans, the City of Thousand Oaks, and the County of Ventura. All three have jurisdiction over the property for various reasons: Caltrans (highway/interchange), the City (the location of the property), and the County (the temporary easement).
In 1980, when funding first got pulled, the County’s Public Works department sent a letter to the Borchard Property owner requesting the property owner consider purchasing the County bonds needed to cover the cost of the construction for the 101 Interchange Project. The property owner declined … they bought the property with the understanding that the County would be funding that project and were willing to wait. $5 mill ain’t no small amount in the 1980s. Or like, today.
On Jan. 28, 1982, the County’s Public Works sent another letter to the property owner stating that the bond sales had not been successful anywhere, and also, that design work for the construction project would have to start from the beginning, stating:
“It appears that the design work already completed must be abandoned and work start anew since Flood Control, who owns the arroyo, has rejected the multiple box concept in favor of a clear span. If you are interested in funding the project, either directly or through an assessment district …”
Well, shit. No money. And the design plans had to be scrapped for new ones.
A few alternative design concepts are tossed around, and on Oct. 18, 1984, the City’s Public Works sends a letter to Caltrans expressing its support for one of the proposed design and construction plans and requested that Caltrans proceed with design and construction of the project as soon as possible.
On Jan. 22, 1986, County’s Public Works sends a letter to Caltrans regarding quitclaiming its interest:
“Your letter dated December 31, 1985 requests that we relinquish our easement and maintenance obligation to Caltrans for the South Branch Arroyo Conejo within the Borchard Road interchange.
We have no objection to quitclaiming our property interest and maintenance responsibility with Caltrans’ property, providing that we are given turnarounds or other adequate access to our channel service roads upstream. We assume that Caltrans will cooperate in the construction of any ultimate improvement project.
You also stated that Caltrans feels we have been reluctant to support their proposal of lowering and lining the box under the freeway because of problems with our downstream channel.
We originally requested that Caltrans improve the freeway box and we have continually asked that the work be expedited. Their work will increase the box capacity but will not completely solve upstream flooding problems because of the inadequate channel. The total solution to the flooding problem in the area may include modification to the downstream channel as well as further improvements through the interchange, but in no way precludes interim improvement of the box by Caltrans. Our only concern is that Caltrans’ work and the proposed interchange modifications do not eliminate potential alternatives for an ultimate total solution to the flooding problems in the area.”
During this time, the Borchard Property owner is in consistent communications with the County. Without funding in sight, County Public Works had indicated it would allow development so long as the required retention basin was planned for in any proposed development.
And so, the property owners drew up plans for “Borchard Villas.” The property owners met with surrounding neighbors as part of their community outreach (I was told there were at least 17 meetings), took in community input and eventually revised and created a development plan for the property that would include a mix of condominiums and single-family units (and this had buy-in from the neighbors at the time).
On Oct. 4, 1990, a letter from the County’s Public Works department to the Borchard Property owner confirmed they would recommend quitclaiming their flowage easement to the Board of Supervisors, given the development plans for 2/3rds development with a retention basin:
“We have received your August flood storage requirements study for the subject property, near the intersection of Borchard Road and the Ventura Freeway, in Newbury Park. The current residential submittal to the city would utilize approximately 2/3 of the site.
We agree in concept that this portion of the property can be filled and developed if the remaining portion of the property is excavated to offset the fill volume (retention basin.) However, there are still a couple of issues that need to be resolved before final approval can be given.
Pending resolution of the above-mentioned issues, we would not have a problem recommending quitclaiming the flowage easement for the floodproofed portion upon our review and acceptance of the additional engineering details.”
As you’ve seen through the communications between the County and the property owner, the County, in the 1980s, was working with the property owners in good faith, and clearly also demonstrated through these communications, that the easement was viewed as conditional. That’s what led up to 1992, and a proposed development for Borchard Villas (with EIR #277 …which also found no wetland conditions, by the way).
This part is really, really, really important. As with any development, there are dozens of studies/analyses that have to happen. Remember when I talked about a property’s water holding capacity? The proposal for Borchard Villas listed it at 120-acre feet based on a hydraulics analysis, which is what therefore then determined the size of the retention basin needed that would be sufficient (roughly 1/3rd of acreage), and what the County and City agreed to (as also seen in the exchanges). This will come back up.
Funding from the County for the 101 Interchange Project was delayed in the 1980s after a huge storm caused damage to Simi Valley, and the funding that had been set aside was reallocated to address the immediate need. You can read about the series of six Pacific cyclones struck the Southwestern United States during February 13-21, 1980 via a report prepared jointly by the U.S. Geological Survey and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration titled “Floods of February 1980 in Southern California and Central Arizona.” (U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1494.) I leave no stone unturned!
This postponement sets the stage for the whole saga. It would be 21 more years before the construction project began, and it would change everything.
So, what were the property owners doing during that time? Learning how to knit? Braiding each other’s hair? Honestly all of that sounds better than what they were actually doing.
To start, understand that three entities are at play here: Caltrans, the City of Thousand Oaks, and the County of Ventura. All three have jurisdiction over the property for various reasons: Caltrans (highway/interchange), the City (the location of the property), and the County (the temporary easement).
In 1980, when funding first got pulled, the County’s Public Works department sent a letter to the Borchard Property owner requesting the property owner consider purchasing the County bonds needed to cover the cost of the construction for the 101 Interchange Project. The property owner declined … they bought the property with the understanding that the County would be funding that project and were willing to wait. $5 mill ain’t no small amount in the 1980s. Or like, today.
On Jan. 28, 1982, the County’s Public Works sent another letter to the property owner stating that the bond sales had not been successful anywhere, and also, that design work for the construction project would have to start from the beginning, stating:
“It appears that the design work already completed must be abandoned and work start anew since Flood Control, who owns the arroyo, has rejected the multiple box concept in favor of a clear span. If you are interested in funding the project, either directly or through an assessment district …”
Well, shit. No money. And the design plans had to be scrapped for new ones.
A few alternative design concepts are tossed around, and on Oct. 18, 1984, the City’s Public Works sends a letter to Caltrans expressing its support for one of the proposed design and construction plans and requested that Caltrans proceed with design and construction of the project as soon as possible.
On Jan. 22, 1986, County’s Public Works sends a letter to Caltrans regarding quitclaiming its interest:
“Your letter dated December 31, 1985 requests that we relinquish our easement and maintenance obligation to Caltrans for the South Branch Arroyo Conejo within the Borchard Road interchange.
We have no objection to quitclaiming our property interest and maintenance responsibility with Caltrans’ property, providing that we are given turnarounds or other adequate access to our channel service roads upstream. We assume that Caltrans will cooperate in the construction of any ultimate improvement project.
You also stated that Caltrans feels we have been reluctant to support their proposal of lowering and lining the box under the freeway because of problems with our downstream channel.
We originally requested that Caltrans improve the freeway box and we have continually asked that the work be expedited. Their work will increase the box capacity but will not completely solve upstream flooding problems because of the inadequate channel. The total solution to the flooding problem in the area may include modification to the downstream channel as well as further improvements through the interchange, but in no way precludes interim improvement of the box by Caltrans. Our only concern is that Caltrans’ work and the proposed interchange modifications do not eliminate potential alternatives for an ultimate total solution to the flooding problems in the area.”
During this time, the Borchard Property owner is in consistent communications with the County. Without funding in sight, County Public Works had indicated it would allow development so long as the required retention basin was planned for in any proposed development.
And so, the property owners drew up plans for “Borchard Villas.” The property owners met with surrounding neighbors as part of their community outreach (I was told there were at least 17 meetings), took in community input and eventually revised and created a development plan for the property that would include a mix of condominiums and single-family units (and this had buy-in from the neighbors at the time).
On Oct. 4, 1990, a letter from the County’s Public Works department to the Borchard Property owner confirmed they would recommend quitclaiming their flowage easement to the Board of Supervisors, given the development plans for 2/3rds development with a retention basin:
“We have received your August flood storage requirements study for the subject property, near the intersection of Borchard Road and the Ventura Freeway, in Newbury Park. The current residential submittal to the city would utilize approximately 2/3 of the site.
We agree in concept that this portion of the property can be filled and developed if the remaining portion of the property is excavated to offset the fill volume (retention basin.) However, there are still a couple of issues that need to be resolved before final approval can be given.
Pending resolution of the above-mentioned issues, we would not have a problem recommending quitclaiming the flowage easement for the floodproofed portion upon our review and acceptance of the additional engineering details.”
As you’ve seen through the communications between the County and the property owner, the County, in the 1980s, was working with the property owners in good faith, and clearly also demonstrated through these communications, that the easement was viewed as conditional. That’s what led up to 1992, and a proposed development for Borchard Villas (with EIR #277 …which also found no wetland conditions, by the way).
This part is really, really, really important. As with any development, there are dozens of studies/analyses that have to happen. Remember when I talked about a property’s water holding capacity? The proposal for Borchard Villas listed it at 120-acre feet based on a hydraulics analysis, which is what therefore then determined the size of the retention basin needed that would be sufficient (roughly 1/3rd of acreage), and what the County and City agreed to (as also seen in the exchanges). This will come back up.
|
|
Above Left: A 1991 letter from the Army Corps of Engineers that states that the Borchard property shows no sign of wetlands, therefore it is not subject to their area of jurisdiction. Above Right: A letter from County Public Works that states they feel they're close to a solution that would eliminate the need for the basin (basically, this is the 101 Interchange Project we've been talking about!) Jazz hands!
1992.
Just days prior to the July 20, 1992 City of Thousand Oaks Planning Commission meeting (which was set to review the Borchard Villas application), County Public Works sends a letter to the City Planning and Community Development (pictured above):
July 17, 1992: “We have been working with city staff and consultants on the on-and-off ramp at Borchard and Highway 101, which would cross South Branch Arroyo Conejo, to find a solution to the drainage problem in the area. We feel we are close to a solution that would eliminate the need for the detention basin on this project site. Consideration should be given to requiring this developer to contribute to the solution which will free up the land proposed for the detention basin.”
FOLKS. The County’s Public Works department was saying it was very close to a solution that would mean they wouldn't even need to require the property owner to put in a retention basin on 1/3 of the property in order to be able to develop.
As a result, the Borchard Villas application is halted. Why move forward with development on 2/3rds of your property when the County is telling you they’re finally close to the solution that would free up the remaining 1/3 of your property? Alas, what really is the definition of “close” many a fine philosopher has surely questioned. In 1994, the Northridge earthquake hits, no one is funding anything and it’s frankly just chaos for a few years until 1999 …. when funding is finally secured.
Just days prior to the July 20, 1992 City of Thousand Oaks Planning Commission meeting (which was set to review the Borchard Villas application), County Public Works sends a letter to the City Planning and Community Development (pictured above):
July 17, 1992: “We have been working with city staff and consultants on the on-and-off ramp at Borchard and Highway 101, which would cross South Branch Arroyo Conejo, to find a solution to the drainage problem in the area. We feel we are close to a solution that would eliminate the need for the detention basin on this project site. Consideration should be given to requiring this developer to contribute to the solution which will free up the land proposed for the detention basin.”
FOLKS. The County’s Public Works department was saying it was very close to a solution that would mean they wouldn't even need to require the property owner to put in a retention basin on 1/3 of the property in order to be able to develop.
As a result, the Borchard Villas application is halted. Why move forward with development on 2/3rds of your property when the County is telling you they’re finally close to the solution that would free up the remaining 1/3 of your property? Alas, what really is the definition of “close” many a fine philosopher has surely questioned. In 1994, the Northridge earthquake hits, no one is funding anything and it’s frankly just chaos for a few years until 1999 …. when funding is finally secured.
A solution 23 years in the making: The 101 Interchange Project.
|
2001. A solution 23 years in the making: The 101 Interchange Project.
On April 10, 2001, the City awards Macro Z. Technology with the contract to complete 101 Interchange Project. For a minute, you didn’t think we were gonna make it here, right? The 101 Interchange Project commenced construction as a joint venture between the County, City of Thousand Oaks and Caltrans, with the purpose of constructing a new Interchange at Borchard Rd and Highway 101, which would also upgrade the South Branch Arroyo Conejo flood channel, doubling its capacity and flow of water to reduce the bottleneck condition and therefore meet the terms required to eliminate the need for the temporary easement based on the intent as outlined by Public Works back in 1978. The construction project took place between 2001-2003, and at no point prior to the completion of the County’s proposed project were there any discussions from the County’s Public Works with the property owners that would suggest the easement would remain in perpetuity or that its scope would change or be reinterpreted upon completion of the project. The project was certified complete by the County on June 24, 2003. This is when the temporary easement should have been lifted. However, someone happened that changed everything. (No, that’s not a typo.) Linda Parks was elected to the Ventura County Board of Supervisors for Area 2, where the Borchard Property is located. |
2002: Midway through the 101 Interchange Project construction, Linda Parks took office.
The Borchard Property owners would soon learn that the new County leadership would not be honoring the original intent of the temporary easement.
Upon the start of the 101 Interchange Project, the property owners reached out to County Public Works to notify them of their intent to move forward with a new development application and new developer, Centex. On Aug. 21, 2001, County Public Works directed the property owners to have the property re-evaluated under the explanation that, as a result of the 101 Interchange Project construction:
“the local drainage conditions in the vicinity of your property have changed. Please have your consultant determine the local drainage and hydrology pattern …” In this exchange, Public Works recommended that the property owner contact John Dickerson of VCE Engineering, “since he is most familiar with the channel hydraulics for the off ramp project.”
