Is this where the bodies are buried?
Part One: The Background
Just joining us? Read the Introduction here.
OK, so before you dive in, I want to set expectations for Part One and what it will address. It's, um, dense ... and I know that's a trigger word for people in Thousand Oaks. It's primarily the reason I split this write-up into two parts ... not trying to mess with anyone's blood flow and circulation. It's not an "easy read" but it's necessary to get to Part Two ... which, let's just be honest with ourselves, is the goal.
As we cover the history of this property, Part One is going to address and refute the following allegations about the Borchard Property (and to an extent property owner) that I have seen on social media and that have been spread by anti-development activist groups ...
OK, so before you dive in, I want to set expectations for Part One and what it will address. It's, um, dense ... and I know that's a trigger word for people in Thousand Oaks. It's primarily the reason I split this write-up into two parts ... not trying to mess with anyone's blood flow and circulation. It's not an "easy read" but it's necessary to get to Part Two ... which, let's just be honest with ourselves, is the goal.
As we cover the history of this property, Part One is going to address and refute the following allegations about the Borchard Property (and to an extent property owner) that I have seen on social media and that have been spread by anti-development activist groups ...
|
ALLEGATION 1. It's a protected wetland and protected open space with protected, endangered species that will be impacted. (Pssst ... no it's not.)
ALLEGATION 2. It's meant to act as a flood storage site and if you develop on it, all of the surrounding neighborhoods will be at risk if there's a big storm. (Pssst ... no it's not.) ALLEGATION 3. The property owner was the one who made a bad business deal by purchasing the land and now he's simply trying to change its zoning, etc., so he can get his way. (Pssst ... no he didn't.) ALLEGATION 4. If you let the property owner develop on the land, there will be skyscrapers and the city never planned for the traffic that would be generated by a development on the property. (Pssst ... no there won't be and traffic was planned for.) |
ALLEGATION 5. You can't/shouldn't develop on floodplains. (Pssst ... it happens all the time.)
ALLEGATION 6. The property owner never submitted a development application so why should he be able to get a re-zoning when he never even tried to develop before anyway? (Pssst ... yes he did.)
And before we dig in, look, I totally get it if you live there and just don't want to live adjacent to construction or a developed property. I don't think anyone really enjoys living next to ongoing construction. And I know that some folks probably told you that there was a possibility that the property would never be developed and so you hoped upon hope, because they convinced you that you could help get it blocked. I get it. I ran into a childhood neighbor at the soccer fields last weekend and they are moving to a different part of the city because they didn't want to stay and live adjacent to the construction and potential development that they know is around the corner. But here's what she and her husband both shared ... they bought their house knowing it was a possibility. They think the development would be good for the city. They're not mad about it, they just don't want to deal with any increased traffic or development, etc. This is a rational response. I feel for them, but like they said, they knew when they bought their house there, the property could potentially get developed and that was a risk they were taking. This, I understand. And they understood it too. The lying and smear tactics against a property owner by a Karen in hopes of getting her way? That's what I don't get. That's what I can't get behind.
In addition to interviewing the property owner a bajillion times over and reviewing the documents, please know that I also made calls to former city engineers, folks with land planning experience, and spoke with several former and current elected officials. I will not be quoting these folks. Simply, I want to be clear that many calls related to this write-up took place in order for it to come together.
You've already glazed over?
Here's a picture of Taylor Swift and Beyonce.
Wait, I don't want to get sued for using a photo without a license.
Please picture them together.
ALLEGATION 6. The property owner never submitted a development application so why should he be able to get a re-zoning when he never even tried to develop before anyway? (Pssst ... yes he did.)
And before we dig in, look, I totally get it if you live there and just don't want to live adjacent to construction or a developed property. I don't think anyone really enjoys living next to ongoing construction. And I know that some folks probably told you that there was a possibility that the property would never be developed and so you hoped upon hope, because they convinced you that you could help get it blocked. I get it. I ran into a childhood neighbor at the soccer fields last weekend and they are moving to a different part of the city because they didn't want to stay and live adjacent to the construction and potential development that they know is around the corner. But here's what she and her husband both shared ... they bought their house knowing it was a possibility. They think the development would be good for the city. They're not mad about it, they just don't want to deal with any increased traffic or development, etc. This is a rational response. I feel for them, but like they said, they knew when they bought their house there, the property could potentially get developed and that was a risk they were taking. This, I understand. And they understood it too. The lying and smear tactics against a property owner by a Karen in hopes of getting her way? That's what I don't get. That's what I can't get behind.
In addition to interviewing the property owner a bajillion times over and reviewing the documents, please know that I also made calls to former city engineers, folks with land planning experience, and spoke with several former and current elected officials. I will not be quoting these folks. Simply, I want to be clear that many calls related to this write-up took place in order for it to come together.
You've already glazed over?
Here's a picture of Taylor Swift and Beyonce.
