Is this where the bodies are buried?
What a wicked web we weave ... Part Two: The Drama
Hello, just joining us? Read The Introduction, before you dive in.
And then read Part One: The Background.
And then read Part One: The Background.
January 2003: Six months before the completion of the 101 Interchange Project construction, Linda Parks took office.
Photo Source.
The Borchard Property owner would soon learn that the new County leadership would not be honoring the original intent of the temporary easement. That's super fun, right?!
Now, I'm going to skip back just slightly so you have some idea of the communications happening while the construction project was underway. Upon the start of the 101 Interchange Project, the property owner reached out to County Public Works to notify them of their intent to move forward with a new development application and new developer, Centex.
Finally, it seemed like things were going to happen!
It had only been 23 years!
On Aug. 21, 2001, County Public Works directed the property owner 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 for the property in conjunction with the construction project, so he did in fact, appear to be the right person to analyze the property.
Now, I'm going to skip back just slightly so you have some idea of the communications happening while the construction project was underway. Upon the start of the 101 Interchange Project, the property owner reached out to County Public Works to notify them of their intent to move forward with a new development application and new developer, Centex.
Finally, it seemed like things were going to happen!
It had only been 23 years!
On Aug. 21, 2001, County Public Works directed the property owner 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 for the property in conjunction with the construction project, so he did in fact, appear to be the right person to analyze the property.
|
|
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.”
Basically: WE GOOD HERE.
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. (I was told about this email, but I have not seen it.) As it was described to me by the property owner: the data that VCE had used to design the County’s 101 Interchange Project model had been considered acceptable, but the same data then being used to evaluate the site was rejected.
At this point, the property owners were still moving forward with the 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. Rome wasn't — oh nevermind.
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.”
Basically: WE GOOD HERE.
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. (I was told about this email, but I have not seen it.) As it was described to me by the property owner: the data that VCE had used to design the County’s 101 Interchange Project model had been considered acceptable, but the same data then being used to evaluate the site was rejected.
At this point, the property owners were still moving forward with the 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. Rome wasn't — oh nevermind.
Above: 2003 Affordable Housing Opportunities Assessment
|
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 points here.
1) This demonstrated that per Flood Control (whose defacto board is the Board of Supervisors), 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 Borchard Villas application correspondences ... and this is all before construction was completed (which in theory, would free up more developable space).
2) As far back as 2003, the City of Thousand Oaks had noted this property would better serve the community with a mixed-use designation. (But continue going off about "greedy property owners.")
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 (whose defacto board is the Board of Supervisors), 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 Borchard Villas application correspondences ... and this is all before construction was completed (which in theory, would free up more developable space).
2) As far back as 2003, the City of Thousand Oaks had noted this property would better serve the community with a mixed-use designation. (But continue going off about "greedy property owners.")
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.” |
REMINDER: 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. Honestly, I think this is non-negotiable.
|
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 owner only became aware of the above exchange years after the fact through a PRA (public records act) request during legal proceedings. At the time that Damon Wing sent this email, the property owner was unaware of the illegal nuisance water that had been pumping onto the property and resulted in the creation of a temporary artificial wetland (Don’t worry, I’ll get to that shortly). They actually only discovered any wetland acreage existed after the DRAFT EIR was released as part of the Centex development application process in 2005.
Given that this property had never, in its entire history, according to any available documentation or aerial photos, nor determinations from any agencies, been declared as a wetland … why, in 2003, would Linda Parks’ assistant reach out to the Army Corps of Engineers to suggest concern about the property being a wetland habitat? And why would they suggest the "wetland habit was disturbed prior to conducting biological assessments for environmental review," when this property had gone through EIRs both in 1977 and 1992 and no issues were found? What would trigger this assertion?
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 or could become wetlands, but in recent history, have not been treated as such. It should also be emphasized that there is no evidence that the Borchard Property ever was 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 essentially makes the case that it could become a wetland if you let the flood channel adjacent to the property just dump on it forever. Or so that is how this report was explained to me.
We (at least I) 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 — or at the very least, not disclose — a damaged drain to the property owner.) 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 available documentation or aerial photos, nor determinations from any agencies, been declared as a wetland … why, in 2003, would Linda Parks’ assistant reach out to the Army Corps of Engineers to suggest concern about the property being a wetland habitat? And why would they suggest the "wetland habit was disturbed prior to conducting biological assessments for environmental review," when this property had gone through EIRs both in 1977 and 1992 and no issues were found? What would trigger this assertion?
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 or could become wetlands, but in recent history, have not been treated as such. It should also be emphasized that there is no evidence that the Borchard Property ever was 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 essentially makes the case that it could become a wetland if you let the flood channel adjacent to the property just dump on it forever. Or so that is how this report was explained to me.
We (at least I) 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 — or at the very least, not disclose — a damaged drain to the property owner.) 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 the Borchard Property as a Wetland
2004.