And so … the property owners hired John Dickerson of VCE Engineering per Public Works' recommendation. John Dickerson was the engineer in charge of designing the 101 Interchange Project on behalf of the County. He had just done the hydrology and analyses on natural holding capacity for the property in conjunction with the project, so he did in fact, appear to be the right person to analyze the property as the construction project was wrapping up.
The Borchard Property owners would soon learn that the new County leadership would not be honoring the original intent of the temporary easement.
Upon the start of the 101 Interchange Project, the property owners reached out to County Public Works to notify them of their intent to move forward with a new development application and new developer, Centex. On Aug. 21, 2001, County Public Works directed the property owners to have the property re-evaluated under the explanation that, as a result of the 101 Interchange Project construction:
“the local drainage conditions in the vicinity of your property have changed. Please have your consultant determine the local drainage and hydrology pattern …” In this exchange, Public Works recommended that the property owner contact John Dickerson of VCE Engineering, “since he is most familiar with the channel hydraulics for the off ramp project.”
And so … the property owners hired John Dickerson of VCE Engineering per Public Works' recommendation. John Dickerson was the engineer in charge of designing the 101 Interchange Project on behalf of the County. He had just done the hydrology and analyses on natural holding capacity for the property in conjunction with the project, so he did in fact, appear to be the right person to analyze the property as the construction project was wrapping up.
|
|
The important parts:
On April 16, 2002, VCE Engineering concluded: “VCE believes the above proposal is not only practicable and doable, but also responds to VCFCD’S (Ventura County Flood Control District’s) request for “VCE to handle the Q10 peak flows from the local watershed that cannot enter the Highway Box Culvert” during the Q100 peak flow in the main channel.”
Further: “VCE contends that the local inflows will not be able to enter the Highway Culvert (the two pipes under the freeway that addressed the bottleneck) during the 100-year peak flow in the main channel.” (In layman’s terms … the 101 Interchange Project fixed the previous drainage issues, ensuring the property would withstand 100-year-flood FEMA requirements to put forth a development that would not impact surrounding neighbors.)
Then something curious happened.
County Public Works sent correspondence on May 7, 2002, in response to the VCE findings, rejecting the conclusion of the report. The data that VCE had used to build the County’s 101 Interchange Project model was acceptable, but the same data now being used to evaluate the site was rejected. At this point, the property owners were still moving forward with a Centex development application for the property. Back and forth correspondences were underway, and they figured they would have time to address the concerns as the process progressed.
On April 16, 2002, VCE Engineering concluded: “VCE believes the above proposal is not only practicable and doable, but also responds to VCFCD’S (Ventura County Flood Control District’s) request for “VCE to handle the Q10 peak flows from the local watershed that cannot enter the Highway Box Culvert” during the Q100 peak flow in the main channel.”
Further: “VCE contends that the local inflows will not be able to enter the Highway Culvert (the two pipes under the freeway that addressed the bottleneck) during the 100-year peak flow in the main channel.” (In layman’s terms … the 101 Interchange Project fixed the previous drainage issues, ensuring the property would withstand 100-year-flood FEMA requirements to put forth a development that would not impact surrounding neighbors.)
Then something curious happened.
County Public Works sent correspondence on May 7, 2002, in response to the VCE findings, rejecting the conclusion of the report. The data that VCE had used to build the County’s 101 Interchange Project model was acceptable, but the same data now being used to evaluate the site was rejected. At this point, the property owners were still moving forward with a Centex development application for the property. Back and forth correspondences were underway, and they figured they would have time to address the concerns as the process progressed.
|
2003
ALSO around this same time, the City of Thousand Oaks was conducting an Affordable Housing Opportunities Assessment. Of note from that February 2003 Assessment: “A recent meeting with the Ventura County Flood Control indicates approximately 15 acres will need to be set aside for storm water retention, leaving 18 to 20 acres for development … its significant size presents greater opportunity to “design around” such constraints through buffering and creation of new roadways than with smaller parcels. Redesignation of this property to Medium Density Residential … would provide opportunity for development with a mix of single and multi-family residential uses. The City may wish to consider a Residential/Commercial designation to allow for integration of commercial uses.” |
A few notes here.
1) This demonstrated that per Flood Control, at minimum, the property would allow for approximately 2/3rds of its acreage to be developed upon. So … pretty consistent there, at least based on the 1992 correspondences ... and this is all before construction was completed.
2) It was the City of Thousand Oaks, NOT the Borchard Property owner that first mentioned adjusting the density and zoning of the property through their assessment.
3) Fun Fact: The City also noted in the full document that this property is exempt from Measure E, as formal applications had been submitted in 1989 and 1991, predating Measure E, therefore exempting this property in terms of limiting density.
1) This demonstrated that per Flood Control, at minimum, the property would allow for approximately 2/3rds of its acreage to be developed upon. So … pretty consistent there, at least based on the 1992 correspondences ... and this is all before construction was completed.
2) It was the City of Thousand Oaks, NOT the Borchard Property owner that first mentioned adjusting the density and zoning of the property through their assessment.
3) Fun Fact: The City also noted in the full document that this property is exempt from Measure E, as formal applications had been submitted in 1989 and 1991, predating Measure E, therefore exempting this property in terms of limiting density.
|
Feb. 26, 2003: Borchard Property owners also asked VCE Engineering to evaluate the 101 Interchange Project in terms of meeting the necessary requirements to satisfy the easement.
April 11, 2003: VCE Services provided the following observations: “We offer the following observations regarding your February 26, 2003 request that we review the improvement of the new channel (the ditch that runs to the north between property and Caltrans), interchange and culvert along Borchard Road/101 Interchange: The project appears to be built fairly close to the plans and contains at least 10 acre-feet of storage for detention. Also, the culvert design has followed the plans and, per the design calculations, etc., and our observations to date, will handle 5,000 cfs without overtopping the channel banks. The capacity of the new reinforced concrete box culvert exceeds the capacity of the old bridge by a significant amount, around 2,500 cfs. The 10-acre feet of storage previously referred to is on the City’s project site, not your property. There are 7 to 8 detention basins built upstream since 1992.” This analysis was specific to analyzing the bottleneck. |
On June 24, 2003, the project was officially certified complete by the County and the easement should have been lifted based on the reasons for its temporary placement.
|
Ok, now this is something really interesting I find in the timeline of events. Maybe there’s a reasonable explanation lurking deep in a wetland somewhere. Two weeks after the County's construction project is certified as complete, and midway through the property owner's Centex development application ... this email exchange happened.
July 7, 2003: Damon Wing, environmental assistant to then-Supervisor Linda Parks, sent the following email to the US Army Corps of Engineers: “Hi John and Antal, Has a site inspection been scheduled for this property? I may wish to join you. Also, there is concern that this property and wetland habitat was disturbed prior to conducting biological assessments for environmental review of the proposed project.” |
OF IMPORTANT NOTE: The property owners only became aware of this exchange years after the fact through a PRA request during legal proceedings. At the time Damon Wing sent this email, the property owners were unaware of the illegal nuisance water that had been pumping onto the property which resulted in the creation of a temporary artificial wetland (Don’t worry, I’ll get to that). They actually only discovered any wetland acreage existed after the EIR was completed as part of the Centex development application process and released in 2005.
Given that this property had never, in its entire history, according to any documentation or aerial photos, nor determinations from any agencies, shown any wetland indicators … why, in 2003, would Linda Parks’ assistant reach out to the Army Corps of Engineers and suggest concern about the property being a potential wetland habitat?
I’m only left to presume. From online interactions with “save the wetland” people, I’m aware of the “Calleguas Creek Watershed Wetland Restoration Plan” commissioned by the EPA and California State Coastal Agency and published in 2000. The purpose of the study centers around this statement: “Since European settlement of the region, the wetlands have been largely confined to narrow and incised channels, with adjacent wetlands eliminated and replaced with croplands and development.” The goal of this study was to “identify suitable and specific restoration sites, which will generally, and locally, have the greatest benefit to wetland functions for an overall improvement in wetland habitats throughout the watershed.” The plan lists 49 sites alone in the Calleguas Creek Watershed.
“Save the wetland” folks like to bring up this study as their holy grail. In reality, this is a “wish list” plan with recommendations to “restore” parcels of land that, at one time in history, may have had wetland indicators, but in recent history, have not been treated as such. It should also be emphasized that there is no evidence that the Borchard Property was ever a wetland. To create wetlands, you need a continuous water source. This study identified existing bodies of water and adjacent properties to them. In the case of Borchard Property, it makes the case that it could become a wetland if you let the flood channel adjacent to the property just dump on it forever.
We don’t yet know what truly prompted Damon Wing to reach out to the Corps when he did. Was it because of this study? Was it because some folks were aware that nuisance water was illegally dumping on the property? (It's known from memos uncovered during discovery after legal action was taken, that there was, in fact, an effort to cover up a damaged drain.) These remain unanswered questions.
And while I can understand WHY conservancy agencies would be interested in a property like Borchard Property for its potential and adjacent location to a continuous water source, an elected official abusing the existence of a temporary easement on the property to block development and lowball a purchase offer for the site is not a good-faith practice. (Yes ... we'll talk more about that too.)
Buckle up, my friends. This next section is part of the story they don’t like to tell ya.
Given that this property had never, in its entire history, according to any documentation or aerial photos, nor determinations from any agencies, shown any wetland indicators … why, in 2003, would Linda Parks’ assistant reach out to the Army Corps of Engineers and suggest concern about the property being a potential wetland habitat?
I’m only left to presume. From online interactions with “save the wetland” people, I’m aware of the “Calleguas Creek Watershed Wetland Restoration Plan” commissioned by the EPA and California State Coastal Agency and published in 2000. The purpose of the study centers around this statement: “Since European settlement of the region, the wetlands have been largely confined to narrow and incised channels, with adjacent wetlands eliminated and replaced with croplands and development.” The goal of this study was to “identify suitable and specific restoration sites, which will generally, and locally, have the greatest benefit to wetland functions for an overall improvement in wetland habitats throughout the watershed.” The plan lists 49 sites alone in the Calleguas Creek Watershed.
“Save the wetland” folks like to bring up this study as their holy grail. In reality, this is a “wish list” plan with recommendations to “restore” parcels of land that, at one time in history, may have had wetland indicators, but in recent history, have not been treated as such. It should also be emphasized that there is no evidence that the Borchard Property was ever a wetland. To create wetlands, you need a continuous water source. This study identified existing bodies of water and adjacent properties to them. In the case of Borchard Property, it makes the case that it could become a wetland if you let the flood channel adjacent to the property just dump on it forever.
We don’t yet know what truly prompted Damon Wing to reach out to the Corps when he did. Was it because of this study? Was it because some folks were aware that nuisance water was illegally dumping on the property? (It's known from memos uncovered during discovery after legal action was taken, that there was, in fact, an effort to cover up a damaged drain.) These remain unanswered questions.
And while I can understand WHY conservancy agencies would be interested in a property like Borchard Property for its potential and adjacent location to a continuous water source, an elected official abusing the existence of a temporary easement on the property to block development and lowball a purchase offer for the site is not a good-faith practice. (Yes ... we'll talk more about that too.)
Buckle up, my friends. This next section is part of the story they don’t like to tell ya.
Exploiting Illegal Nuisance Water to Misrepresent Property as a Wetland
2004.
July 15, 2004: The property owners, at this point, were still working with developer, Centex, to move forward on a SMALLER residential development (105 units) application for the Borchard Property. Centex had put in two detention basins and then initiated the environmental analysis (EIR) of the property. Now, if you’re wondering like me, why the developer decided on a smaller application (given the whole reason for stalling the larger 1992 project was in order to avoid having to put in detention basins), it’s simply because the developer sensed Parks’ hesitance on the easement and figured going smaller was a bit like the path of least resistance at the time. The housing market was hot. If they proposed something similar in size to what they knew the County was willing to sign off on in 1992, they figured that might be the best approach to compromise and earn sign-off from Parks to move forward.
And then the EIR came out, noting that the Army Corps of Engineers had identified 17 acres of wetland on the property.
SCREEEEEEEECH. What? How could this have happened? When? With what water?
This is when the nuisance water was first discovered by the property owners. The development could not move forward. The property owners couldn’t mitigate around 17 acres of mystery wetland.
SO WHAT HAD HAPPENED WAS …
THE YEAR IS 2002. (Yes, we’re jumping back and then forward. Maybe pop a Dramamine, roll down the window, do what ya gotta do.)
In 2002, during the County’s 101 Interchange Project construction, there was unintentional destruction of the Caltrans ditch, which inadvertently redirected all of the freeway and upstream nuisance water to the Borchard Property. That nuisance water included the daily discharge of Telair water from Wendy Drive to remediate underground contamination. At the time, Telair — an old Aerospace manufacturing site that has contaminated underground water — was pumping, treating and discharging millions of gallons of water per month into the Caltrans ditch that was supposed to lead out to the Pacific Ocean. Instead, when the drainage ditch was damaged during construction, this water ended up on the Borchard Property. The property owner was never notified the drainage ditch was damaged.
That ongoing, daily saturation of the property resulted in the formation of an artificial wetland. By 2005, the property had an estimated 500 million gallons illegally dumped on it as a result of the damaged drain, The property owners learned about this during legal discovery.