Wait, I don't want to get sued for using a photo without a license.
Please picture them together.
OK, now really, the beginning. The 1970s.
Yes, the 70s. Watergate. Bell Bottoms. And the Thousand Oaks General Plan.
Prior to ownership by the current property owners (the Moradians), the Borchard Property was owned by the Seventh Day Adventist Church (Church) and was used primarily for agricultural use and outdoor lessons. Was I alive? No. I know this because I've been provided the documentation.
With the adoption of the 1970 General Plan for the City of Thousand Oaks, the Borchard Property, once unincorporated land, became incorporated by the City and was zoned for R-1 residential development, allowing for a by-right of approximately 165 single-family homes. I say approximately because this number fluctuates in some written communications but if you math out the approved 4.5 unit per acre (4.5 units x 37 acres) as indicated in the EIR, that's what you get. This much is clear: it was zoned for residential development.
At the time, the Borchard Property was part of Tract 2790, which consisted of:
Prior to ownership by the current property owners (the Moradians), the Borchard Property was owned by the Seventh Day Adventist Church (Church) and was used primarily for agricultural use and outdoor lessons. Was I alive? No. I know this because I've been provided the documentation.
With the adoption of the 1970 General Plan for the City of Thousand Oaks, the Borchard Property, once unincorporated land, became incorporated by the City and was zoned for R-1 residential development, allowing for a by-right of approximately 165 single-family homes. I say approximately because this number fluctuates in some written communications but if you math out the approved 4.5 unit per acre (4.5 units x 37 acres) as indicated in the EIR, that's what you get. This much is clear: it was zoned for residential development.
At the time, the Borchard Property was part of Tract 2790, which consisted of:
- The current residential neighborhood known as Fox Meadows
- The site currently known as the Borchard Property
1971 Subdivision Map
1973.
FEMA updates its “100-year storm event” standards (referred to as the 1% annual chance of flood in the event of a 100-year-storm event) for floodplain areas, requiring local jurisdictions to map and plan for flood protection within FEMA’s boundaries. (Reference the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 and the Flood Protection Disaster Act of 1973 for additional context. It's also referenced in the appendix of the 1977 Environmental Impact Report (EIR) we'll discuss shortly.)
FEMA identified Tract 2790 (yes, the one we’re talking about) and the surrounding area as a floodplain within its flood map boundaries. “Flood maps, known officially as Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), show areas of high- and moderate- to low-flood risk. They are shown as a series of zones. Communities use the maps to set minimum building requirements for coastal areas and floodplains; lenders use them to determine flood insurance requirements.” (source).
I know what you're all asking: HOW IS A FLOODPLAIN DETERMINED?
Ok, maybe not, but I asked and this is how it was explained to me. A floodplain is a generally flat area of land next to a river or stream or channel. FEMA engages in a process that includes aerial mapping and measurement of the elevations at ground level. If there are areas where water could likely pool based on those elevations, these areas are mapped as floodplains. Once an area is mapped by FEMA, the onus is then on the city and/or county and/or property owner/developer to pay for any studies that would actually affirm or refute the validity of the floodplain mapping if they wish to do so (and remember, the government makes money off of floodplains because they collect insurance on them). If a study/analysis concludes that the area may not be a floodplain, a request for a letter of map revision (LOMR) can be submitted. This is not uncommon. In the case of the Borchard Property and surrounding area, it's presumed that high groundwater table and proximity to the South Branch Arroyo Conejo Channel were factors for the floodplain designation.
OK. What does that all actually mean?
1) If your property is mapped as part of a floodplain, you have to pay flood insurance to the government. And if you want to develop on a property that's mapped as part of a floodplain, there are certain additional criterion you have to meet.
2) Being mapped as a floodplain doesn't automatically block development on a property; rather it means that any development on the property must demonstrate that it would not negatively impact surrounding areas in the event of the 1% annual event (a 100-year storm). It’s pretty much a “do no harm/do not make things worse” policy at its core. Development happens on floodplains ALL of the time. People commenting that development would be dangerous because the property is on a designated floodplain, as though that, in and of itself, is a reason not to develop, conveniently leave out the fact that so are the adjacent schools (eARTHS Magnet for example), the library, the adjacent neighborhoods (outside of Fox Meadows, since their development was elevated by taking dirt from the Borchard Property), etc. Heard of the Collection at Riverpark in Oxnard? On a floodplain. Mar Vista? Floodplain.
FEMA updates its “100-year storm event” standards (referred to as the 1% annual chance of flood in the event of a 100-year-storm event) for floodplain areas, requiring local jurisdictions to map and plan for flood protection within FEMA’s boundaries. (Reference the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 and the Flood Protection Disaster Act of 1973 for additional context. It's also referenced in the appendix of the 1977 Environmental Impact Report (EIR) we'll discuss shortly.)