July 15, 2004: The property owner, at this point, was still working with developer, Centex, to move forward on a residential development (105 units) application for the Borchard Property. Centex had planned two detention basins and then initiated the EIR for the property. Now, if you’re wondering like me, why the developer decided on a smaller application (given the whole reason for stalling the 1992 project was in order to avoid having to put in detention basins and waiting for the construction to be completed), 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. It'd already been another decade. 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. Basically: let's just get this shit built.
But 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 property owner first learned of the nuisance water dumping onto the property. The development could not move forward. The property owner couldn’t mitigate around 17 acres of mystery wetland.
SO WHAT HAD HAPPENED WAS …
THE YEAR IS 2002. (Yes, we’re jumping back and forward. Maybe pop a Dramamine, smell grass, grab another beer, 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 onto the Borchard Property. That nuisance water included the daily discharge of Telair water from Wendy Drive (which was remediating contaminated underground water). 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 the interchange project, this water ended up getting diverted onto the Borchard Property. The property owner was never notified the drainage ditch was damaged. Y'all.
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.
Upon the EIR's findings, the property owner sought damages in 2006. They brought in John Dickerson of VCE Engineering to analyze the Borchard Property specifically as it related to the discovery. 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 owner, at this point, was still working with developer, Centex, to move forward on a residential development (105 units) application for the Borchard Property. Centex had planned two detention basins and then initiated the EIR for the property. Now, if you’re wondering like me, why the developer decided on a smaller application (given the whole reason for stalling the 1992 project was in order to avoid having to put in detention basins and waiting for the construction to be completed), 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. It'd already been another decade. 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. Basically: let's just get this shit built.
But 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 property owner first learned of the nuisance water dumping onto the property. The development could not move forward. The property owner couldn’t mitigate around 17 acres of mystery wetland.
SO WHAT HAD HAPPENED WAS …
THE YEAR IS 2002. (Yes, we’re jumping back and forward. Maybe pop a Dramamine, smell grass, grab another beer, 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 onto the Borchard Property. That nuisance water included the daily discharge of Telair water from Wendy Drive (which was remediating contaminated underground water). 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 the interchange project, this water ended up getting diverted onto the Borchard Property. The property owner was never notified the drainage ditch was damaged. Y'all.
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.
Upon the EIR's findings, the property owner sought damages in 2006. They brought in John Dickerson of VCE Engineering to analyze the Borchard Property specifically as it related to the discovery. 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 of 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 owner was also forced to sue Telair in order to get the pumping to stop. 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 was not a speedy process). 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.
Based on the foregoing, the drainage ditch has been silted-up and the vegetative growth
continued due to lack of 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 owner was also forced to sue Telair in order to get the pumping to stop. 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 was not a speedy process). 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.
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.
OK, so this next part to me, is frankly WILD.
While this is all 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 was, and still is, on the board of the SMMC. She was actually voted/selected 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. 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. I know, you need to reread that part again.
And so, the appraisal, which noted the easement as a primary issue, came back at ... $3.4 million. 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!)
In 2006, during the lawsuit ... so just 3 years prior to this appraisal from SMMC, the property owners had the property appraised and it came in at $28 million.
Here's a look at what some recent properties have gone for:
$28 million - 8 acres Amgen Site
$10 million - 3 acres 299 TOB
$38 million - 10 acres K-mart site
$10 million - 4 acres Hillcrest School
$20 million - 10 acres old school site
That averages out to about $3 mill an acre right? Say we cut that down to 1/3 even, because this was about 15 years ago ... that would still be $37 mill. Just to help provide some context to that appraisal number.
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.
OK, so this next part to me, is frankly WILD.
While this is all 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 was, and still is, on the board of the SMMC. She was actually voted/selected 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. 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. I know, you need to reread that part again.
And so, the appraisal, which noted the easement as a primary issue, came back at ... $3.4 million. 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!)
In 2006, during the lawsuit ... so just 3 years prior to this appraisal from SMMC, the property owners had the property appraised and it came in at $28 million.
Here's a look at what some recent properties have gone for:
$28 million - 8 acres Amgen Site
$10 million - 3 acres 299 TOB
$38 million - 10 acres K-mart site
$10 million - 4 acres Hillcrest School
$20 million - 10 acres old school site
That averages out to about $3 mill an acre right? Say we cut that down to 1/3 even, because this was about 15 years ago ... that would still be $37 mill. Just to help provide some context to that appraisal number.
|
|
But let's talk more about the "Wetlands."
To recap the important part for the “save the wetlands” folks: It's not one.
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, the 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. (Remember, Telair's permit was revoked in 2009, stopping the pumping immediately). 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 wetland 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 weird exchanges on Facebook), in June of 2023, even 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 from the letter, “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.”
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, the 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. (Remember, Telair's permit was revoked in 2009, stopping the pumping immediately). 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 wetland 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 weird exchanges on Facebook), in June of 2023, even 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 from the letter, “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.”
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 to 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 natural 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.
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 natural 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.
|
|
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 in terms of a number being leveraged to block the lifting of the easement.