The property owners sought damages in 2006. They brought in John Dickerson to analyze the Borchard Property. Dickerson concluded that the construction project hadn’t quite been completed to design — there was a missing dike connector, in addition to the damage to the drainage pathway for Telair's nuisance water.
July 15, 2004: The property owners, at this point, were still working with developer, Centex, to move forward on a SMALLER residential development (105 units) application for the Borchard Property. Centex had put in two detention basins and then initiated the environmental analysis (EIR) of the property. Now, if you’re wondering like me, why the developer decided on a smaller application (given the whole reason for stalling the larger 1992 project was in order to avoid having to put in detention basins), it’s simply because the developer sensed Parks’ hesitance on the easement and figured going smaller was a bit like the path of least resistance at the time. The housing market was hot. If they proposed something similar in size to what they knew the County was willing to sign off on in 1992, they figured that might be the best approach to compromise and earn sign-off from Parks to move forward.
And then the EIR came out, noting that the Army Corps of Engineers had identified 17 acres of wetland on the property.
SCREEEEEEEECH. What? How could this have happened? When? With what water?
This is when the nuisance water was first discovered by the property owners. The development could not move forward. The property owners couldn’t mitigate around 17 acres of mystery wetland.
SO WHAT HAD HAPPENED WAS …
THE YEAR IS 2002. (Yes, we’re jumping back and then forward. Maybe pop a Dramamine, roll down the window, do what ya gotta do.)
In 2002, during the County’s 101 Interchange Project construction, there was unintentional destruction of the Caltrans ditch, which inadvertently redirected all of the freeway and upstream nuisance water to the Borchard Property. That nuisance water included the daily discharge of Telair water from Wendy Drive to remediate underground contamination. At the time, Telair — an old Aerospace manufacturing site that has contaminated underground water — was pumping, treating and discharging millions of gallons of water per month into the Caltrans ditch that was supposed to lead out to the Pacific Ocean. Instead, when the drainage ditch was damaged during construction, this water ended up on the Borchard Property. The property owner was never notified the drainage ditch was damaged.
That ongoing, daily saturation of the property resulted in the formation of an artificial wetland. By 2005, the property had an estimated 500 million gallons illegally dumped on it as a result of the damaged drain, The property owners learned about this during legal discovery.
The property owners sought damages in 2006. They brought in John Dickerson to analyze the Borchard Property. Dickerson concluded that the construction project hadn’t quite been completed to design — there was a missing dike connector, in addition to the damage to the drainage pathway for Telair's nuisance water.
|
|
Concluding remarks from VCE Engineering/John Dickerson report:
Based on the foregoing, the drainage ditch has been silted-up and the vegetative growth
continued due to lack o f maintenance. This lack of maintenance has resulted in a
continuous flow of water onto the Moridian Property and almost certainly is a major
cause of the conditions leading to its classification as a wetlands.
In addition to suing the City and Caltrans, the property owners were also forced to sue Telair in order to get the pumping to stop immediately. They notified the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, who upon investigation, confirmed that Telair discharge was ending up on private property (not in the Pacific Ocean as required by its discharge permit). As a result, Telair's discharge permit was terminated in 2009. This whole debacle cost Telair about $2 million, but they had to play nice with Caltrans because they still needed to be able to pump underground water out and needed Caltrans to assist in that process. Pretty wild.
Here’s a snippet from their report:
“The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for the Telair Site (Order No. R4-2009-0031, NPDES No. CA0059609) was adopted by this Regional Board on February 5, 2009. During that meeting the Executive Officer indicated that staff would go out on Monday, February 9, 2009, and inspect the storm drain that routinely transports the discharge from Telair, just north of Wendy Road, to the branch of Arroyo Conejo located just off of Borchard Road. Attached is the memo to file documenting the site inspection.
During the inspection the discharge from Telair was stopped. Telair terminated discharges on Thursday, February 5, 2009 at approximately 4:15 PM. Board staff was also made aware that on February 10, 2009 the groundwater treatment system was restarted. Staff noted that the storm drain contours had been overrun by the water in the storm drain such that water was on the adjacent Borchard Road Property. The inspection report is attached.”
Based on the foregoing, the drainage ditch has been silted-up and the vegetative growth
continued due to lack o f maintenance. This lack of maintenance has resulted in a
continuous flow of water onto the Moridian Property and almost certainly is a major
cause of the conditions leading to its classification as a wetlands.
In addition to suing the City and Caltrans, the property owners were also forced to sue Telair in order to get the pumping to stop immediately. They notified the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, who upon investigation, confirmed that Telair discharge was ending up on private property (not in the Pacific Ocean as required by its discharge permit). As a result, Telair's discharge permit was terminated in 2009. This whole debacle cost Telair about $2 million, but they had to play nice with Caltrans because they still needed to be able to pump underground water out and needed Caltrans to assist in that process. Pretty wild.
Here’s a snippet from their report:
“The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for the Telair Site (Order No. R4-2009-0031, NPDES No. CA0059609) was adopted by this Regional Board on February 5, 2009. During that meeting the Executive Officer indicated that staff would go out on Monday, February 9, 2009, and inspect the storm drain that routinely transports the discharge from Telair, just north of Wendy Road, to the branch of Arroyo Conejo located just off of Borchard Road. Attached is the memo to file documenting the site inspection.
During the inspection the discharge from Telair was stopped. Telair terminated discharges on Thursday, February 5, 2009 at approximately 4:15 PM. Board staff was also made aware that on February 10, 2009 the groundwater treatment system was restarted. Staff noted that the storm drain contours had been overrun by the water in the storm drain such that water was on the adjacent Borchard Road Property. The inspection report is attached.”
2010.
Court took about four years before producing a judgment in favor of the Borchard Property owner and ordered the City and Caltrans to construct a new concrete ditch along the freeway to ensure this would never happen again.
So here’s where things get even more questionable.
While this is happening, Linda Parks, yes, the Supervisor Linda Parks, told the Borchard Property owner that the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy (SMMC) wanted to buy the property (this also lines up with email exchanges I had with her in 2021). She is on the board of the SMMC, actually voted in recently as chair in 2022. So, the property owner is like sure, make an offer. The more offers the better, right? Always good to have options.
SMMC hired an appraiser. At this point in time, the appraisal was expected to be up to $18 million. One of the factors that goes into an appraisal relates to any “issues” with the property, naturally. An easement would be an issue, folks. Guess who would be in charge of lifting the easement? Yes! You're staying with me! Supervisor Linda Parks. Guess who the appraiser, hired by SMMC, had to speak with about the easement? County's Flood Control District, whose defacto board is the Board of Supervisors, specifically under the purview of Linda Parks as it relates to Area 2 matters. WHEW.
And so, the appraisal, which noted the easement as a primary issue, came back at ... $3.4 million. I’ve seen it. Linda Parks sent me the appraisal document in 2021 and you can view relevant images below, and read in full by downloading the report. Even with that lowball of an amount (practically manufactured by Linda from both of the hats she was wearing), SMMC never officially sent a formal purchase offer to the property owner. (We’ll talk more about why I got the appraisal from Linda when we get to the 2020s!)
Court took about four years before producing a judgment in favor of the Borchard Property owner and ordered the City and Caltrans to construct a new concrete ditch along the freeway to ensure this would never happen again.
So here’s where things get even more questionable.
While this is happening, Linda Parks, yes, the Supervisor Linda Parks, told the Borchard Property owner that the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy (SMMC) wanted to buy the property (this also lines up with email exchanges I had with her in 2021). She is on the board of the SMMC, actually voted in recently as chair in 2022. So, the property owner is like sure, make an offer. The more offers the better, right? Always good to have options.
SMMC hired an appraiser. At this point in time, the appraisal was expected to be up to $18 million. One of the factors that goes into an appraisal relates to any “issues” with the property, naturally. An easement would be an issue, folks. Guess who would be in charge of lifting the easement? Yes! You're staying with me! Supervisor Linda Parks. Guess who the appraiser, hired by SMMC, had to speak with about the easement? County's Flood Control District, whose defacto board is the Board of Supervisors, specifically under the purview of Linda Parks as it relates to Area 2 matters. WHEW.
And so, the appraisal, which noted the easement as a primary issue, came back at ... $3.4 million. I’ve seen it. Linda Parks sent me the appraisal document in 2021 and you can view relevant images below, and read in full by downloading the report. Even with that lowball of an amount (practically manufactured by Linda from both of the hats she was wearing), SMMC never officially sent a formal purchase offer to the property owner. (We’ll talk more about why I got the appraisal from Linda when we get to the 2020s!)
|
|
But let's talk more about the "Wetlands."
To recap the important part for the “save the wetlands” folks:
In 2004/5, as we've covered, the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) performed an on-site inspection of the property as part of the EIR process for the proposed Centex development and found that there were approx. 17 acres of artificial wetlands — which we now all understand were the result of millions of gallons of illegally dumped nuisance water.
2010: Five years later, Corps performed another on-site investigation and determined at that time that nearly all of the artificial wetlands that had been created between 2001-2009 had reverted to uplands. Therefore, the Corps issued an official jurisdictional determination letter with their findings in 2010, concluding that only 1.23 acres of artificial “wetlands” remained at that time.
Upon re-inspection in 2014 and 2019, the Corps found that all artificial wetlands on the property were gone, issuing official determination letters finding the property contained zero acres of “wetlands.”
According to the Environmental Protection Agency, under the Clean Water Act, Section 404, the Corps is the only agency that has jurisdiction to determine whether a wetland exists. While the U.S. Department of Fish and Wildlife Services provides aerial observations to assist the Corps, they have no jurisdiction to declare a wetlands and clearly state this in their disclaimers and limitations verbiage on their Wetland Mapper tool.
But for those who treat Fish and Wildlife as the bible when it comes to wetland determination (oh yes, we’ve had exchanges on Facebook), in June of 2023, the United States Department of Fish and Wildlife Service changed its wetland designation of this property after reviewing 20 years of data and analyzing soil samples.
Specifically, “The National Wetlands Inventory has reviewed the parcel for the presence of wetlands and has determined no wetlands are visible on the property.” It actually even went further than just that, stating that, “When this area was mapped in the early 2000s to 2002 imagery, there was limited historical imagery available to the photo interpreter, which may have played a significant role in wetlands being mapped for the property. Twenty years later there are multiple years and seasons’ worth of imagery, which allows for a much more thorough review of the landscape and its hydrology. Based on the 2022 aerial imagery and supporting ancillary data, the NWI concludes that no wetlands are located on the property.”
At your request, the NWI has re-evaluated the property for evidence of wetlands using 2022 imagery. Upon further review, the 2022 imagery shows no evidence of wetlands present on the property. In addition to the 2022 aerial imagery, the NWI reviewed the following ancillary data:
1) Soil maps for the site produced by the USDA National Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and the associated attributes for the soil map units contained within the Soil Survey Geographic Database (SSURGO). Two soil units are mapped for the property: Cropley clay, 0 to 2 percent slopes, and Vina silty clay loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes. Clay soils have properties that may slow the percolation of water into the soil following rain events, however neither of these soils are considered hydric soils (that is, having high potential to support wetlands). The hydrologic properties for both soil units are similar, according to the SSURGO data. Neither soil unit shows any potential for flooding or ponding, and the depth to the water table is listed as more than 80 inches.
2) The National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) for flowlines (i.e., streams) and waterbodies (including lakes, ponds, swamps, and marshes). No waterbodies were identified within the property boundary. The flowline dataset shows the South Branch Arroyo Conejo running along the south boundary of the property, and this feature is visible on the aerial imagery as having been confined to a ditch prior to 1989.
3) Elevation hillshade derivative available as a Web Map Service (WMS) on the U.S. Geological Survey’s (USGS) National Map Service website. The hillshade shows no evidence of depressions on the property to suggest the presence of wetlands.
4) Historical aerial imagery from 1989 through 2022 available on Google Earth Pro. There is no clear evidence on the imagery from 1989 and 1994, prior to the construction of the new interchange on Ventura Highway 101, that wetlands are present on the property. Imagery from 2005 shows flooding on the property, however, this water appears to be ephemeral, as the 2007 imagery shows no evidence of standing water, soil saturation, or hydrophytic vegetation indicative of wetlands. Upon review of all the historical images from 1989 - 2022, it appears any water present on the property occurs only after sufficient rainfall, as the majority of images (21 out of 33 dates) show no presence of water or evidence of recent water.
5) Two letters of jurisdictional determination (JD) from the Los Angeles District Corps, stating no waters of the United States are present on the property.
The Fish and Wildlife Service’s National Wetlands Inventory mapper, which previously showed three wetland polygons on the property, has been updated and now shows none.
In 2004/5, as we've covered, the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) performed an on-site inspection of the property as part of the EIR process for the proposed Centex development and found that there were approx. 17 acres of artificial wetlands — which we now all understand were the result of millions of gallons of illegally dumped nuisance water.
2010: Five years later, Corps performed another on-site investigation and determined at that time that nearly all of the artificial wetlands that had been created between 2001-2009 had reverted to uplands. Therefore, the Corps issued an official jurisdictional determination letter with their findings in 2010, concluding that only 1.23 acres of artificial “wetlands” remained at that time.
Upon re-inspection in 2014 and 2019, the Corps found that all artificial wetlands on the property were gone, issuing official determination letters finding the property contained zero acres of “wetlands.”