FEMA identified Tract 2790 (yes, the one we’re talking about) and the surrounding area as a floodplain within its flood map boundaries. “Flood maps, known officially as Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), show areas of high- and moderate- to low-flood risk. They are shown as a series of zones. Communities use the maps to set minimum building requirements for coastal areas and floodplains; lenders use them to determine flood insurance requirements.” (source).
I know what you're all asking: HOW IS A FLOODPLAIN DETERMINED?
Ok, maybe not, but I asked and this is how it was explained to me. A floodplain is a generally flat area of land next to a river or stream or channel. FEMA engages in a process that includes aerial mapping and measurement of the elevations at ground level. If there are areas where water could likely pool based on those elevations, these areas are mapped as floodplains. Once an area is mapped by FEMA, the onus is then on the city and/or county and/or property owner/developer to pay for any studies that would actually affirm or refute the validity of the floodplain mapping if they wish to do so (and remember, the government makes money off of floodplains because they collect insurance on them). If a study/analysis concludes that the area may not be a floodplain, a request for a letter of map revision (LOMR) can be submitted. This is not uncommon. In the case of the Borchard Property and surrounding area, it's presumed that high groundwater table and proximity to the South Branch Arroyo Conejo Channel were factors for the floodplain designation.
OK. What does that all actually mean?
1) If your property is mapped as part of a floodplain, you have to pay flood insurance to the government. And if you want to develop on a property that's mapped as part of a floodplain, there are certain additional criterion you have to meet.
2) Being mapped as a floodplain doesn't automatically block development on a property; rather it means that any development on the property must demonstrate that it would not negatively impact surrounding areas in the event of the 1% annual event (a 100-year storm). It’s pretty much a “do no harm/do not make things worse” policy at its core. Development happens on floodplains ALL of the time. People commenting that development would be dangerous because the property is on a designated floodplain, as though that, in and of itself, is a reason not to develop, conveniently leave out the fact that so are the adjacent schools (eARTHS Magnet for example), the library, the adjacent neighborhoods (outside of Fox Meadows, since their development was elevated by taking dirt from the Borchard Property), etc. Heard of the Collection at Riverpark in Oxnard? On a floodplain. Mar Vista? Floodplain.
1977.
Griffin Development Company (Griffin) was looking to purchase the property from the Church and develop. As a result, it launched an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) #135 for Tract 2790.
Quick Aside: What's an EIR? "An EIR, which happens with any new proposed development, “must discuss the cumulative impacts of a project when the project's incremental effect is cumulatively considerable." (Learn more.) For example, as the City is currently going through the new General Plan process, a new EIR was conducted analyzing the various city sites whose land designations were adjusted at the May 2021 land use vote.
After DRAFT EIR #135 was released and in review, and because of the new FEMA regulations, The County of Ventura sent in a response letter to the City of Thousand Oaks. It determined that there was a deficiency in its flood control channel which runs parallel to the south side of the Borchard Property (known as the South Branch Arroyo Conejo), and requested the following approach to development (which was already being recommended as a 2-phase development) for the tract:
Griffin Development Company (Griffin) was looking to purchase the property from the Church and develop. As a result, it launched an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) #135 for Tract 2790.
Quick Aside: What's an EIR? "An EIR, which happens with any new proposed development, “must discuss the cumulative impacts of a project when the project's incremental effect is cumulatively considerable." (Learn more.) For example, as the City is currently going through the new General Plan process, a new EIR was conducted analyzing the various city sites whose land designations were adjusted at the May 2021 land use vote.
After DRAFT EIR #135 was released and in review, and because of the new FEMA regulations, The County of Ventura sent in a response letter to the City of Thousand Oaks. It determined that there was a deficiency in its flood control channel which runs parallel to the south side of the Borchard Property (known as the South Branch Arroyo Conejo), and requested the following approach to development (which was already being recommended as a 2-phase development) for the tract:
- That Griffin remove soil from Borchard Property (the Phase 2 development) to raise the base elevation for Fox Meadows (the Phase 1 development.) This would essentially lift Fox Meadows out of the floodplain area by elevating it.
- The placement of a temporary easement on the Borchard Property until the County could complete channel improvements to address the deficiency (this channel improvement project, officially known as the Borchard Road/Route 101 Interchange Improvements Federal Project No. STPL 5392(008) Project, will be referred to as the 101 Interchange Project upon future reference in this writeup).
See images below of the letter referenced.
|
|
The above document is important because it sets the context AND THE INTENT for the request for the easement, and regardless of all the anti-development messaging ... it's this easement that lies at the heart of the abuse of power I'll be discussing.
What's an easement? "a right to cross or otherwise use someone else's land for a specified purpose."
Specifically, this letter from VC Public Works states: “The Flood Control District would request that the “cut” area (Borchard Property) be encumbered by a flowage easement until such time as the flood control project (the 101 Interchange Project) is completed.”