Aug. 9, 2010: The property owners also 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 in Part One. If you recall, that letter reaffirmed that the property is not a flood storage site. It means that when anyone tells you that this property is supposed to act as a protection reservoir, even FEMA doesn't take that 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 in terms of a number being leveraged to block the lifting of the easement.
Aug. 9, 2010: The property owners also 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 in Part One. If you recall, that letter reaffirmed that the property is not a flood storage site. It means that when anyone tells you that this property is supposed to act as a protection reservoir, even FEMA doesn't take that position.
Between 2010-2013: the City and Caltrans put in the permanent concrete drainage that was court ordered.
2013.
April 26, 2013: County Public Works finally 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 told me, that he was told that Supervisor Linda Parks instructed staff to use a 500-year storm event model … and to his knowledge, no other property or jurisdiction in the entire County is held to a 500-year storm event. FEMA, as you recall, uses a 100-year storm event model. (And, there's also a letter from the County which states they used a 500-year storm model, just to be clear.)
I actually filled out an inquiry form to Public Works in August 2023 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: County Public Works finally 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 told me, that he was told that Supervisor Linda Parks instructed staff to use a 500-year storm event model … and to his knowledge, no other property or jurisdiction in the entire County is held to a 500-year storm event. FEMA, as you recall, uses a 100-year storm event model. (And, there's also a letter from the County which states they used a 500-year storm model, just to be clear.)
I actually filled out an inquiry form to Public Works in August 2023 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.
Time to take it to court.
|
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-storm event took all usable rights from them. Feb. 19, 2015: The County filed a demurrer which was granted without prejudice. The court held (as it was explained to me) 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 (BoS) 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. We know this, because it literally was never put as an agenda item during any of her terms, and she would be the one to have it put on the agenda. |
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. Y'all realize it's not like they purchased it in 1978 and then never spent another dime right? At this point, they'd been paying for insurance and maintenance on the land for the 37 years, in addition to legal fees, and the millions they had spent on previous development applications and County-requested analyses. 37 YEARS.
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):
“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.”
(Her email attachment did show that she had asked if they could pursue a deal like that, with pretty much a response saying, "We'll look into it." But nothing further beyond that.)
**************** SIDE BAR TIME! *********************
I realize there's a slight time jump here since I'm referencing emails/exchanges that happen between me and Linda in 2021, but I think you know by now that's just how it's got to be.
When Linda Parks and I were exchanging emails and calls in 2021 related to this property, I was still very new in my learning journey about it. I didn't entirely understand the easement thing yet. The wetland messaging from activists was convincing and I was trying to get to the bottom of who was telling the truth on that since they were adamant that protected endangered species were being harmed. I will say, the anti-development messaging was effective. And it's all I had ever heard when I sat back and thought about it. I was not fully trusting of the property owner either, despite my interest in the vision for the property. Again, I can't stress enough that there were some very vocal people in my circles that were (and are) viciously against him. So I was really trying to sort it out. I wasn't, in 2021, even planning to write anything about this property.
Here's where I experienced a difference between Moradian and Parks related to this property:
Yes ... it was Moradian who first asked if I had a few minutes to spare to see his presentation and learn about his vision for it. But honestly, after that ... it was me that was reaching out pressing for more and more information. My curiosity drove the continued interaction and gathering of information. He wasn't calling me every five minutes begging me to hear his side or learn more. My guess is he probably didn't know if he could trust me either.
This wasn't the same for Linda. Once I started posting about it on my page, she was all over those posts. She then started emailing me asking to call me so she could talk to me about the property. I'm going to be honest. I brushed off the first few attempts. I had soured a bit on Linda by 2021. I learned some things from my dad by then about his experience with her after she won her city council campaign and it just didn't sit well with me. I also learned about the way she was treating some other constituents about other concerns, and that didn't sit well with me either.
So frankly ... I wasn't really sure who I should be believing in this he-said, she-said property owner versus politician battle.
And, during this time, I really didn't have all of these documents and emails, etc., so I couldn't let them do a lot of the telling of the story either. But after dodging a few call requests, Linda came in from a different angle. She then brought up the nonprofit I'm on the board of and our diaper bank. She was, all of a sudden, impressed by the work we were doing and wanted to feature us during a Board of Supervisors Moment of Inspiration at one of the upcoming board meetings. Because how could I could I dodge another call then?
So I spoke with Linda on the phone. And when we spoke, she talked about the flooding problem in the area, throwing out a ton of terminology and terms she rightfully guessed I would have absolutely no idea how to process. I'm clearly not an engineer or hydrologist. Back then, I had neither the tools nor the understanding to even ask about "natural water holding capacity." 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 is presented and would vindicate your position.”
She did not have a response to that. She genuinely couldn't answer as to why she wasn't confident that analyses and EIRs wouldn't back her position. She just kept saying that it would never be safe to develop. How convenient that Linda just happened to find herself in control of an easement over property that the conservancy agency she serves on wanted to acquire and turn into a wetland park.