According to the Environmental Protection Agency, under the Clean Water Act, Section 404, the Corps is the only agency that has jurisdiction to determine whether a wetland exists. While the U.S. Department of Fish and Wildlife Services provides aerial observations to assist the Corps, they have no jurisdiction to declare a wetlands and clearly state this in their disclaimers and limitations verbiage on their Wetland Mapper tool.
But for those who treat Fish and Wildlife as the bible when it comes to wetland determination (oh yes, we’ve had exchanges on Facebook), in June of 2023, the United States Department of Fish and Wildlife Service changed its wetland designation of this property after reviewing 20 years of data and analyzing soil samples.
Specifically, “The National Wetlands Inventory has reviewed the parcel for the presence of wetlands and has determined no wetlands are visible on the property.” It actually even went further than just that, stating that, “When this area was mapped in the early 2000s to 2002 imagery, there was limited historical imagery available to the photo interpreter, which may have played a significant role in wetlands being mapped for the property. Twenty years later there are multiple years and seasons’ worth of imagery, which allows for a much more thorough review of the landscape and its hydrology. Based on the 2022 aerial imagery and supporting ancillary data, the NWI concludes that no wetlands are located on the property.”
At your request, the NWI has re-evaluated the property for evidence of wetlands using 2022 imagery. Upon further review, the 2022 imagery shows no evidence of wetlands present on the property. In addition to the 2022 aerial imagery, the NWI reviewed the following ancillary data:
1) Soil maps for the site produced by the USDA National Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and the associated attributes for the soil map units contained within the Soil Survey Geographic Database (SSURGO). Two soil units are mapped for the property: Cropley clay, 0 to 2 percent slopes, and Vina silty clay loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes. Clay soils have properties that may slow the percolation of water into the soil following rain events, however neither of these soils are considered hydric soils (that is, having high potential to support wetlands). The hydrologic properties for both soil units are similar, according to the SSURGO data. Neither soil unit shows any potential for flooding or ponding, and the depth to the water table is listed as more than 80 inches.
2) The National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) for flowlines (i.e., streams) and waterbodies (including lakes, ponds, swamps, and marshes). No waterbodies were identified within the property boundary. The flowline dataset shows the South Branch Arroyo Conejo running along the south boundary of the property, and this feature is visible on the aerial imagery as having been confined to a ditch prior to 1989.
3) Elevation hillshade derivative available as a Web Map Service (WMS) on the U.S. Geological Survey’s (USGS) National Map Service website. The hillshade shows no evidence of depressions on the property to suggest the presence of wetlands.
4) Historical aerial imagery from 1989 through 2022 available on Google Earth Pro. There is no clear evidence on the imagery from 1989 and 1994, prior to the construction of the new interchange on Ventura Highway 101, that wetlands are present on the property. Imagery from 2005 shows flooding on the property, however, this water appears to be ephemeral, as the 2007 imagery shows no evidence of standing water, soil saturation, or hydrophytic vegetation indicative of wetlands. Upon review of all the historical images from 1989 - 2022, it appears any water present on the property occurs only after sufficient rainfall, as the majority of images (21 out of 33 dates) show no presence of water or evidence of recent water.
5) Two letters of jurisdictional determination (JD) from the Los Angeles District Corps, stating no waters of the United States are present on the property.
The Fish and Wildlife Service’s National Wetlands Inventory mapper, which previously showed three wetland polygons on the property, has been updated and now shows none.
OK HONESTLY TELL ME.
Are you not at this point replaying the: “AND THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE” scene from Jim Carrey’s “Liar, Liar?” Like, my god.
Are you not at this point replaying the: “AND THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE” scene from Jim Carrey’s “Liar, Liar?” Like, my god.
A call for clarity. We’re back a year. 2009.
Aug. 25, 2009: While the property owner was having the nuisance water addressed, on Aug. 25, 2009, they sent a Settlement Demand to Watershed Protection District stating:
“Over the past several months, we have met and spoken with you and your staff, many times in reference to the above property. You are well aware of our concerns regarding the validity and/or enforcement of the county easement. Nevertheless, during our meetings you suggested, and agreed that you would only require the property owner to provide the “natural holding capacity” instead of the “blanket easement,” which is currently on the title. Therefore, per your request, we retained a professional, experienced engineering firm (which specializes in retention basins and designs) to calculate the “natural holding capacity.” Their calculations, maps, and finding are attached in a letter from V.A. Consulting Inc., dated Aug. 4, 2009, which accurately reflect what the nature holding capacity of the 36-acre property to be.
Therefore, request is hereby made that you provide us with your written concurrence, thereby modifying and/or reducing the easement from a “blanket easement” to an easement which requires only the “natural holding capacity” to be maintained. Of course, if the County disagrees with V.A.’s figures, we are willing to accept a quit-claim deed of the easement in the alternative.”
The findings concluded that the natural holding water capacity for the property is 99-acre feet. V.A. Consulting is nationally recognized for its expertise and peer-reviewed by the City.
Aug. 25, 2009: While the property owner was having the nuisance water addressed, on Aug. 25, 2009, they sent a Settlement Demand to Watershed Protection District stating:
“Over the past several months, we have met and spoken with you and your staff, many times in reference to the above property. You are well aware of our concerns regarding the validity and/or enforcement of the county easement. Nevertheless, during our meetings you suggested, and agreed that you would only require the property owner to provide the “natural holding capacity” instead of the “blanket easement,” which is currently on the title. Therefore, per your request, we retained a professional, experienced engineering firm (which specializes in retention basins and designs) to calculate the “natural holding capacity.” Their calculations, maps, and finding are attached in a letter from V.A. Consulting Inc., dated Aug. 4, 2009, which accurately reflect what the nature holding capacity of the 36-acre property to be.
Therefore, request is hereby made that you provide us with your written concurrence, thereby modifying and/or reducing the easement from a “blanket easement” to an easement which requires only the “natural holding capacity” to be maintained. Of course, if the County disagrees with V.A.’s figures, we are willing to accept a quit-claim deed of the easement in the alternative.”
The findings concluded that the natural holding water capacity for the property is 99-acre feet. V.A. Consulting is nationally recognized for its expertise and peer-reviewed by the City.
|
|
OK. WE ARE BACK TO 2010.
Aug. 2, 2010: The property owners sent a letter asking the County to confirm a storage volume number the County would agree to, given this had never been discussed previously.
Aug. 9, 2010: The property owners requested a formal investigation from FEMA into County Watershed Protection District regarding its misrepresentation of the flowage easement intent. This is the FEMA letter I shared earlier in this writeup. If you recall, that letter reaffirmed that the property is not a flood protection site. It means that when anyone tells you that this property is supposed to act as a flood protection reservoir, even FEMA doesn't take their position.
Between 2010-2013: the City and Caltrans put in the permanent concrete drainage that was court ordered.
Aug. 2, 2010: The property owners sent a letter asking the County to confirm a storage volume number the County would agree to, given this had never been discussed previously.
Aug. 9, 2010: The property owners requested a formal investigation from FEMA into County Watershed Protection District regarding its misrepresentation of the flowage easement intent. This is the FEMA letter I shared earlier in this writeup. If you recall, that letter reaffirmed that the property is not a flood protection site. It means that when anyone tells you that this property is supposed to act as a flood protection reservoir, even FEMA doesn't take their position.
Between 2010-2013: the City and Caltrans put in the permanent concrete drainage that was court ordered.
2013.
April 26, 2013: Public Works responded, telling the property owner that they set the natural occurring flood storage volume at 250-acre feet. I'm sorry, WHAT? This is NOWHERE close to the calculations by VA. Consulting (99-acre feet post-construction), or by the previous hydrologist in 1992 (at 120-acre feet) or even by John Dickerson, who concluded that the actual realistic volume of water if the 100-year storm comes is 60-acre feet. The County was setting the number at 250-acre feet!
How did the County arrive at this number? The property owner was told that Supervisor Linda Parks instructed staff to use a 500-year storm event model … no other property or jurisdiction in the entire County is held to a 500-year storm event. FEMA uses a 100-year storm event model.
I actually filled out an inquiry form to Public Works a few weeks ago specifically asking: “I’m hoping you can help me with some information I’m interested in gathering. When the County sets natural occurring flood storage volumes for properties within its jurisdiction, is it standard to use a 100-year-storm or 500-year-storm model to arrive at this number? Or, if this is decided on a case-by-case basis, can you please share with me who would make the determination as to which model to use when determining the storage volume?”
I never heard back.
April 26, 2013: Public Works responded, telling the property owner that they set the natural occurring flood storage volume at 250-acre feet. I'm sorry, WHAT? This is NOWHERE close to the calculations by VA. Consulting (99-acre feet post-construction), or by the previous hydrologist in 1992 (at 120-acre feet) or even by John Dickerson, who concluded that the actual realistic volume of water if the 100-year storm comes is 60-acre feet. The County was setting the number at 250-acre feet!
How did the County arrive at this number? The property owner was told that Supervisor Linda Parks instructed staff to use a 500-year storm event model … no other property or jurisdiction in the entire County is held to a 500-year storm event. FEMA uses a 100-year storm event model.
I actually filled out an inquiry form to Public Works a few weeks ago specifically asking: “I’m hoping you can help me with some information I’m interested in gathering. When the County sets natural occurring flood storage volumes for properties within its jurisdiction, is it standard to use a 100-year-storm or 500-year-storm model to arrive at this number? Or, if this is decided on a case-by-case basis, can you please share with me who would make the determination as to which model to use when determining the storage volume?”
I never heard back.
Abuse within agency and elected positions.
ONE THING WAS CLEAR: Demanding 250-acre feet would make the parcel of land not capable of being developed.
On Oct. 31, 2014: The property owner filed a lawsuit against the County and Watershed Protection District for Inverse Condemnation and Declaratory Relief (201400459694CUEI). The property owners alleged that the demand to plan for a 500-year-flood took all usable rights from them.
Feb. 19, 2015: The County filed a demurrer which was granted without prejudice. The court held that the property owners had not exhausted administrative remedies by going before the board of supervisors and getting denied. Basically, it was assessed that the lawsuit was premature in that it concluded that the property owner had not tried every possible avenue to have the easement lifted by the County prior to filing. If they could show the board of supervisors denied the request, that would give them cause to bring back a ripe claim. However, Linda Parks, as supervisor, never put the easement on the agenda for discussion.
Court suggested that the alternative to this would be for the property owner to essentially invest in a phantom development plan and formally file it to the County, go through the entire application process, have it get denied by the BoS, file an appeal, and then once that was denied, they’d have cause to bring forth the lawsuit. This is about a $2 million exercise.
As you can imagine, the property owner was not thrilled with the idea of spending millions of dollars to prove that Linda Parks was blocking development on their private property, using her elected seat to do so. In order to attempt to meet the court’s request to have exhausted administrative options, the property owner reached out to Linda Parks to see what, if anything, she would agree to. What compromise could be had? Would it even be a reasonable compromise?
2016 (This next part is an excerpt from an email that Linda sent to me in 2021):
“The Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy (SMMC) has been interested in acquiring the Borchard property and restoring it as a wetland since we added it to our acquisition list over a dozen years ago. I think you were surprised that the SMMC wants to purchase it and I've attached that map again to show it is on our wish list. I've also attached the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service map identifying the areas of wetland resources on the property. As a member of the Conservancy Board, I of course would love to see this land purchased for parkland and restored, if there was a willing seller.
I looked through my electronic files for you and found a thread from 2016 when Shawn came to me with a deal to give the SMMC 27 acres of his Borchard property in return for the County withdrawing some of its flowage easement so he could develop 10 acres. I pursued this deal for him with the Watershed Protection District to see if it could work hydrologically.”
SIDE BAR: I also spoke with Linda on the phone during the time frame in which she emailed me in 2021. When we spoke, and she talked about the flooding problem, high groundwater tables and hydrology of the land … I simply asked: “Linda … if all that you are saying is true, why are you putting so much effort into blocking any possibility of a development application? Surely, if all of this is accurate and true, this would be backed by analyses done if a development application is presented and would vindicate your position.” She did not have a response to that. She just kept implying that it would never be able to develop safely. /END SIDE BAR
The property owner’s version of the Linda’s “willingness” to help him:
“As a matter of effort to exhaust administrative action and show ripe cause for the court, we engaged with Linda Parks to see what she would even negotiate on the property, if anything. We discussed giving the conservancy 26 acres if she would remove part of the easement so we could at least develop on only 10 acres. We felt this was an absurd theft of the property, but she said she would work it out. So, we said go ahead Linda, work out that deal. We never received another call. No deal was ever arranged. There was no follow-up.”
ONE THING WAS CLEAR: Demanding 250-acre feet would make the parcel of land not capable of being developed.
On Oct. 31, 2014: The property owner filed a lawsuit against the County and Watershed Protection District for Inverse Condemnation and Declaratory Relief (201400459694CUEI). The property owners alleged that the demand to plan for a 500-year-flood took all usable rights from them.
Feb. 19, 2015: The County filed a demurrer which was granted without prejudice. The court held that the property owners had not exhausted administrative remedies by going before the board of supervisors and getting denied. Basically, it was assessed that the lawsuit was premature in that it concluded that the property owner had not tried every possible avenue to have the easement lifted by the County prior to filing. If they could show the board of supervisors denied the request, that would give them cause to bring back a ripe claim. However, Linda Parks, as supervisor, never put the easement on the agenda for discussion.