What's an easement? "a right to cross or otherwise use someone else's land for a specified purpose."
Specifically, this letter from VC Public Works states: “The Flood Control District would request that the “cut” area (Borchard Property) be encumbered by a flowage easement until such time as the flood control project (the 101 Interchange Project) is completed.”
|
The final EIR proposed a 2-phase development approach to the tract in order to ensure development adhered to the new regulations and addressed the County's requests. (See screenshot of the Hydrology report from the EIR).
Also worth being clear that in the EIR for this entire Fox Meadows/Borchard Property tract, there was no indication of any “wetlands” on the property nor any protected or endangered species or vegetation. In fact, aerial maps from Fish and Wildlife dating back to the 1940s show no wetland indicators either. The fact is, the property was not, according to ANY agency, a “wetland,” when it was purchased. |
Above: the Nov. 15, 1977 Environmental Impact Report (EIR) #135 for Tract 2790 and some snippets. Click the hyperlinked text if you want to download the full thing.
The EIR also confirmed that an additional access point to the area of Tract 2790 could be achieved to address traffic concerns.
|
|
|
More specifically, it requested the acquisition of land off of Michael Drive as a third access point to alleviate traffic going exclusively through Alice Drive and Denise (as the result of planned Phase 2 development). Further, it found there would be a community benefit to connecting the existing neighborhoods of Casa Conejo and Fox Meadows directly to the Borchard/Michael commercial area that would reduce vehicle miles travelled (VMT) and allow for more pedestrian connectivity. With the construction of a new bridge from Michael Drive to the Borchard Property, it would have four new lanes for vehicle traffic and two new lanes for pedestrian and cyclists.
Based on City's street standards, this access point has the capacity to handle 25,000 vehicle trips per day. These vehicle trips would be directed away from Fox Meadows. The CURRENT EIR that was just done in 2023 by the City estimates that each lane has the capacity for 5,000 trips and that any proposed development would only account for a portion of that. You can reference pages 207; 223; 258; 365; and 371 from the DRAFT EIR for more info. Any development would also include street upgrades and improvements that would further help alleviate traffic concerns. The above is relevant, especially with folks stirring up outrage online about it in recent weeks. There are posts about this bridge (see screenshot), attempting to suggest that the bridge is only being recommended because the land-use designation has been changed. You can see as far back as the 1977 EIR, this was always part of the plan, even when the property was zoned for residential-only. |
1978. A Temporary Easement.
On July 13, 1978, the Church granted the County its request for a temporary easement on the Borchard Property based on the agreement, understanding, and representations of the intent of the County to pursue and complete the County’s 101 Interchange Project, which would meet the conditions necessary to remove the easement upon project certification.
So, HERE'S where things got wonky. The blanket flood easement language gives a lot of interpretative power to the County.
It states: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF SEVENTH DAY ADVENTISTS,
a California Corporation does hereby grant to Ventura County Flood Control District:
An easement and right of way for the flood control purpose of periodic inundation with flood and/or storm drainage waters and the right to prohibit the construction of any structures or channel improvements in, on, over, under and across the following described real property …
It is this language that would enable bad-faith actors to take advantage of it later on, as a result.
Reader. If you've journeyed with me this far ... you've reviewed the Public Works letter above that stated clear as day, the purpose of the easement. REFRESHER: "Specifically, this letter from VC Public Works states: “The Flood Control District would request that the “cut” area (Borchard Property) be encumbered by a flowage easement until such time as the flood control project (the 101 Interchange Project) is completed.”
" ... until such time as the flood control project (the 101 Interchange Project) is completed.”
" ... until such time as the flood control project (the 101 Interchange Project) is completed.”
It's also referenced in the 1977 EIR for Phase 1 Fox Meadows.
Yes, I have repeated that line. I cannot emphasize enough the importance of understanding the expressed intent of this easement. And, as you'll read on, you'll notice that there are multiple discussions between the property owner and the County, that, during the 80s and 90s, are all done in the spirit of this being viewed and understood by all parties as a conditional/temporary easement. The history and actions document the true intent. It should also be noted, that never — prior to the easement or with the easement in place — has any spillover occurred. Therefore, the concern that drove the original establishment of the easement has, to date, never been proven to be legitimate. And there's more on that to come. A lot more.
Now this next part is a crucial distinction I want to be clear. The Borchard Property is not an area of flood storage nor does FEMA recognize it as one. When folks tell you that this property is meant to act as a flood storage site to protect the adjacent areas, and assert it's the reason for the easement, this is not accurate. In the actual event of a 100-year-storm, this property would NOT be the solution or property to prevent any projected flood damage to surrounding areas. Per FEMA (see official letter they sent to the property owner below in 2010), any development on this site would simply need to adhere to the standard criterion for development on a floodplain.
So, HERE'S where things got wonky. The blanket flood easement language gives a lot of interpretative power to the County.