No one has been able to answer that question when I ask it, either. It's because they aren't actually confident in their position AND they know the City of Thousand Oaks, who would be the floodplain manager for the property were it not for the easement, would not hold the property owner to an outlandish 500-year storm model. In my opinion, Linda knew exactly what she was doing and understood exactly the power she had. She knew if she lifted the easement (as should have been done per the original intent for its placing), development would happen and it would destroy any chance the conservancy had for acquiring it. So she used her elected position to keep the easement in place. I'm sure she assumed that she'd wear the property owner down over time and be able to get the property at a bargain (obviously you can recall her first attempt in 2009/2010 to get those wheels turning.) Linda Parks is literally out and about right now filming videos talking about how we must preserve open space at all costs. And folks, we all know this is NOT open space ... it is private property. BUT, that's not how Linda viewed this property. She viewed it "for the taking." And she used her elected position to this end.
And it wasn't just a difference in the way each of these individuals approached me about this property ... but in how they provided the information. Obviously, I am writing this whole piece because I've been given access to the mountains of information and data on it from the property owner. Whenever I asked Moradian a question, I'd be given his explanation with a whole dose of context and information. When Linda chose to share information with me, she cherrypicked the information, cropping out any context that would help me understand any one piece of information she provided. When she brought up that she tried to help the property owner pursue a deal to donate 2/3rds of the acreage to SMMC so he could develop, she neglected to 1) note that this was directly following court, and 2) that she was the one with the power to lift the easement. From that paragraph alone, had I known nothing else — and at that time, I didn't know this much — I would have been like, wow! Linda tried her best!
I'm bringing this up because some readers, after my introduction was released, asked me to make sure I was telling "both sides" of this story and I don't want to be dismissive of those responses.
Here's my position on it: Linda's "side" was never blocked from being told. She spent 20 years in a very public position of power ... and her actions have been on full display. Her side of the story has always been out there for consumption. It's dominated public perception related to this property. She does not need me to tell her side. That's why the Conejo MAC was formed. That's why Conejo Valley Advocates for Sensible Planning exists. She has had the power and the advocacy groups to get her story out, and she's been doing just fine, trust me. She doesn't need lil ol' me to help her communicate to the public. It's honestly because that side is so loud around these parts, and the fact that I never see anyone else providing any other context to this, that further compelled me to bring some "balance" to a very one-sided depiction of this controversial topic. And I'm not telling you that you have to pick a "side." I just want to be clear, respectfully, that this is the story I've chosen to tell.
I'll end on something that still cracks me up to this day. Last year (in 2022) I sent out an email to my blog subscribers updating them on the diaper bank and its impact in our community, etc.
I had one blog subscriber unsubscribe immediately upon opening that blog. Linda Parks. I guess she was no longer impressed.
/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.”
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. Y'all realize it's not like they purchased it in 1978 and then never spent another dime right? At this point, they'd been paying for insurance and maintenance on the land for the 37 years, in addition to legal fees, and the millions they had spent on previous development applications and County-requested analyses. 37 YEARS.
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):
“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.”
(Her email attachment did show that she had asked if they could pursue a deal like that, with pretty much a response saying, "We'll look into it." But nothing further beyond that.)
**************** SIDE BAR TIME! *********************
I realize there's a slight time jump here since I'm referencing emails/exchanges that happen between me and Linda in 2021, but I think you know by now that's just how it's got to be.
When Linda Parks and I were exchanging emails and calls in 2021 related to this property, I was still very new in my learning journey about it. I didn't entirely understand the easement thing yet. The wetland messaging from activists was convincing and I was trying to get to the bottom of who was telling the truth on that since they were adamant that protected endangered species were being harmed. I will say, the anti-development messaging was effective. And it's all I had ever heard when I sat back and thought about it. I was not fully trusting of the property owner either, despite my interest in the vision for the property. Again, I can't stress enough that there were some very vocal people in my circles that were (and are) viciously against him. So I was really trying to sort it out. I wasn't, in 2021, even planning to write anything about this property.
Here's where I experienced a difference between Moradian and Parks related to this property:
Yes ... it was Moradian who first asked if I had a few minutes to spare to see his presentation and learn about his vision for it. But honestly, after that ... it was me that was reaching out pressing for more and more information. My curiosity drove the continued interaction and gathering of information. He wasn't calling me every five minutes begging me to hear his side or learn more. My guess is he probably didn't know if he could trust me either.
This wasn't the same for Linda. Once I started posting about it on my page, she was all over those posts. She then started emailing me asking to call me so she could talk to me about the property. I'm going to be honest. I brushed off the first few attempts. I had soured a bit on Linda by 2021. I learned some things from my dad by then about his experience with her after she won her city council campaign and it just didn't sit well with me. I also learned about the way she was treating some other constituents about other concerns, and that didn't sit well with me either.
So frankly ... I wasn't really sure who I should be believing in this he-said, she-said property owner versus politician battle.
And, during this time, I really didn't have all of these documents and emails, etc., so I couldn't let them do a lot of the telling of the story either. But after dodging a few call requests, Linda came in from a different angle. She then brought up the nonprofit I'm on the board of and our diaper bank. She was, all of a sudden, impressed by the work we were doing and wanted to feature us during a Board of Supervisors Moment of Inspiration at one of the upcoming board meetings. Because how could I could I dodge another call then?