Court suggested that the alternative to this would be for the property owner to essentially invest in a phantom development plan and formally file it to the County, go through the entire application process, have it get denied by the BoS, file an appeal, and then once that was denied, they’d have cause to bring forth the lawsuit. This is about a $2 million exercise.
As you can imagine, the property owner was not thrilled with the idea of spending millions of dollars to prove that Linda Parks was blocking development on their private property, using her elected seat to do so. In order to attempt to meet the court’s request to have exhausted administrative options, the property owner reached out to Linda Parks to see what, if anything, she would agree to. What compromise could be had? Would it even be a reasonable compromise?
2016 (This next part is an excerpt from an email that Linda sent to me in 2021):
“The Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy (SMMC) has been interested in acquiring the Borchard property and restoring it as a wetland since we added it to our acquisition list over a dozen years ago. I think you were surprised that the SMMC wants to purchase it and I've attached that map again to show it is on our wish list. I've also attached the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service map identifying the areas of wetland resources on the property. As a member of the Conservancy Board, I of course would love to see this land purchased for parkland and restored, if there was a willing seller.
I looked through my electronic files for you and found a thread from 2016 when Shawn came to me with a deal to give the SMMC 27 acres of his Borchard property in return for the County withdrawing some of its flowage easement so he could develop 10 acres. I pursued this deal for him with the Watershed Protection District to see if it could work hydrologically.”
SIDE BAR: I also spoke with Linda on the phone during the time frame in which she emailed me in 2021. When we spoke, and she talked about the flooding problem, high groundwater tables and hydrology of the land … I simply asked: “Linda … if all that you are saying is true, why are you putting so much effort into blocking any possibility of a development application? Surely, if all of this is accurate and true, this would be backed by analyses done if a development application is presented and would vindicate your position.” She did not have a response to that. She just kept implying that it would never be able to develop safely. /END SIDE BAR
The property owner’s version of the Linda’s “willingness” to help him:
“As a matter of effort to exhaust administrative action and show ripe cause for the court, we engaged with Linda Parks to see what she would even negotiate on the property, if anything. We discussed giving the conservancy 26 acres if she would remove part of the easement so we could at least develop on only 10 acres. We felt this was an absurd theft of the property, but she said she would work it out. So, we said go ahead Linda, work out that deal. We never received another call. No deal was ever arranged. There was no follow-up.”
|
2017.
Movement on the City of Thousand Oaks front. Not long after this, the City of Thousand Oaks was facing slow economic growth and embarked upon the development of a 10-year economic strategic plan to help the City meet its economic growth needs. Opportunity Sites were determined by Kosmont Companies, a consultant hired by the City of Thousand Oaks, to assess the inventory of remaining undeveloped land in the City. Six Opportunity Sites were adopted by the City in 2017 including the Borchard Property. This property was selected for several reasons: it is the City’s largest, undeveloped parcel of land, is flat, located off a major transportation corridor (the 101 freeway), and near the City’s largest employers in the Rancho Conejo area (biotech sector). The Borchard Property represents 44% acreage of the six selected Opportunity Sites in the City. The Opportunity Sites were unanimously approved by the city council (which included then-council member Claudia Bill-de la Peña.) In the years following, the City was in discussion with several companies regarding potential development plans for the property, including Costco and The Rams, who both ended up choosing different locations. They City assured the property owner that if those deals were to come through, they would find a way to work it out with the County, regarding the easement. Those did not firm up. |
2020
In 2020, the General Plan discussion at the City gets underway and RHNA (RHNA quantifies the need for housing within each jurisdiction during specified planning periods) numbers are assessed. The City and its consultants recognize the Borchard Property as a key remaining piece of undeveloped land that has the potential to drastically support its economic growth and help meet RHNA numbers. In order to get the max use out of the property, it’s recommended that the property be considered for a change in land-use designation from single-family zoning to low density, mixed-use based on consultants and community feedback via surveys.
In 2020, the General Plan discussion at the City gets underway and RHNA (RHNA quantifies the need for housing within each jurisdiction during specified planning periods) numbers are assessed. The City and its consultants recognize the Borchard Property as a key remaining piece of undeveloped land that has the potential to drastically support its economic growth and help meet RHNA numbers. In order to get the max use out of the property, it’s recommended that the property be considered for a change in land-use designation from single-family zoning to low density, mixed-use based on consultants and community feedback via surveys.
|
2021
On May 16, 2021: Just ahead of a Thousand Oaks City Council meeting that would include voting on land zoning and density for Thousand Oaks parcels, then-Supervisor Linda Parks made a curious Facebook post (this is the one I mentioned earlier). Her post included an aerial shot of the Borchard Property and the words: “The Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy is looking to acquire this property to make it into a wetland park. Just needs a willing seller.” Now, why would she do this? |
On one hand, wearing her elected hat, as a Ventura County Supervisor, Linda Parks 1) blocked the temporary easement from being lifted on the Borchard Property and 2) instructed staff to calculate its water storage capacity based on a 500-year flood model (NOT the standard 100-year flood model that FEMA uses). This all but ensured that the property owners would never be able to mitigate the property to her new flood requirements that never previously documented prior to property purchase. Essentially, she had used her elected role to render the property virtually worthless with these moves.
On the other hand, in her role serving on the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy board, she helped commission an appraisal that essentially devalued the property to pennies on the dollar. You do see what is happening, yes?
Parks, who had convinced her constituency that the property was a “protected wetlands” that should essentially be donated as a park, was pulling out all the stops. It was reported to the property owner by those who attended meetings that Linda Parks was hosting prior to the city council vote, that she was very clear on telling folks (like in her Casa Conejo MAC) that if they could get the city council to vote against the land-use designation change for the property, it would essentially block development forever on that piece of land. Gee, wonder why all the NIMBYS came out in force and wrote in letters? It's why they still do today.
On the other hand, in her role serving on the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy board, she helped commission an appraisal that essentially devalued the property to pennies on the dollar. You do see what is happening, yes?
Parks, who had convinced her constituency that the property was a “protected wetlands” that should essentially be donated as a park, was pulling out all the stops. It was reported to the property owner by those who attended meetings that Linda Parks was hosting prior to the city council vote, that she was very clear on telling folks (like in her Casa Conejo MAC) that if they could get the city council to vote against the land-use designation change for the property, it would essentially block development forever on that piece of land. Gee, wonder why all the NIMBYS came out in force and wrote in letters? It's why they still do today.
It gets better. Guess who ALSO wrote in a letter to the city council specific to this meeting and vote?
Paul Edelman. Deputy Director for the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy Agency. His letter stated:
“The Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy has long recognized the 37-acre Borchard wetlands property as a unique, irreplaceable ecological and watershed resource. Accessible wetlands are invaluable as educational, groundwater infiltration, and wildlife resources. Solving housing needs on already protected open space that happens to function as a wetland would be a horrible mistake by the City. The cost of new accessible open space to the City has become astronomical with the unprecedented increase in real estate prices. Why voluntarily contribute to the degradation of protected wetlands and open space?”
Y’all … this property is NOT “protected open space.” And it’s not a “wetland.” It’s PRIVATE PROPERTY. I do not care what your view is on development … if you cannot see how absolutely bonkers this whole charade is … there is no logical reasoning that will reach you.
WE ARE COMING FULL CIRCLE.
Are you still here with me? Give yourself a standing ovation. No seriously. Stretch your legs! Cheers to you!
What prompted this formal letter from Paul Edelman and the conservancy to city council?
This email from Supervisor Linda Parks to Paul on May 4, 2021, at 1:02 p.m.:
“Would it be appropriate to comment on the property as proposed for development in the City's General Plan Update that's coming to the Council for decision May 18 and 25?”
WHAT WAS THAT IN RESPONSE TO?
This email from Paul on May 4, 2021, at 12:45 p.m.
“Moradian seems to be knocking down the barriers in his way. That momentum may change abruptly with Fed agencies with Trump gone. Morale and science is back at USFWS at least locally. Let me inquire and get some intel with USFWS and ACOE folks in Venco. New rounds of approvals with the Feds can always have changed outcomes.
Since Moradian has shifted the tide. he is still an unlikely willing seller at fair market value. He needs to suffer more to get to that point.
I just hope at all levels the County holds firm. Fine if TO can benefit from having ghost SCAG units
there as long as they are never built.
What body and what action were you thinking for an SMMC comment letter?”
Paul Edelman. Deputy Director for the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy Agency. His letter stated:
“The Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy has long recognized the 37-acre Borchard wetlands property as a unique, irreplaceable ecological and watershed resource. Accessible wetlands are invaluable as educational, groundwater infiltration, and wildlife resources. Solving housing needs on already protected open space that happens to function as a wetland would be a horrible mistake by the City. The cost of new accessible open space to the City has become astronomical with the unprecedented increase in real estate prices. Why voluntarily contribute to the degradation of protected wetlands and open space?”
Y’all … this property is NOT “protected open space.” And it’s not a “wetland.” It’s PRIVATE PROPERTY. I do not care what your view is on development … if you cannot see how absolutely bonkers this whole charade is … there is no logical reasoning that will reach you.
WE ARE COMING FULL CIRCLE.
Are you still here with me? Give yourself a standing ovation. No seriously. Stretch your legs! Cheers to you!
What prompted this formal letter from Paul Edelman and the conservancy to city council?
This email from Supervisor Linda Parks to Paul on May 4, 2021, at 1:02 p.m.:
“Would it be appropriate to comment on the property as proposed for development in the City's General Plan Update that's coming to the Council for decision May 18 and 25?”
WHAT WAS THAT IN RESPONSE TO?
This email from Paul on May 4, 2021, at 12:45 p.m.
“Moradian seems to be knocking down the barriers in his way. That momentum may change abruptly with Fed agencies with Trump gone. Morale and science is back at USFWS at least locally. Let me inquire and get some intel with USFWS and ACOE folks in Venco. New rounds of approvals with the Feds can always have changed outcomes.
Since Moradian has shifted the tide. he is still an unlikely willing seller at fair market value. He needs to suffer more to get to that point.
I just hope at all levels the County holds firm. Fine if TO can benefit from having ghost SCAG units
there as long as they are never built.
What body and what action were you thinking for an SMMC comment letter?”
|
|
|
|
And by the way, something that I think is important to note: the property owner clearly demonstrated that they would have been happy to have developed the land based on the byright of 165 single-family units — they even submitted applications for less than that. They haven't been angling this entire time to develop a mixed use complex ... they just wanted to develop based on the byright of the property. This is not an absurd expectation. And that's a quicker way to make a buck than to create a real sense of place, which is the vision for the property now.
They were going through that process in 1989, 1992 and then finally again in 2004 until they learned of the illegal dumping that prevented development from moving forward. Heck, if the construction project had been completed in the 1980s as initially planned … a single-family residential development would have happened back then. Or, had Linda Parks lifted the easement when it should have been lifted (completion of construction project), this property would have a modest single-family residential development on it by now. Instead, she spent years blocking any development on the property by abusing the intent of the easement so she could retain control and political power. And as a result, it's now been rezoned and doesn't have to adhere to Measure E ... paving the path for more units and more density. (Actually a good thing for the city, but a bad thing for people who hate development). And folks have Linda to thank for that, truly.
NOW, while this is all going on in 2021, then Thousand Oaks City Council Member Claudia Bill-de la Peña, who had recently announced her campaign intentions to succeed Linda Parks as the new Area 2 Supervisor (Parks was retiring), was getting a slew of emails from residents against the Borchard Property rezoning vote, reminding her of her campaign promises (slow growth) and encouraging her to “do the right thing.” (All of these letters are publicly available on the City’s meeting agenda portal in the supplemental packets.)
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to understand that securing support from Linda Parks, the current County Supervisor for Area 2, and her base, would be critical and would heavily depend on Bill-de la Peña’s actions related to the Borchard Property. This property was being used as a political prop. Linda Parks used her seat to block the lifting of the easement for 20 years. Bill-de la Peña would need Parks’ constituency to have a shot at winning the election and would need to provide that voting bloc the same assurance related to the property.
So what happens next?
On May 25, 2021: the Thousand Oaks City Council voted to change the land designation for the Borchard Property from single-family residential to Mixed-Use Low Density. The vote was 3-2, with Ed Jones and Claudia Bill-de la Peńa (who, if you remember, voted the site as an Opportunity Site in 2017) dissenting. Bill-de la Peña went as far as to try and have the property singled out and removed from the vote, to be treated as a separate vote! No other parcel in the entire city that was up for discussion was treated in this way.
The Borchard Property became a key talking point of Bill-de la Peña’s campaign. I know. I was at many campaign events with her and it's all that was talked about. And look, I publicly supported her campaign and I voted for her. I align with much of Bill-de la Peña' social positions, and we have had pleasant interactions. I’ve even enjoyed coffee in her lovely home and she was a gracious host. But, accountability and ownership is lacking here as it relates to this property and it is being used as a political prop instead of being responsibly used as part of a solution to meet our city’s economic growth and housing needs. Something must be said, even if that's not going to win me any friends. Even if a lot of folks are going to be mad about it.