It states: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF SEVENTH DAY ADVENTISTS,
a California Corporation does hereby grant to Ventura County Flood Control District:
An easement and right of way for the flood control purpose of periodic inundation with flood and/or storm drainage waters and the right to prohibit the construction of any structures or channel improvements in, on, over, under and across the following described real property …
It is this language that would enable bad-faith actors to take advantage of it later on, as a result.
Reader. If you've journeyed with me this far ... you've reviewed the Public Works letter above that stated clear as day, the purpose of the easement. REFRESHER: "Specifically, this letter from VC Public Works states: “The Flood Control District would request that the “cut” area (Borchard Property) be encumbered by a flowage easement until such time as the flood control project (the 101 Interchange Project) is completed.”
" ... until such time as the flood control project (the 101 Interchange Project) is completed.”
" ... until such time as the flood control project (the 101 Interchange Project) is completed.”
It's also referenced in the 1977 EIR for Phase 1 Fox Meadows.
Yes, I have repeated that line. I cannot emphasize enough the importance of understanding the expressed intent of this easement. And, as you'll read on, you'll notice that there are multiple discussions between the property owner and the County, that, during the 80s and 90s, are all done in the spirit of this being viewed and understood by all parties as a conditional/temporary easement. The history and actions document the true intent. It should also be noted, that never — prior to the easement or with the easement in place — has any spillover occurred. Therefore, the concern that drove the original establishment of the easement has, to date, never been proven to be legitimate. And there's more on that to come. A lot more.
Now this next part is a crucial distinction I want to be clear. The Borchard Property is not an area of flood storage nor does FEMA recognize it as one. When folks tell you that this property is meant to act as a flood storage site to protect the adjacent areas, and assert it's the reason for the easement, this is not accurate. In the actual event of a 100-year-storm, this property would NOT be the solution or property to prevent any projected flood damage to surrounding areas. Per FEMA (see official letter they sent to the property owner below in 2010), any development on this site would simply need to adhere to the standard criterion for development on a floodplain.
|
|
Our review of LOMR Case No. 05-09-0439P determined that the South Branch Arroyo Conejo Debris Basin, Unit 2 located upstream of the Borchard Property is owned by WPD, and the application did not indicate that the Borchard Property is owned by WPD nor was it identified as an area of flood storage.
The Borchard Area is currently delineated, as it has been in the past, in Zone AE, a flood insurance rate zone that will be inundated and convey flood flow during the 1% annual chance (base) flood with a base flood elevation derived from detailed hydraulic analyses.
If, as indicated in your letter, development is planned for this area, FEMA floodplain management regulations
require that the property owner demonstrate through hydraulic analysis that the proposed development, when
combined with all other existing and anticipated development, will not cause base flood elevations to increase
by more than one foot at any point within the community. The City of Thousand Oaks has adopted this
regulatory requirement as part of their flood damage prevention ordinance. If the analysis indicates that the
proposed development will cause greater than a one foot increase, the property owner can apply to FEMA for
a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR).
The Borchard Area is currently delineated, as it has been in the past, in Zone AE, a flood insurance rate zone that will be inundated and convey flood flow during the 1% annual chance (base) flood with a base flood elevation derived from detailed hydraulic analyses.
If, as indicated in your letter, development is planned for this area, FEMA floodplain management regulations
require that the property owner demonstrate through hydraulic analysis that the proposed development, when
combined with all other existing and anticipated development, will not cause base flood elevations to increase
by more than one foot at any point within the community. The City of Thousand Oaks has adopted this
regulatory requirement as part of their flood damage prevention ordinance. If the analysis indicates that the
proposed development will cause greater than a one foot increase, the property owner can apply to FEMA for
a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR).
We're still actually discussing 1978. LOL. I'M SORRY. It's a lot.
In 1978, Griffin bought Phase 1 Fox Meadows (since that could be developed on right away), and the Moradians bought Phase 2 Borchard Property from the Church. That said, Griffin had always intended to be the developer for both phases (which is documented by them in the EIR) and the Moradians figured they could sell the land back to Griffin after the County's 101 Interchange Project was completed. Griffin was both a property owner/developer. The Moradians are only property owners.
Around this time, the County reserved $5 million for the construction of the 101 Interchange Project. As a result, the City of Thousand Oaks ordered Griffin and the Church to not only grade and improve Tract 2790 (Phase 1 Fox Meadows and Phase 2 Borchard Property), but also to outfit the Phase 2 Borchard Property with storm drains, sewers, water and power utilities, access road easements and connection, and the acquisition of a third access point off the commercial shopping center on Michael Drive. The Borchard Property has had all of this infrastructure in place and has since the adjacent Fox Meadows was developed. (Why would they do all of this, if the easement wasn't meant to be temporary? Why would they do all of this if the land was a protected wetland? Why would they do all of this if there were protected, endangered species? I need folks to really think about this, because NONE of those things were "issues" when this property was analyzed and then purchased. And given this was all part of the same tract back in the 70s, none of these were issues for developing out the Fox Meadows portion of the tract.)