So I spoke with Linda on the phone. And when we spoke, she talked about the flooding problem in the area, throwing out a ton of terminology and terms she rightfully guessed I would have absolutely no idea how to process. I'm clearly not an engineer or hydrologist. Back then, I had neither the tools nor the understanding to even ask about "natural water holding capacity." 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 is presented and would vindicate your position.”
She did not have a response to that. She genuinely couldn't answer as to why she wasn't confident that analyses and EIRs wouldn't back her position. She just kept saying that it would never be safe to develop. How convenient that Linda just happened to find herself in control of an easement over property that the conservancy agency she serves on wanted to acquire and turn into a wetland park.
No one has been able to answer that question when I ask it, either. It's because they aren't actually confident in their position AND they know the City of Thousand Oaks, who would be the floodplain manager for the property were it not for the easement, would not hold the property owner to an outlandish 500-year storm model. In my opinion, Linda knew exactly what she was doing and understood exactly the power she had. She knew if she lifted the easement (as should have been done per the original intent for its placing), development would happen and it would destroy any chance the conservancy had for acquiring it. So she used her elected position to keep the easement in place. I'm sure she assumed that she'd wear the property owner down over time and be able to get the property at a bargain (obviously you can recall her first attempt in 2009/2010 to get those wheels turning.) Linda Parks is literally out and about right now filming videos talking about how we must preserve open space at all costs. And folks, we all know this is NOT open space ... it is private property. BUT, that's not how Linda viewed this property. She viewed it "for the taking." And she used her elected position to this end.
And it wasn't just a difference in the way each of these individuals approached me about this property ... but in how they provided the information. Obviously, I am writing this whole piece because I've been given access to the mountains of information and data on it from the property owner. Whenever I asked Moradian a question, I'd be given his explanation with a whole dose of context and information. When Linda chose to share information with me, she cherrypicked the information, cropping out any context that would help me understand any one piece of information she provided. When she brought up that she tried to help the property owner pursue a deal to donate 2/3rds of the acreage to SMMC so he could develop, she neglected to 1) note that this was directly following court, and 2) that she was the one with the power to lift the easement. From that paragraph alone, had I known nothing else — and at that time, I didn't know this much — I would have been like, wow! Linda tried her best!
I'm bringing this up because some readers, after my introduction was released, asked me to make sure I was telling "both sides" of this story and I don't want to be dismissive of those responses.
Here's my position on it: Linda's "side" was never blocked from being told. She spent 20 years in a very public position of power ... and her actions have been on full display. Her side of the story has always been out there for consumption. It's dominated public perception related to this property. She does not need me to tell her side. That's why the Conejo MAC was formed. That's why Conejo Valley Advocates for Sensible Planning exists. She has had the power and the advocacy groups to get her story out, and she's been doing just fine, trust me. She doesn't need lil ol' me to help her communicate to the public. It's honestly because that side is so loud around these parts, and the fact that I never see anyone else providing any other context to this, that further compelled me to bring some "balance" to a very one-sided depiction of this controversial topic. And I'm not telling you that you have to pick a "side." I just want to be clear, respectfully, that this is the story I've chosen to tell.
I'll end on something that still cracks me up to this day. Last year (in 2022) I sent out an email to my blog subscribers updating them on the diaper bank and its impact in our community, etc.
I had one blog subscriber unsubscribe immediately upon opening that blog. Linda Parks. I guess she was no longer impressed.
/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 court, the City of Thousand Oaks embarked upon the development of a 10-year economic strategic plan to help the City plan for 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 and located off a major transportation corridor (the 101 freeway), and it's 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. The 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 kicked off and RHNA (RHNA quantifies the need for housing within each jurisdiction during specified planning periods) numbers were assessed. The City and its consultants recognized 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 was 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 kicked off and RHNA (RHNA quantifies the need for housing within each jurisdiction during specified planning periods) numbers were assessed. The City and its consultants recognized 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 was 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.
(Ok, this is the part where, when you're hiking and people coming down from the peak are like: "you're almost there." Sometimes they're lying and sometimes you really are, almost there. I'm not sure which one it is yet, but I wanted to offer some encouraging words because you've been reading for a long time.) Quick recap: Property NOT a wetland. Easement should have been lifted in 2003 when the 101 Interchange Project was completed. Linda Parks got elected and tried to get the property for a bargain price for the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy she was on the board for (currently is board chair of) ... by playing fast and loose with floodplain development requirements. OK. You got it! |
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 this Facebook post:
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?
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?
If you'll recall:
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 satisfy her new flood requirements that were 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 devalued the property to pennies on the dollar.
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 ahead of this city council meeting. It was reported to the property owner by those who attended meetings that Linda Parks was hosting prior to the meeting, 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 (I think she was also banking that her "pick" for who would succeed her in that role would be victorious). Gee, wonder why all the NIMBYs came out in force and wrote in letters? It's why they still do today. It's why people are writing letters to the Acorn and on Nextdoor right now telling you to show up with your pitchfork and demand the council not approve the land zoning change during the general plan vote.