They were going through that process in 1989, 1992 and then finally again in 2004 until they learned of the illegal dumping that prevented development from moving forward. Heck, if the construction project had been completed in the 1980s as initially planned … a single-family residential development would have happened back then. Or, had Linda Parks lifted the easement when it should have been lifted (completion of construction project), this property would have a modest single-family residential development on it by now. Instead, she spent years blocking any development on the property by abusing the intent of the easement so she could retain control and political power. And as a result, it's now been rezoned and doesn't have to adhere to Measure E ... paving the path for more units and more density. (Actually a good thing for the city, but a bad thing for people who hate development). And folks have Linda to thank for that, truly.
NOW, while this is all going on in 2021, then Thousand Oaks City Council Member Claudia Bill-de la Peña, who had recently announced her campaign intentions to succeed Linda Parks as the new Area 2 Supervisor (Parks was retiring), was getting a slew of emails from residents against the Borchard Property rezoning vote, reminding her of her campaign promises (slow growth) and encouraging her to “do the right thing.” (All of these letters are publicly available on the City’s meeting agenda portal in the supplemental packets.)
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to understand that securing support from Linda Parks, the current County Supervisor for Area 2, and her base, would be critical and would heavily depend on Bill-de la Peña’s actions related to the Borchard Property. This property was being used as a political prop. Linda Parks used her seat to block the lifting of the easement for 20 years. Bill-de la Peña would need Parks’ constituency to have a shot at winning the election and would need to provide that voting bloc the same assurance related to the property.
So what happens next?
On May 25, 2021: the Thousand Oaks City Council voted to change the land designation for the Borchard Property from single-family residential to Mixed-Use Low Density. The vote was 3-2, with Ed Jones and Claudia Bill-de la Peńa (who, if you remember, voted the site as an Opportunity Site in 2017) dissenting. Bill-de la Peña went as far as to try and have the property singled out and removed from the vote, to be treated as a separate vote! No other parcel in the entire city that was up for discussion was treated in this way.
The Borchard Property became a key talking point of Bill-de la Peña’s campaign. I know. I was at many campaign events with her and it's all that was talked about. And look, I publicly supported her campaign and I voted for her. I align with much of Bill-de la Peña' social positions, and we have had pleasant interactions. I’ve even enjoyed coffee in her lovely home and she was a gracious host. But, accountability and ownership is lacking here as it relates to this property and it is being used as a political prop instead of being responsibly used as part of a solution to meet our city’s economic growth and housing needs. Something must be said, even if that's not going to win me any friends. Even if a lot of folks are going to be mad about it.
|
SIDEBAR-ING HERE.
June 9, 2021: Things get weird. Weirder? Linda Parks, during this time, also happens to be in the middle of fighting off a recall petition against her led by Deb Baber/Move the Needle, when Linda receives a dick in a box at her residence. I’m being 100% serious. Some hater sent her a penis-shaped chocolate, in a box that said: “eat a dick.” Her supporters ran straight to my group, predictably, and used it to make posts implying that the chocolate was sent by the Borchard Property owner. Linda even alluded in an article that it was the Borchard Property owner and Move the Needle (this article was edited after publishing and that wording was rephrased because Move the Needle threatened to sue.) It makes that note by placing this statement at the bottom of the article: "Portions of this online story have been modified from the print version." |
OK, let me preface this next part with ... I'm about to soapbox.
With zero proof, that became the rumor that started circulating throughout the community (and there’s many more rumors that happen like this, by the way, but people want to believe what they want to believe). Remember, there’s literally an entire effort to recall Linda happening at this point (she even emailed me complaining about how many hate emails she was receiving due to her COVID-stance and forwarded me some examples), but Parks and her supporters were all sure (or hoping) it was this one property owner, so they could continue lambasting the dude and further sinking his reputation amidst the power battle for his private property. How convenient would that be? Guess what. Linda Parks sued and actually obtained the name of who sent the package (she was actually sent more than one), and she chose not to share publicly ... because the name was not: Shawn Moradian. What a blow!
Now you may be wondering why I’m bringing up the chocolate dick. By the way, my haters must be real lazy because I’ve never received chocolates at my door. The chocolate dick allegation doesn’t have anything to do with the property BUT it does have to do with a decades-long campaign to curate and craft the image of “an evil property owner," in order to create an image of controversy surrounding the property and to use it as a political tool. People love to write "evil property owners" and "evil property developers."
Linda Parks, undoubtedly, is a beloved politician by her supporters and comfortably held her seat as Supervisor in large part because of her slow growth, pro-environment, anti-oil, open space preservation priorities. These resonate with a lot of folks here, of course. I voted for Linda Parks. (Remember, I also campaigned for Linda as a child. Remember, my dad campaigned for Linda. Did I mention, he’s never engaged with local politics again after his experience with her? Ah. Another day!) And I want to be clear on something here: people who have done wonderful things for our county are also possible of engaging in bad behavior. Linda Parks has been widely lauded for her efforts in preserving parks and open space and in her work with several nonprofits that provide mental health supports and resources. Google her wiki page and read about all of her accolades if you feel you need to. All of this can be true and all of that can be good. It does not mean we have to absolve people who have done good things from bad behavior, especially at this level, especially in an elected role. We can, and should, hold folks in powerful positions accountable, even, and especially, when it's not convenient or it may not be a popular position to take. This is the only way we all do better.
And maybe that’s what really bothers me about a lot of this. Maybe that is what’s at the core for me, at least compelling me not to drop it and just let things play out in the public square. I’ve been at the center of targeted hit campaigns founded in lies and disinformation. I can spot one from a mile away. And while so many people stood up for me during that time … no one is doing the work here. It’s the imbalance in the telling of this story and the portrayal of this situation that just grinds my gears. It’s the positioning of “one evil side” instead of ALL parties taking accountability for the role they’ve played.
And I think it’s wrong. Even if you think Moradian is the biggest jerky mcjerkface in the whole wide world. This is still wrong. Even if you don't like property owners, this is still wrong. Even if he was mean to you in high school. This is still wrong. Even if you just really want the land to be donated. This is still wrong.
Y’all bigly mad about Moradian's large Jeff Gorell signs on the boulevard while you're fine glossing over the fact that an elected representative had arguably, in my opinion, been abusing her elected position and power for 20 years to block MUCH-needed housing on his PRIVATE PROPERTY because she personally wanted — and promised her supporters — that she’d find a way to make it a wetland come hell or high water. Like, we've lost the plot here, folks.
And so … we must make him suffer!
The Moradians bought this property in 1978 for $1.8 million. Adjusted for today’s inflation numbers, that amount is equivalent of roughly $8.5 million. And let’s not forget the other $8-10 million this family has put into the property through development applications, yearly insurance and property maintenance, lawsuits, etc. All while being shit on as “evil property owners” because god forbid they want to develop the land they bought in 1978. I need everyone to stop acting like there’s only one pair of dirty hands in this situation. If you want to call out bad behavior (and you've certainly had no problem assigning all bad behavior — warranted or not — to Moradian) … call it all out. CALL IT ALL OUT.
OK, WHEW. That felt cathartic. Maybe it was political suicide. Who knows!
With zero proof, that became the rumor that started circulating throughout the community (and there’s many more rumors that happen like this, by the way, but people want to believe what they want to believe). Remember, there’s literally an entire effort to recall Linda happening at this point (she even emailed me complaining about how many hate emails she was receiving due to her COVID-stance and forwarded me some examples), but Parks and her supporters were all sure (or hoping) it was this one property owner, so they could continue lambasting the dude and further sinking his reputation amidst the power battle for his private property. How convenient would that be? Guess what. Linda Parks sued and actually obtained the name of who sent the package (she was actually sent more than one), and she chose not to share publicly ... because the name was not: Shawn Moradian. What a blow!
Now you may be wondering why I’m bringing up the chocolate dick. By the way, my haters must be real lazy because I’ve never received chocolates at my door. The chocolate dick allegation doesn’t have anything to do with the property BUT it does have to do with a decades-long campaign to curate and craft the image of “an evil property owner," in order to create an image of controversy surrounding the property and to use it as a political tool. People love to write "evil property owners" and "evil property developers."
Linda Parks, undoubtedly, is a beloved politician by her supporters and comfortably held her seat as Supervisor in large part because of her slow growth, pro-environment, anti-oil, open space preservation priorities. These resonate with a lot of folks here, of course. I voted for Linda Parks. (Remember, I also campaigned for Linda as a child. Remember, my dad campaigned for Linda. Did I mention, he’s never engaged with local politics again after his experience with her? Ah. Another day!) And I want to be clear on something here: people who have done wonderful things for our county are also possible of engaging in bad behavior. Linda Parks has been widely lauded for her efforts in preserving parks and open space and in her work with several nonprofits that provide mental health supports and resources. Google her wiki page and read about all of her accolades if you feel you need to. All of this can be true and all of that can be good. It does not mean we have to absolve people who have done good things from bad behavior, especially at this level, especially in an elected role. We can, and should, hold folks in powerful positions accountable, even, and especially, when it's not convenient or it may not be a popular position to take. This is the only way we all do better.
And maybe that’s what really bothers me about a lot of this. Maybe that is what’s at the core for me, at least compelling me not to drop it and just let things play out in the public square. I’ve been at the center of targeted hit campaigns founded in lies and disinformation. I can spot one from a mile away. And while so many people stood up for me during that time … no one is doing the work here. It’s the imbalance in the telling of this story and the portrayal of this situation that just grinds my gears. It’s the positioning of “one evil side” instead of ALL parties taking accountability for the role they’ve played.
And I think it’s wrong. Even if you think Moradian is the biggest jerky mcjerkface in the whole wide world. This is still wrong. Even if you don't like property owners, this is still wrong. Even if he was mean to you in high school. This is still wrong. Even if you just really want the land to be donated. This is still wrong.
Y’all bigly mad about Moradian's large Jeff Gorell signs on the boulevard while you're fine glossing over the fact that an elected representative had arguably, in my opinion, been abusing her elected position and power for 20 years to block MUCH-needed housing on his PRIVATE PROPERTY because she personally wanted — and promised her supporters — that she’d find a way to make it a wetland come hell or high water. Like, we've lost the plot here, folks.
And so … we must make him suffer!
The Moradians bought this property in 1978 for $1.8 million. Adjusted for today’s inflation numbers, that amount is equivalent of roughly $8.5 million. And let’s not forget the other $8-10 million this family has put into the property through development applications, yearly insurance and property maintenance, lawsuits, etc. All while being shit on as “evil property owners” because god forbid they want to develop the land they bought in 1978. I need everyone to stop acting like there’s only one pair of dirty hands in this situation. If you want to call out bad behavior (and you've certainly had no problem assigning all bad behavior — warranted or not — to Moradian) … call it all out. CALL IT ALL OUT.
OK, WHEW. That felt cathartic. Maybe it was political suicide. Who knows!
On July 19, 2021: County’s Public Works sent its response to the Casa Conejo MAC (formed by Linda Parks) regarding the status of the property after they requested guidance:
“Since the easement was dedicated as mitigation for floodplain encroachments by the adjacent development, the property is also subject to Ventura County Watershed Protect District’s regulatory authority…
Authority to relinquish the easement is vested in the Board of Supervisors. Any decision to release or amend the easement would occur at a regular meeting of the Board, at which time interested parties would have an opportunity to address the board.”
But who would need to place that item on the agenda? The supervisor. We certainly know Linda Parks never did. Nor, if elected, would Claudia Bill-de la Peña, based on her campaign promises. The MAC could certainly read between the lines. "Authority to relinquish the easement is vested in the Board of Supervisors."
You can see why they went hard for Bill-de la Peña, right? This was THE issue of the campaign. And it was close. But, in the end, Bill-de la Peña lost her campaign by about 2,000 votes to Jeff Gorell.
“Since the easement was dedicated as mitigation for floodplain encroachments by the adjacent development, the property is also subject to Ventura County Watershed Protect District’s regulatory authority…
Authority to relinquish the easement is vested in the Board of Supervisors. Any decision to release or amend the easement would occur at a regular meeting of the Board, at which time interested parties would have an opportunity to address the board.”
But who would need to place that item on the agenda? The supervisor. We certainly know Linda Parks never did. Nor, if elected, would Claudia Bill-de la Peña, based on her campaign promises. The MAC could certainly read between the lines. "Authority to relinquish the easement is vested in the Board of Supervisors."
You can see why they went hard for Bill-de la Peña, right? This was THE issue of the campaign. And it was close. But, in the end, Bill-de la Peña lost her campaign by about 2,000 votes to Jeff Gorell.
THE YEAR IS 2023.
The latest draft environmental impact report packs a punch.
But you haven't heard about it on former councilmember Bill-de la Peña's official public accounts, have you?
Nah. She's been busy stirring manufactured outrage online about the Borchard Property owner and exploiting a local business in the process.
I'd say I find it rather surprising that she, a former city council member, isn’t talking about the draft environmental impact report that just came out ... but, it’s not convenient for folks who want to block Borchard Property development, I’ll tell ya that. And we'll get to it in a moment.
I was not going to include the Chocolatine French Café situation in this writeup, but Karen Wilburn (leader of Conejo Valley Advocates for Sensible Planning — a group of activists formed to fight development on the Borchard Property) submitted a letter to the Acorn on Sept. 8, 2023, specifically mentioning the situation (inaccurately) in connection to the Borchard Property owner, so now I’ve reconsidered at least providing some general commentary on it. And honestly, it's relevant. I need folks to understand that this business and situation is being exploited for perceived political gain as it relates to the ongoing war for the Borchard Property. I need to folks to understand that the Chocolatine French Café exploitation is one piece of a much larger puzzle (which has been outlined in this writeup.) It's all political theater, folks. And, I guess now I need discuss Karen Wilburn and her activism within the context of this writeup. Thanks Karen! Petty train all aboard.