So, let’s recap. The Borchard Property owner bought a piece of property (for $1.8 million in 1978) that, according to all previous documentation, was …
1) Zoned for R-1 residential development (4.5 unit/acre at that time)
2) Planned for Phase 2 development following Phase 1 Fox Meadows development, with infrastructure and grading to be completed by Griffin and put in place during Fox Meadows development
3) According to the 1977 EIR and all previous aerial maps, not a wetland, nor contained any protected vegetation or wildlife
4) Temporarily encumbered by an easement of which funding for a construction project by the County was already set aside to complete, and would thus remove the need for the easement
Y’all we’ve made it a decade. Just like four more to go. I told you this would be long.
In 1978, Griffin bought Phase 1 Fox Meadows (since that could be developed on right away), and the Moradians bought Phase 2 Borchard Property from the Church. That said, Griffin had always intended to be the developer for both phases (which is documented by them in the EIR) and the Moradians figured they could sell the land back to Griffin after the County's 101 Interchange Project was completed. Griffin was both a property owner/developer. The Moradians are only property owners.
Around this time, the County reserved $5 million for the construction of the 101 Interchange Project. As a result, the City of Thousand Oaks ordered Griffin and the Church to not only grade and improve Tract 2790 (Phase 1 Fox Meadows and Phase 2 Borchard Property), but also to outfit the Phase 2 Borchard Property with storm drains, sewers, water and power utilities, access road easements and connection, and the acquisition of a third access point off the commercial shopping center on Michael Drive. The Borchard Property has had all of this infrastructure in place and has since the adjacent Fox Meadows was developed. (Why would they do all of this, if the easement wasn't meant to be temporary? Why would they do all of this if the land was a protected wetland? Why would they do all of this if there were protected, endangered species? I need folks to really think about this, because NONE of those things were "issues" when this property was analyzed and then purchased. And given this was all part of the same tract back in the 70s, none of these were issues for developing out the Fox Meadows portion of the tract.)
So, let’s recap. The Borchard Property owner bought a piece of property (for $1.8 million in 1978) that, according to all previous documentation, was …
1) Zoned for R-1 residential development (4.5 unit/acre at that time)
2) Planned for Phase 2 development following Phase 1 Fox Meadows development, with infrastructure and grading to be completed by Griffin and put in place during Fox Meadows development
3) According to the 1977 EIR and all previous aerial maps, not a wetland, nor contained any protected vegetation or wildlife
4) Temporarily encumbered by an easement of which funding for a construction project by the County was already set aside to complete, and would thus remove the need for the easement
Y’all we’ve made it a decade. Just like four more to go. I told you this would be long.
An Aerial Palate Cleanser.
I'm really proud of you. You've made it a decade. Treat yourself to this gallery of aerial photos of the property dating back to the 1940s. Pretend it's a scoop of green tea sorbet served in a delicate silver spoon.
1980.
Funding from the County for the 101 Interchange Project was delayed in the 1980s after a huge storm caused damage to Simi Valley, and the funding that had been set aside was reallocated to address the immediate need. You can read about the series of six Pacific cyclones that struck the Southwestern United States during February 13-21, 1980 via a report prepared jointly by the U.S. Geological Survey and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration titled “Floods of February 1980 in Southern California and Central Arizona.” (U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1494.) I leave no stone unturned!
This postponement set the stage for the whole saga. It would be 21 more years before the construction project began, and it would change everything.
So, what was the property owner doing during that time? Learning how to knit? Investing in a sourdough starter kit? Honestly all of that sounds better than what they were actually doing. And look, at one point I just skipped ahead to 2001 and said STUFF HAPPENED AND SHIT, but my husband felt all the details were important here. So now you're getting them.
To start, understand that three entities are at play here: Caltrans, the City of Thousand Oaks, and the County of Ventura. All three have jurisdiction over the property for various reasons: Caltrans (highway/interchange), the City (the location of the property), and the County (the temporary easement).
Funding from the County for the 101 Interchange Project was delayed in the 1980s after a huge storm caused damage to Simi Valley, and the funding that had been set aside was reallocated to address the immediate need. You can read about the series of six Pacific cyclones that struck the Southwestern United States during February 13-21, 1980 via a report prepared jointly by the U.S. Geological Survey and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration titled “Floods of February 1980 in Southern California and Central Arizona.” (U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1494.) I leave no stone unturned!
This postponement set the stage for the whole saga. It would be 21 more years before the construction project began, and it would change everything.
So, what was the property owner doing during that time? Learning how to knit? Investing in a sourdough starter kit? Honestly all of that sounds better than what they were actually doing. And look, at one point I just skipped ahead to 2001 and said STUFF HAPPENED AND SHIT, but my husband felt all the details were important here. So now you're getting them.