This post was intentionally timed. It also presented the property owner as selfish. "An unwilling seller." How dare this unwilling seller/property owner not care about the environment and not be willing to sell his property so it could be acquired by the conservancy, was the intended effect. And honesty, it's a bit how I read it in my early ignorance. Remember, back then, I still didn't know all the details, and still wasn't sure who to trust. I'd heard it being referred to as a wetland. I'd heard people saying there was an easement and it was in a floodplain. I had heard that Moradian should have known better before purchasing the land, etc. And now you have a conservancy agency being "generous enough" to make an offer to help out this property owner who has "undevelopable land?" I remember immediately reaching out to the property owner and asking if there was an offer on the property. There wasn't. This is around the time that Linda Parks reached out to me (and the email exchange and phone call shared earlier in this writeup took place.)
She wanted to rile people up. She wanted to continue watering that "evil, selfish property owner" narrative. Look, Linda was a politician through and through. She did it quite well. No doubt she could hold that masterclass.
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 satisfy her new flood requirements that were 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 devalued the property to pennies on the dollar.
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 ahead of this city council meeting. It was reported to the property owner by those who attended meetings that Linda Parks was hosting prior to the meeting, 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 (I think she was also banking that her "pick" for who would succeed her in that role would be victorious). Gee, wonder why all the NIMBYs came out in force and wrote in letters? It's why they still do today. It's why people are writing letters to the Acorn and on Nextdoor right now telling you to show up with your pitchfork and demand the council not approve the land zoning change during the general plan vote.
This post was intentionally timed. It also presented the property owner as selfish. "An unwilling seller." How dare this unwilling seller/property owner not care about the environment and not be willing to sell his property so it could be acquired by the conservancy, was the intended effect. And honesty, it's a bit how I read it in my early ignorance. Remember, back then, I still didn't know all the details, and still wasn't sure who to trust. I'd heard it being referred to as a wetland. I'd heard people saying there was an easement and it was in a floodplain. I had heard that Moradian should have known better before purchasing the land, etc. And now you have a conservancy agency being "generous enough" to make an offer to help out this property owner who has "undevelopable land?" I remember immediately reaching out to the property owner and asking if there was an offer on the property. There wasn't. This is around the time that Linda Parks reached out to me (and the email exchange and phone call shared earlier in this writeup took place.)
She wanted to rile people up. She wanted to continue watering that "evil, selfish property owner" narrative. Look, Linda was a politician through and through. She did it quite well. No doubt she could hold that masterclass.
IT DOESN'T STOP THERE.
Guess who decided to write 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. This letter was so wildly reckless and so riddled with inaccuracies ... it truly blows my mind that a conservancy agency inserted themselves in a City vote and LIED about the property because it had it on its acquisition list and was in cahoots with the County Supervisor on it.
WE ARE COMING FULL CIRCLE.
Are you still here with me? Give yourself a standing ovation. No seriously. Stretch your legs! Cheers to you! Like pour yourself some champagne. We are in the homestretch.
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? ( WE HAVE ARRIVED!!!!)
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. (aside: Sounds to me like this dude is basically implying that he may be able to influence a new a round of approvals from these agencies.)
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?”
Guess who decided to write 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. This letter was so wildly reckless and so riddled with inaccuracies ... it truly blows my mind that a conservancy agency inserted themselves in a City vote and LIED about the property because it had it on its acquisition list and was in cahoots with the County Supervisor on it.
WE ARE COMING FULL CIRCLE.
Are you still here with me? Give yourself a standing ovation. No seriously. Stretch your legs! Cheers to you! Like pour yourself some champagne. We are in the homestretch.
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? ( WE HAVE ARRIVED!!!!)
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. (aside: Sounds to me like this dude is basically implying that he may be able to influence a new a round of approvals from these agencies.)
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 "greedy evil 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 or quadruple the amount (which they're now entitled to as a result of SB9) ... 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 over what happened on that property.
NOW, while this is all going on in 2021, then Thousand Oaks City Council Member Claudia Bill-de la Peña, (who would announce mere months later her campaign intentions to succeed Linda Parks as the new Area 2 Supervisor), was getting a slew of emails from residents against the Borchard Property rezoning vote, 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. She needed to get in line.
So what happened 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. No surprised about Ed Jones, who spent most of his recent stint as a council member making disparaging remarks about renters and pretending he was going to protect the city from nonexistent skyscrapers. You all can read between the lines, surely, as to why Ed Jones, wouldn't support a vote that would lead to rental affordable housing, right? 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 that night was treated in this way or was requested to be singled out and revisited for an isolated vote. I will never forgive Bill-de la Peña for making Kevin McNamee look like a sane voice during that city council meeting. LIKE WHY.