If you live in Newbury Park (or really anywhere, apparently) … Karen, Scott Horn and their group will come knocking on your door, tell you “scary hi-rises are being built on the protected wetland” (yes, we, and other neighbors, experienced this) and encourage you to sign their petition against the Borchard Property’s rezoning. She yelled at us as we closed the door: “I HOPE THIS NEVER HAPPENS TO YOU.” Which is weird, because we don’t have a 36.5-acre property, always slated for development, behind our house.
Karen — one of Bill-de la Peña's largest campaign supporters — and her activists, collected signatures from people all over the county and then presented the petition results at a city council goals-setting meeting as "speaking for 94% of all residents in Newbury Park.” My residence and others’ were marked as “undecided,” which was not truthful, and not what we told them when they came with their clipboards and "save the wetlands" shirts. Many of the signatures collected were not from Newbury Park residents. And many of the signatures collected were not valid nor collected in good faith. In fact, a letter that was read into public record on behalf of the Westlake Garden Club, asked that all of their signatures be removed from the petition after they learned that they were provided false information in order to persuade them to sign the petition at a county-wide event. (Scott Horn had attended a county-wide meeting and told them their were endangered species on protected wetlands, basically.)
So, that’s Karen. She hates development. She apparently hates weed abatement. And she’s mad as hell she doesn’t get to tell this property owner what to do with his private property, so she writes letters to The Acorn about it and partakes in manufacturing outrage. Her recent letter was strategically placed to complement Bill-de la Peña's latest effort to take down Shawn Moradian and the Borchard Property, through the exploitation of a vulnerable business. The messaging points are the same. It's the “evil property owner who doesn’t care about our community” narrative that also played out on Nextdoor stemming from the misrepresentation of the Chocolatine situation. So now I HAVE to lightly revisit that. BECAUSE IT'S ALL COORDINATED.
The latest draft environmental impact report packs a punch.
But you haven't heard about it on former councilmember Bill-de la Peña's official public accounts, have you?
Nah. She's been busy stirring manufactured outrage online about the Borchard Property owner and exploiting a local business in the process.
I'd say I find it rather surprising that she, a former city council member, isn’t talking about the draft environmental impact report that just came out ... but, it’s not convenient for folks who want to block Borchard Property development, I’ll tell ya that. And we'll get to it in a moment.
I was not going to include the Chocolatine French Café situation in this writeup, but Karen Wilburn (leader of Conejo Valley Advocates for Sensible Planning — a group of activists formed to fight development on the Borchard Property) submitted a letter to the Acorn on Sept. 8, 2023, specifically mentioning the situation (inaccurately) in connection to the Borchard Property owner, so now I’ve reconsidered at least providing some general commentary on it. And honestly, it's relevant. I need folks to understand that this business and situation is being exploited for perceived political gain as it relates to the ongoing war for the Borchard Property. I need to folks to understand that the Chocolatine French Café exploitation is one piece of a much larger puzzle (which has been outlined in this writeup.) It's all political theater, folks. And, I guess now I need discuss Karen Wilburn and her activism within the context of this writeup. Thanks Karen! Petty train all aboard.
If you live in Newbury Park (or really anywhere, apparently) … Karen, Scott Horn and their group will come knocking on your door, tell you “scary hi-rises are being built on the protected wetland” (yes, we, and other neighbors, experienced this) and encourage you to sign their petition against the Borchard Property’s rezoning. She yelled at us as we closed the door: “I HOPE THIS NEVER HAPPENS TO YOU.” Which is weird, because we don’t have a 36.5-acre property, always slated for development, behind our house.
Karen — one of Bill-de la Peña's largest campaign supporters — and her activists, collected signatures from people all over the county and then presented the petition results at a city council goals-setting meeting as "speaking for 94% of all residents in Newbury Park.” My residence and others’ were marked as “undecided,” which was not truthful, and not what we told them when they came with their clipboards and "save the wetlands" shirts. Many of the signatures collected were not from Newbury Park residents. And many of the signatures collected were not valid nor collected in good faith. In fact, a letter that was read into public record on behalf of the Westlake Garden Club, asked that all of their signatures be removed from the petition after they learned that they were provided false information in order to persuade them to sign the petition at a county-wide event. (Scott Horn had attended a county-wide meeting and told them their were endangered species on protected wetlands, basically.)
So, that’s Karen. She hates development. She apparently hates weed abatement. And she’s mad as hell she doesn’t get to tell this property owner what to do with his private property, so she writes letters to The Acorn about it and partakes in manufacturing outrage. Her recent letter was strategically placed to complement Bill-de la Peña's latest effort to take down Shawn Moradian and the Borchard Property, through the exploitation of a vulnerable business. The messaging points are the same. It's the “evil property owner who doesn’t care about our community” narrative that also played out on Nextdoor stemming from the misrepresentation of the Chocolatine situation. So now I HAVE to lightly revisit that. BECAUSE IT'S ALL COORDINATED.
|
|
I’m not going to post my whole Chocolatine write-up here, because I’ve already written about it recently and provided much more context to the story, including documents and a timeline that refute the version that was put out on social media by the business and Bill-de la Peña. What I will reiterate here, is that I think it’s really shameful that a former leader in our community seized this situation and exploited a vulnerable local business in order to attack one of her political enemies. I think folks using this business as a political prop need to reflect. Based on the documents and exchanges I reviewed from the property owner, who also happens to be the Borchard Property owner (which weren’t shared previously by the business/tenant), the narrative playing out in the social square and political arena is not accurate.
When you now look back at the history of everything, you can piece together why Bill-de la Peña seized another opportunity to target the Borchard Property owner … instead of posting about the latest EIR results. The second the crafted controversy rolled out, I knew exactly what was happening. And I also predicted that most folks would not truly get it. And they didn't. But they were happy to quickly pile on, online, and easily believe the situation was all because of the "evil Borchard Property owner" without so much a thought as to questioning if there might be more to the story. And that is because the creation of this villain has been decades in the making, and it's been so effective, no one bothers to ask even the most basic of questions anymore.
Manufacture outrage and distract. It's effective in getting people to show up and put out. And they desperately want people to show up at the General Plan city council meeting. It's their last hope in what they believe is a move that could block development. So, who cares if they intentionally misrepresent and exploit a business situation to further tarnish the reputation of the property owner? The ends justify the means, amirite?
Remember. “He needs to suffer more.”
Since Bill-de la Peña hasn’t posted about the draft EIR results, I got you!
In its analysis, the EIR reviewed the cumulative effects of a full buildout for the Borchard Property (including requests from community members to analyze traffic and any “wetlands” conditions.) It found that a full development would have no negative impact on the adjacent properties. It found no wetland indicators. It also concluded, that because undeveloped land is so scarce in our city, that there are no other alternatives to meet the city’s housing and growth needs. Borchard Property, the Oaks Mall and Janss Marketplace were identified as the three most important sites in the city in terms of the significance of their importance as it relates to sustaining a healthy future balance for the city.
When you now look back at the history of everything, you can piece together why Bill-de la Peña seized another opportunity to target the Borchard Property owner … instead of posting about the latest EIR results. The second the crafted controversy rolled out, I knew exactly what was happening. And I also predicted that most folks would not truly get it. And they didn't. But they were happy to quickly pile on, online, and easily believe the situation was all because of the "evil Borchard Property owner" without so much a thought as to questioning if there might be more to the story. And that is because the creation of this villain has been decades in the making, and it's been so effective, no one bothers to ask even the most basic of questions anymore.
Manufacture outrage and distract. It's effective in getting people to show up and put out. And they desperately want people to show up at the General Plan city council meeting. It's their last hope in what they believe is a move that could block development. So, who cares if they intentionally misrepresent and exploit a business situation to further tarnish the reputation of the property owner? The ends justify the means, amirite?
Remember. “He needs to suffer more.”
Since Bill-de la Peña hasn’t posted about the draft EIR results, I got you!
In its analysis, the EIR reviewed the cumulative effects of a full buildout for the Borchard Property (including requests from community members to analyze traffic and any “wetlands” conditions.) It found that a full development would have no negative impact on the adjacent properties. It found no wetland indicators. It also concluded, that because undeveloped land is so scarce in our city, that there are no other alternatives to meet the city’s housing and growth needs. Borchard Property, the Oaks Mall and Janss Marketplace were identified as the three most important sites in the city in terms of the significance of their importance as it relates to sustaining a healthy future balance for the city.
|
|
So, to recap. (How is that even possible, right?) BUT YOU'RE GOING TO WANT TO CONTINUE FOR THE INFORMATION AT THE END OF THIS.)
1. The Borchard Property was always planned for development with an original byright of 165 single-family units.
2. The easement placed on the property in 1978 was intended as a TEMPORARY easement to be lifted upon the County’s completion of the 101 Interchange Project, which would fix the bottlenecking in the drains that ran south of the property.
3. The 101 Interchange Project was delayed for 23 years as the result of County funding being reallocated to help with storm damage in Simi Valley that occurred in the ‘80s.
4. The 101 Interchange Project commenced in 2001 and was certified complete in 2004.
5. Linda Parks was elected in 2002 as a Ventura County Supervisor and used that position to block the removal of the easement on the property.
6. During the 101 Interchange Project — which was done in partnership with the County, Caltrans and the City of Thousand Oaks — a drainage ditch was unintentionally damaged which inadvertently led to hundreds of millions of gallons of nuisance water being dumped illegally onto the Borchard Property, thus resulting in the creation of a temporary, artificial wetland.
7. In 2010, the City of Thousand Oaks and Caltrans were court-ordered to fix the drainage, the water cleared up, and by 2014, the Army Corps formally declared, as it still does upon each inspection thereafter, that there are no wetlands on the property. Fish and Wildlife also confirmed that there is no presence of wetlands on the property through official statement in 2023, that took into account a 20-year analysis and soil samples.
8. Linda Parks, for the first time ever, held this specific property to a water holding capacity based on a 500-year storm event (FEMA uses a 100-year storm event, as is the standard), essentially preventing development from being feasible.
9. In 2017, Borchard Property gets voted in by the Thousand Oaks City Council, unanimously, as an Opportunity Site — one of six undeveloped properties left in the city, comprising 44% of the undeveloped land — and designated as such for its capacity to help the city meet its economic growth and housing needs.
10. Ahead of the vote by the Thousand Oaks City Council to change the land use designation for the property from residential to mixed use, Linda Parks uses her roles as a Supervisor and on the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy Agency in order to block development and assert influence in a City decision by a conservancy agency.
11. In 2021, City Council approves the land use designation change for the Borchard Property, which means the property will not face the same level of difficulty as it relates to flood mitigation as it would have with the previous residential zoning.
12. Anti-development advocates lose their minds.
13. The city’s draft EIR report comes out and identifies Borchard Property as one of the core sites left to help the city move forward in a healthy, sustainable way.
1. The Borchard Property was always planned for development with an original byright of 165 single-family units.
2. The easement placed on the property in 1978 was intended as a TEMPORARY easement to be lifted upon the County’s completion of the 101 Interchange Project, which would fix the bottlenecking in the drains that ran south of the property.
3. The 101 Interchange Project was delayed for 23 years as the result of County funding being reallocated to help with storm damage in Simi Valley that occurred in the ‘80s.
4. The 101 Interchange Project commenced in 2001 and was certified complete in 2004.
5. Linda Parks was elected in 2002 as a Ventura County Supervisor and used that position to block the removal of the easement on the property.
6. During the 101 Interchange Project — which was done in partnership with the County, Caltrans and the City of Thousand Oaks — a drainage ditch was unintentionally damaged which inadvertently led to hundreds of millions of gallons of nuisance water being dumped illegally onto the Borchard Property, thus resulting in the creation of a temporary, artificial wetland.
7. In 2010, the City of Thousand Oaks and Caltrans were court-ordered to fix the drainage, the water cleared up, and by 2014, the Army Corps formally declared, as it still does upon each inspection thereafter, that there are no wetlands on the property. Fish and Wildlife also confirmed that there is no presence of wetlands on the property through official statement in 2023, that took into account a 20-year analysis and soil samples.
8. Linda Parks, for the first time ever, held this specific property to a water holding capacity based on a 500-year storm event (FEMA uses a 100-year storm event, as is the standard), essentially preventing development from being feasible.
9. In 2017, Borchard Property gets voted in by the Thousand Oaks City Council, unanimously, as an Opportunity Site — one of six undeveloped properties left in the city, comprising 44% of the undeveloped land — and designated as such for its capacity to help the city meet its economic growth and housing needs.
10. Ahead of the vote by the Thousand Oaks City Council to change the land use designation for the property from residential to mixed use, Linda Parks uses her roles as a Supervisor and on the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy Agency in order to block development and assert influence in a City decision by a conservancy agency.
11. In 2021, City Council approves the land use designation change for the Borchard Property, which means the property will not face the same level of difficulty as it relates to flood mitigation as it would have with the previous residential zoning.
12. Anti-development advocates lose their minds.
13. The city’s draft EIR report comes out and identifies Borchard Property as one of the core sites left to help the city move forward in a healthy, sustainable way.