To start, understand that three entities are at play here: Caltrans, the City of Thousand Oaks, and the County of Ventura. All three have jurisdiction over the property for various reasons: Caltrans (highway/interchange), the City (the location of the property), and the County (the temporary easement).
|
In 1980, when funding first got pulled, the County’s Public Works department sent a letter to the Borchard Property owner requesting the property owner consider purchasing the County bonds needed to cover the cost of the construction for the 101 Interchange Project. The property owner declined … they bought the property with the understanding that the County would be funding that project and were willing to wait. $4.6 mill ain’t no small amount in the 1980s. Or like, today.
On Jan. 28, 1982, County Public Works sent another letter to the property owner stating that the bond sales had not been successful anywhere, and also, that design work for the construction project would have to start from the beginning, stating: “It appears that the design work already completed must be abandoned and work start anew since Flood Control, who owns the arroyo, has rejected the multiple box concept in favor of a clear span. If you are interested in funding the project, either directly or through an assessment district …” Well, shit. No money. And the design plans had to be scrapped for new ones. A few alternative design concepts are tossed around between the various entities, and on Oct. 18, 1984, the City’s Public Works sends a letter to Caltrans expressing its support for one of the proposed design and construction plans and requested that Caltrans proceed as soon as possible. |
On Jan. 22, 1986, County’s Public Works sends a letter to Caltrans regarding quitclaiming its interest:
“We have no objection to quitclaiming our property interest and maintenance responsibility with Caltrans’ property, providing that we are given turnarounds or other adequate access to our channel service roads upstream. We assume that Caltrans will cooperate in the construction of any ultimate improvement project.”
During this time, the Borchard Property owner is also in consistent communications with the County. With funding nowhere in sight and construction plans in flux, County Public Works indicated it would allow development so long as the required retention basin was planned for in any proposed development.
And so, the property owners drew up plans for “Borchard Villas.” The property owners met with surrounding neighbors as part of their community outreach (I was told there were at least 17 meetings), took in community input and eventually revised and created a development plan for the property that would include a mix of condominiums and single-family units (and this had buy-in from the neighbors at the time).
“We have no objection to quitclaiming our property interest and maintenance responsibility with Caltrans’ property, providing that we are given turnarounds or other adequate access to our channel service roads upstream. We assume that Caltrans will cooperate in the construction of any ultimate improvement project.”
During this time, the Borchard Property owner is also in consistent communications with the County. With funding nowhere in sight and construction plans in flux, County Public Works indicated it would allow development so long as the required retention basin was planned for in any proposed development.
And so, the property owners drew up plans for “Borchard Villas.” The property owners met with surrounding neighbors as part of their community outreach (I was told there were at least 17 meetings), took in community input and eventually revised and created a development plan for the property that would include a mix of condominiums and single-family units (and this had buy-in from the neighbors at the time).
July 26, 1990, a letter from County Public Works was sent to the Borchard Property owner stating they would recommend the Board of Supervisors quit claim the easement, followed by a second.
On Oct. 4, 1990, a letter from the County Public Works department to the Borchard Property owner once again confirming they would recommend quitclaiming their flowage easement to the Board of Supervisors, given the development plans for 2/3rds development with a retention basin:
“Because the lots are in the city and outside the bed and banks of the channel, the only regulatory authority we have over these is the existing flowage easement. I will recommend that the Board of Supervisors quit claim the flowage easement over the lots if the City will allow you to dive them from the main parcel and fill them above the 100-year flood level ...
We have received your August flood storage requirements study for the subject property, near the intersection of Borchard Road and the Ventura Freeway, in Newbury Park. The current residential submittal to the city would utilize approximately 2/3 of the site.
We agree in concept that this portion of the property can be filled and developed if the remaining portion of the property is excavated to offset the fill volume (retention basin.) However, there are still a couple of issues that need to be resolved before final approval can be given.
Pending resolution of the above-mentioned issues, we would not have a problem recommending quitclaiming the flowage easement for the floodproofed portion upon our review and acceptance of the additional engineering details.”
************
What does this all really demonstrate?
The County, in the 1980s, was working with the property owner in good faith, and clearly demonstrated through these communications, that the easement was viewed as conditional/temporary. This collaboration is what eventually led up to 1992, and a proposed development for Borchard Villas (with EIR #277 …which also found no wetland conditions, by the way).
This part is really, really, really important. As with any development, there are dozens of studies/analyses that have to happen. Remember when I talked about a property’s water holding capacity? The proposal for Borchard Villas listed it at 120-acre feet based on a hydraulics analysis, which is what therefore then determined the size of the retention basin needed that would be sufficient (roughly 1/3rd of acreage), and what the County and City agreed to (as also seen in the exchanges). This number will come back up.