The Borchard Property and its owner became a key talking point of Bill-de la Peña’s campaign. I know. I was at many campaign events with her in 2022 and it's all that was talked about. Shawn Moradian is all she talked about. And look, I publicly supported her campaign and I voted for her. She supported mine. I align with much of Bill-de la Peña' social positions, and we have had pleasant interactions and good conversations. I’ve even enjoyed coffee and croissants 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. And honestly, I've already said all of this to Claudia. She knows exactly how I feel about it all.
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 over what happened on that property.
NOW, while this is all going on in 2021, then Thousand Oaks City Council Member Claudia Bill-de la Peña, (who would announce mere months later her campaign intentions to succeed Linda Parks as the new Area 2 Supervisor), was getting a slew of emails from residents against the Borchard Property rezoning vote, 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. She needed to get in line.
So what happened 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. No surprised about Ed Jones, who spent most of his recent stint as a council member making disparaging remarks about renters and pretending he was going to protect the city from nonexistent skyscrapers. You all can read between the lines, surely, as to why Ed Jones, wouldn't support a vote that would lead to rental affordable housing, right? 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 that night was treated in this way or was requested to be singled out and revisited for an isolated vote. I will never forgive Bill-de la Peña for making Kevin McNamee look like a sane voice during that city council meeting. LIKE WHY.
The Borchard Property and its owner became a key talking point of Bill-de la Peña’s campaign. I know. I was at many campaign events with her in 2022 and it's all that was talked about. Shawn Moradian is all she talked about. And look, I publicly supported her campaign and I voted for her. She supported mine. I align with much of Bill-de la Peña' social positions, and we have had pleasant interactions and good conversations. I’ve even enjoyed coffee and croissants 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. And honestly, I've already said all of this to Claudia. She knows exactly how I feel about it all.
|
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." The Acorn also put out a story that elicited a response from the property owner. (You can download the PDF here, screenshots of that response are below. |
|
|
OK, let me preface this next part with ... I'm about to soapbox. You can skip to the next section should you feel the need.
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? They were hoping against hope. 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. I've also observed that people just generally love to write "evil property owners" and "evil property developers." It must get you into a secret club or something.
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.) 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 — or being asked to take accountability anyway.
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 as a park. 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. Y'all mad he helped get Jeff Gorell elected but like ... would any of you have asked me to help Mike Dunn get elected? Of course you wouldn't have. When an elected representative abuses their position of power to target a constituent's rights, bet they AIN'T GONNA SUPPORT THEIR NEXT POLITICAL ENDEAVOR.
And so … we must make him suffer!
The Moradians bought this property in 1978 for $1.8 million. Adjusted for today’s inflation numbers and how real estate investments appreciate, that investment today could be valued anywhere between $20-70 million (think about the house cost back in 1978 as context) . 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 like really cathartic. And also like I just jumped off a cliff. 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? They were hoping against hope. 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. I've also observed that people just generally love to write "evil property owners" and "evil property developers." It must get you into a secret club or something.
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.) 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 — or being asked to take accountability anyway.
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 as a park. 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. Y'all mad he helped get Jeff Gorell elected but like ... would any of you have asked me to help Mike Dunn get elected? Of course you wouldn't have. When an elected representative abuses their position of power to target a constituent's rights, bet they AIN'T GONNA SUPPORT THEIR NEXT POLITICAL ENDEAVOR.
And so … we must make him suffer!
The Moradians bought this property in 1978 for $1.8 million. Adjusted for today’s inflation numbers and how real estate investments appreciate, that investment today could be valued anywhere between $20-70 million (think about the house cost back in 1978 as context) . 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 like really cathartic. And also like I just jumped off a cliff. 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 anti-development folks 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 anti-development folks 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. OMG PRESENT DAY HAS ARRIVED.
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 in connection to the Borchard Property owner, so now she's forced my hand. And, I guess now I need discuss Karen Wilburn and her activism within the context of this writeup. Thanks Karen!
If you live in Newbury Park (or really anywhere, apparently) … Karen, Scott Horn and their group will come knocking on your door, telling you “scary hi-rises are being built on the protected wetland” (yes, we, and other neighbors, experienced this) and encouraging 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. So, um, it wouldn't.
Karen — one of Bill-de la Peña's loudest campaign supporters — and her group of activists, collected signatures from people all over the county and then presented the petition results at a Thousand Oaks 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. A COUNTY-WIDE event is where signatures were being collected. (Scott Horn had attended this meeting and told them there were endangered species on protected wetlands, basically.) When they learned the truth, they submitted this letter to the record. After that meeting, Karen verbally accosted me and another community member in the outside hallway as we left to head to our cars, because we both spoke in favor of the land zoning change. Folks had to intervene.
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. And she will chase you out into a parking lot after a meeting if she doesn't like your opinion. Her recent letter was strategically placed to complement Bill-de la Peña's latest effort to take down Moradian and the Borchard Property, through the exploitation of a vulnerable business. The messaging points are the same (and were easily predicted). 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 and I need people to understand this.
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 in connection to the Borchard Property owner, so now she's forced my hand. And, I guess now I need discuss Karen Wilburn and her activism within the context of this writeup. Thanks Karen!