BUT WAIT, there's more ... AND IT'S BIG
|
OK. So I WAS waiting for the official documentation from the Corps to become available, but Panther Prowler writer Brody Sintuko dove right in on this particular piece of information in the Prowler's Oct. 2 edition. So, I guess I'll start with thanking Brody, since I didn't have to write this all up!
Here's the link for the story above. So, let's first start with: Did anyone catch Scott Horn's (of Conejo Valley Advocates for Sensible Planning) post on Nextdoor about the studies this article is referencing? He writes: "City of T.O. & the County just spent $300,000 each on a study of the Conejo Creek/Flood Channel in Newbury Park, that only benefits one person. The results are unknown (I've asked -) and now the City of T.O. & Ventura County are spending another $600,000 ($300K each again) on another study that will only benefit one man. They are literally throwing money into the creek! This is a crazy part of the overdevelopment plans for NP. What does the first study say that compelled the City & County to spend another $600K? What was the study about? What was the goals? What's going on? This feels like HINKY!" |
So, let's talk about the HINKY. Thanks again to Brody ... I'm just going to pull straight from his writeup:
"City and county aim to save homes from flood zone."
That's what Scott Horn, considers HINKY.
"Both of the government entities’ goals are to remove 300 Casa Conejo and Newbury Park homes out of the Federal Emergency Management Agency. [FEMA], 100 year flood zone in order to alleviate the residents from the financial burden of mandated flood insurance within the zone. totaling an estimated cost of $288,000. The city and the VCWPD have come to the agreement that the city
will cover 60% of the total costs of the study, and the VCWPD will cover the remaining 40%.
In 2010, FEMA made changes to the flood zone map of Thousand Oaks, the revisions ended up resulting in 300 Newbury Park and Casa Conejo homes off of Borchard and Wendy road being placed in a 100 year flood zone. This designation requires all the homeowners within it to pay for flood insurance. According to an August 23rd 2023 Forbes article the average annual cost of flood insurance per household is $849, in a total year for all the homes combined that is roughly $254,700. For some households in the area $849 a year can
be a dent in the wallet, especially people on low income, and people dependent on fixed income programs such as social security."
***
HINKY! Y'all know why Scott Horn is so hinky-honkin' mad? It's because this study means that the Borchard Property would be a beneficiary of the results as it falls within the region being studied. He doesn't care that 300+ folks are paying for flood insurance when they shouldn't be ... he just cares about losing a bargaining tool to delay development.
HERE'S WHAT THE FIRST STUDY FOUND:
There was little-to-no cost benefit ratio to the expansion of the storm drain. "The study determined that the drain wasn't the cause of there being a flood zone."
What the study did conclude was that the area may be a flood risk zone because of the inadequacy of the drainage systems within the City and the Casa Conejo streets.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Y'all. SO THIS IS BIG. Remember when I told you, five years ago when you first reading this blog, about how FEMA had mapped this area as a flood zone (floodplain)? When that happened, it was ASSUMED that it was because of the South Branch Arroyo Conejo flood channel and that it would not be able to sustain a 1% annual event (100-year storm event.)
The first study that was done, was done so because the City and the County wanted to pursue federal funding to address the presumed channel deficiency and thus therefore reduce the flooding risk and then file to eliminate the need for these residents to continue paying for flood insurance. (I want to note here that while FEMA did update in 2010, this area was already listed as a floodzone prior to 2010.) As it turns out, THIS WHOLE TIME, the channel was NOT the problem. But through this first study, they did identify that the storm drainage from houses to the channel are actually too narrow and would not be effecient in the event of the 100-year storm.
The second study, that has got Scott all hinkering and honkering bothered, is a study that will help the City and County analyze the solution for inadequate storm drainage, so you know ... they can like, fix it, and remove the entire area out of a floodplain.
And here's the real rub on that. When the work begins to address the storm drainage fix, you can bet the Borchard Property owner, as part of community benefits, will be paying a significant share toward the fix, which will alleviate the flood insurance burden hundreds of families are saddled with each year in that area.
Yes. The evil property owner. The villain. The one you all want to suffer more.
"City and county aim to save homes from flood zone."
That's what Scott Horn, considers HINKY.
"Both of the government entities’ goals are to remove 300 Casa Conejo and Newbury Park homes out of the Federal Emergency Management Agency. [FEMA], 100 year flood zone in order to alleviate the residents from the financial burden of mandated flood insurance within the zone. totaling an estimated cost of $288,000. The city and the VCWPD have come to the agreement that the city
will cover 60% of the total costs of the study, and the VCWPD will cover the remaining 40%.
In 2010, FEMA made changes to the flood zone map of Thousand Oaks, the revisions ended up resulting in 300 Newbury Park and Casa Conejo homes off of Borchard and Wendy road being placed in a 100 year flood zone. This designation requires all the homeowners within it to pay for flood insurance. According to an August 23rd 2023 Forbes article the average annual cost of flood insurance per household is $849, in a total year for all the homes combined that is roughly $254,700. For some households in the area $849 a year can
be a dent in the wallet, especially people on low income, and people dependent on fixed income programs such as social security."
***
HINKY! Y'all know why Scott Horn is so hinky-honkin' mad? It's because this study means that the Borchard Property would be a beneficiary of the results as it falls within the region being studied. He doesn't care that 300+ folks are paying for flood insurance when they shouldn't be ... he just cares about losing a bargaining tool to delay development.
HERE'S WHAT THE FIRST STUDY FOUND:
There was little-to-no cost benefit ratio to the expansion of the storm drain. "The study determined that the drain wasn't the cause of there being a flood zone."
What the study did conclude was that the area may be a flood risk zone because of the inadequacy of the drainage systems within the City and the Casa Conejo streets.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Y'all. SO THIS IS BIG. Remember when I told you, five years ago when you first reading this blog, about how FEMA had mapped this area as a flood zone (floodplain)? When that happened, it was ASSUMED that it was because of the South Branch Arroyo Conejo flood channel and that it would not be able to sustain a 1% annual event (100-year storm event.)
The first study that was done, was done so because the City and the County wanted to pursue federal funding to address the presumed channel deficiency and thus therefore reduce the flooding risk and then file to eliminate the need for these residents to continue paying for flood insurance. (I want to note here that while FEMA did update in 2010, this area was already listed as a floodzone prior to 2010.) As it turns out, THIS WHOLE TIME, the channel was NOT the problem. But through this first study, they did identify that the storm drainage from houses to the channel are actually too narrow and would not be effecient in the event of the 100-year storm.
The second study, that has got Scott all hinkering and honkering bothered, is a study that will help the City and County analyze the solution for inadequate storm drainage, so you know ... they can like, fix it, and remove the entire area out of a floodplain.
And here's the real rub on that. When the work begins to address the storm drainage fix, you can bet the Borchard Property owner, as part of community benefits, will be paying a significant share toward the fix, which will alleviate the flood insurance burden hundreds of families are saddled with each year in that area.
Yes. The evil property owner. The villain. The one you all want to suffer more.
CONCLUSION
The City named affordable housing as its number 1 priority goal this year. This is our city’s largest remaining undeveloped parcel of land and could provide relief in that area. Instead of being bound to developing single-family units (which in these parts are selling for a million plus) or no development at all — which is really what Linda/Claudia & crew wanted all along — this new designation provides the property owner flexibility to include all types of housing. This is a win for our community. This property, if developed out, will generate an estimated $5 million for our local City economy and $15 million for our County, each year. It will help our City respond to state mandates on housing requirements. It will provide a vibrant hub for our Newbury Park community and city as a whole.
And, at the end of the day, this is private property. Just because an elected official arguably abused her position to block development and you’re anti-development so it suited you, doesn’t actually make it OK.
I am done watching this harassment campaign from the sidelines. Our city needs this property to be responsibly developed out. That’s the conversation you all should be engaging in … community input for what you want to see there. “Ghost units” don’t actually solve a housing crisis. Housing does. It’s time for everyone to grow up. It's time for local leaders on "all sides" to do better and behave better. Get engaged in an actual, meaningful way about how this property will meet our city's economic needs.
To Clint, the jackass on Twitter, who kept calling me a monkey: thanks for lighting my fire.
And, at the end of the day, this is private property. Just because an elected official arguably abused her position to block development and you’re anti-development so it suited you, doesn’t actually make it OK.
I am done watching this harassment campaign from the sidelines. Our city needs this property to be responsibly developed out. That’s the conversation you all should be engaging in … community input for what you want to see there. “Ghost units” don’t actually solve a housing crisis. Housing does. It’s time for everyone to grow up. It's time for local leaders on "all sides" to do better and behave better. Get engaged in an actual, meaningful way about how this property will meet our city's economic needs.
To Clint, the jackass on Twitter, who kept calling me a monkey: thanks for lighting my fire.
Documentation provided throughout this writeup:
1971-Subdivisionmap-phaseiandii-tract2790.pdf
1975-OriginalGradingPlanforTract2790andPhaseII
1977-County of Ventura Request and Conditions of Easement Letter
1977-TO Memo on Traffic Mitigation for Phase II
1977EIR-Tract2790PhaseI-FoxMeadows
1978 - Ventura County Flood Control Easement
1991-US Army Corps of Engineers - Jurisdictional Determination Letter
1992-Ventura County Solution to Eliminate Easement Letter
2002-VCE Storage Volume Study - Borchard Opportunity Site
2003-CityofTO-AffordableHousingAssessment
2007-Caltrans Letter to Teleflex for Nuissance Water
2007-VCE Ongoing Saturation Condition - Borchard Opportunity Site
2009 - Natural Holding Capacity Letter to County of Ventura
2010-FEMA- Development Condition Letter - Borchard Opportunity Site
2010 Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy Appraisal
Historical Photo Survey - Borchard Opportunity Site2017 City of Thousand Oaks Economic Development Strategic Plan
2023 Fish and Wildlife Determination Letter
2023 Draft General Plan and EIR Report
City and County aim to save homes from flood zone
Other documentation includes screenshots of posts from Facebook, email exchanges from PRA requests, email exchanges I've had with Linda Parks while in her elected capacity, and information provided by the Borchard Property owner, who I reached out to for materials.
1971-Subdivisionmap-phaseiandii-tract2790.pdf
1975-OriginalGradingPlanforTract2790andPhaseII
1977-County of Ventura Request and Conditions of Easement Letter
1977-TO Memo on Traffic Mitigation for Phase II
1977EIR-Tract2790PhaseI-FoxMeadows
1978 - Ventura County Flood Control Easement
1991-US Army Corps of Engineers - Jurisdictional Determination Letter
1992-Ventura County Solution to Eliminate Easement Letter
2002-VCE Storage Volume Study - Borchard Opportunity Site
2003-CityofTO-AffordableHousingAssessment
2007-Caltrans Letter to Teleflex for Nuissance Water
2007-VCE Ongoing Saturation Condition - Borchard Opportunity Site
2009 - Natural Holding Capacity Letter to County of Ventura
2010-FEMA- Development Condition Letter - Borchard Opportunity Site
2010 Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy Appraisal
Historical Photo Survey - Borchard Opportunity Site2017 City of Thousand Oaks Economic Development Strategic Plan
2023 Fish and Wildlife Determination Letter
2023 Draft General Plan and EIR Report
City and County aim to save homes from flood zone
Other documentation includes screenshots of posts from Facebook, email exchanges from PRA requests, email exchanges I've had with Linda Parks while in her elected capacity, and information provided by the Borchard Property owner, who I reached out to for materials.
GLOSSARY OF TERMS/ADDITIONAL INFO:
FEMA UPDATES ITS STANDARDS.
You can review additional floodplain information through Public Works VC Flood. The page references the 1973 Act and acknowledges that Ventura County is part of the National Flood Insurance Program, meaning it must adopt and enforce minimum floodplain management standards.
WHAT'S AN EIR?
What’s an EIR? An EIR, which happens with any new proposed development, “must discuss the cumulative impacts of a project when the project's incremental effect is cumulatively considerable. (Learn more.) For example, as the City is currently going through the new General Plan process, a new EIR was conducted analyzing the various city sites whose land designations were adjusted at the May 2021 land use vote. The DRAFT EIR is now available to review.
What agencies play a role in EIR findings?
FEMA UPDATES ITS STANDARDS.
You can review additional floodplain information through Public Works VC Flood. The page references the 1973 Act and acknowledges that Ventura County is part of the National Flood Insurance Program, meaning it must adopt and enforce minimum floodplain management standards.
WHAT'S AN EIR?
What’s an EIR? An EIR, which happens with any new proposed development, “must discuss the cumulative impacts of a project when the project's incremental effect is cumulatively considerable. (Learn more.) For example, as the City is currently going through the new General Plan process, a new EIR was conducted analyzing the various city sites whose land designations were adjusted at the May 2021 land use vote. The DRAFT EIR is now available to review.
What agencies play a role in EIR findings?
- The California Department of Fish and Wildlife with regard to the fish and wildlife of the state, to designate rare or endangered native plants, and to game refuges, ecological reserves, and other areas administered by the department;
- The State Lands Commission with regard to state owned "sovereign" lands such as the beds of navigable waters and state school lands;
- The State Department of Parks and Recreation with regard to units of the State Park System;
- The University of California with regard to sites within the Natural Land and Water Reserves System;
- The Army Corps of Engineers (Clean Water Act)