If you live in Newbury Park (or really anywhere, apparently) … Karen, Scott Horn and their group will come knocking on your door, telling you “scary hi-rises are being built on the protected wetland” (yes, we, and other neighbors, experienced this) and encouraging 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. So, um, it wouldn't.
Karen — one of Bill-de la Peña's loudest campaign supporters — and her group of activists, collected signatures from people all over the county and then presented the petition results at a Thousand Oaks 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. A COUNTY-WIDE event is where signatures were being collected. (Scott Horn had attended this meeting and told them there were endangered species on protected wetlands, basically.) When they learned the truth, they submitted this letter to the record. After that meeting, Karen verbally accosted me and another community member in the outside hallway as we left to head to our cars, because we both spoke in favor of the land zoning change. Folks had to intervene.
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. And she will chase you out into a parking lot after a meeting if she doesn't like your opinion. Her recent letter was strategically placed to complement Bill-de la Peña's latest effort to take down Moradian and the Borchard Property, through the exploitation of a vulnerable business. The messaging points are the same (and were easily predicted). 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 and I need people to understand this.
|
|
|
|
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. After I shared a screenshot of Chocolatine's email confirming they were not renewing their lease, on Claudia's actual Facebook post, she hid my comment and edited her post on Aug. 8. You can see Claudia's Aug. 8 edit, implying that I am the "property owner's PR" in attempt to diminish my comment ... giving it the appearance/slant of "paid messaging" versus what it actually was: a comment from a community member who took the time to get the facts about the situation. And I'm not even the Emmy award-winning journalist!
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 and attempted to malign another with intent to "get" Shawn Moradian, her political enemy. Based on the documents and exchanges I reviewed from the property owner/Chocolatine landlord , who also happens to be the Borchard Property owner, the narrative that was playing out in the social square and political arena was not accurate. But boy was it convenient to have something to pour gasoline on.
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. Folks were quick to pile on 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. Don't get me wrong. Linda and crew were absolutely politically MASTERFUL here.
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 in December. 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, dear readers. “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.
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 and attempted to malign another with intent to "get" Shawn Moradian, her political enemy. Based on the documents and exchanges I reviewed from the property owner/Chocolatine landlord , who also happens to be the Borchard Property owner, the narrative that was playing out in the social square and political arena was not accurate. But boy was it convenient to have something to pour gasoline on.
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. Folks were quick to pile on 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. Don't get me wrong. Linda and crew were absolutely politically MASTERFUL here.
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 in December. 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, dear readers. “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.
|
|
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 (AM interjecting here ... these homes were already in a designated flood zone before the 2010 updates, just as an FYI). 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 block development. If the Borchard Property is no longer on a flood plain, that's one less piece of armor to fight against development. And he cares more about the dirt lot than whether or not 300 families could be lifted out of a floodplain as the result of these studies.
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 potential deficiency during a 1% annual event (100-year storm event.)
The first study that was done because the City and the County wanted to pursue federal funding to address the presumed channel deficiency and thus therefore reduce the flooding risk. Basically they wanted government funding to help fix the channel, so they could then file a LOMR to eliminate the need for these residents to continue paying for flood insurance. As it turns out, THIS WHOLE TIME, the channel was NOT the problem. However, through this first study, they did identify that the storm drainage from houses to the channel are actually too narrow and would not be sufficient in the event of a 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. UGH. AS IF.
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 (AM interjecting here ... these homes were already in a designated flood zone before the 2010 updates, just as an FYI). 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 block development. If the Borchard Property is no longer on a flood plain, that's one less piece of armor to fight against development. And he cares more about the dirt lot than whether or not 300 families could be lifted out of a floodplain as the result of these studies.
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 potential deficiency during a 1% annual event (100-year storm event.)
The first study that was done because the City and the County wanted to pursue federal funding to address the presumed channel deficiency and thus therefore reduce the flooding risk. Basically they wanted government funding to help fix the channel, so they could then file a LOMR to eliminate the need for these residents to continue paying for flood insurance. As it turns out, THIS WHOLE TIME, the channel was NOT the problem. However, through this first study, they did identify that the storm drainage from houses to the channel are actually too narrow and would not be sufficient in the event of a 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. UGH. AS IF.
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.
TOO LONG, DIDN'T READ
So, to recap. (How is that even possible, right?)
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 2003.
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.
14. 2023 study shows this whole area doesn't actually have a flood issue and basically we just need to fix some drainage pipes.
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 2003.
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.
14. 2023 study shows this whole area doesn't actually have a flood issue and basically we just need to fix some drainage pipes.
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. IT WILL PROVIDE HOUSING OF ALL TYPES, specifically workforce housing.
And, at the end of the day, this is private property. Just because an elected official arguably abused her position of power to block development and you’re anti-development so it suited you, it doesn’t actually make it OK.
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 and growth 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 of power to block development and you’re anti-development so it suited you, it doesn’t actually make it OK.
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 and growth 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.