On Oct. 4, 1990, a letter from the County Public Works department to the Borchard Property owner once again confirming they would recommend quitclaiming their flowage easement to the Board of Supervisors, given the development plans for 2/3rds development with a retention basin:
“Because the lots are in the city and outside the bed and banks of the channel, the only regulatory authority we have over these is the existing flowage easement. I will recommend that the Board of Supervisors quit claim the flowage easement over the lots if the City will allow you to dive them from the main parcel and fill them above the 100-year flood level ...
We have received your August flood storage requirements study for the subject property, near the intersection of Borchard Road and the Ventura Freeway, in Newbury Park. The current residential submittal to the city would utilize approximately 2/3 of the site.
We agree in concept that this portion of the property can be filled and developed if the remaining portion of the property is excavated to offset the fill volume (retention basin.) However, there are still a couple of issues that need to be resolved before final approval can be given.
Pending resolution of the above-mentioned issues, we would not have a problem recommending quitclaiming the flowage easement for the floodproofed portion upon our review and acceptance of the additional engineering details.”
************
What does this all really demonstrate?
The County, in the 1980s, was working with the property owner in good faith, and clearly demonstrated through these communications, that the easement was viewed as conditional/temporary. This collaboration is what eventually led up to 1992, and a proposed development for Borchard Villas (with EIR #277 …which also found no wetland conditions, by the way).
This part is really, really, really important. As with any development, there are dozens of studies/analyses that have to happen. Remember when I talked about a property’s water holding capacity? The proposal for Borchard Villas listed it at 120-acre feet based on a hydraulics analysis, which is what therefore then determined the size of the retention basin needed that would be sufficient (roughly 1/3rd of acreage), and what the County and City agreed to (as also seen in the exchanges). This number will come back up.
|
|
Above Left: A 1991 letter from the Army Corps of Engineers that states that the Borchard property shows no sign of wetlands, therefore it is not subject to their area of jurisdiction. Above Right: A letter from County Public Works that states they feel they're close to a solution that would eliminate the need for the basin (basically, this is the 101 Interchange Project we've been talking about!) Jazz hands!
1992.
Just days prior to the July 20, 1992 City of Thousand Oaks Planning Commission meeting (which was set to review the Borchard Villas application), County Public Works sent a letter to the City Planning and Community Development (pictured above):
July 17, 1992: “We have been working with city staff and consultants on the on-and-off ramp at Borchard and Highway 101, which would cross South Branch Arroyo Conejo, to find a solution to the drainage problem in the area. We feel we are close to a solution that would eliminate the need for the detention basin on this project site. Consideration should be given to requiring this developer to contribute to the solution which will free up the land proposed for the detention basin.”
FOLKS. The County’s Public Works was saying it was very close to a solution that would mean they wouldn't even need to require the property owner to put in a retention basin on 1/3 of the property in order to be able to develop.
As a result, the Borchard Villas application was halted. Why move forward with development on 2/3rds of your property when the County is telling you they’re finally close to the solution that would free up the remaining 1/3 of your property? Alas, what really is the definition of “close” many a fine philosopher has surely questioned. In 1994, the Northridge earthquake hits, no one was funding anything and it’s frankly just chaos for a few years until 1999 …. when funding is finally secured.
Just days prior to the July 20, 1992 City of Thousand Oaks Planning Commission meeting (which was set to review the Borchard Villas application), County Public Works sent a letter to the City Planning and Community Development (pictured above):
July 17, 1992: “We have been working with city staff and consultants on the on-and-off ramp at Borchard and Highway 101, which would cross South Branch Arroyo Conejo, to find a solution to the drainage problem in the area. We feel we are close to a solution that would eliminate the need for the detention basin on this project site. Consideration should be given to requiring this developer to contribute to the solution which will free up the land proposed for the detention basin.”
FOLKS. The County’s Public Works was saying it was very close to a solution that would mean they wouldn't even need to require the property owner to put in a retention basin on 1/3 of the property in order to be able to develop.
As a result, the Borchard Villas application was halted. Why move forward with development on 2/3rds of your property when the County is telling you they’re finally close to the solution that would free up the remaining 1/3 of your property? Alas, what really is the definition of “close” many a fine philosopher has surely questioned. In 1994, the Northridge earthquake hits, no one was funding anything and it’s frankly just chaos for a few years until 1999 …. when funding is finally secured.
A solution 23 years in the making: The 101 Interchange Project.
|
2001.
On April 10, 2001, the City awards Macro Z. Technology with the contract to complete 101 Interchange Project. For a minute, you didn’t think we were gonna make it here, right? The 101 Interchange Project commenced construction as a joint venture between the County, City of Thousand Oaks and Caltrans, with the purpose of constructing a new Interchange at Borchard Rd and Highway 101, which would also upgrade the South Branch Arroyo Conejo flood channel, doubling its capacity and flow of water to reduce the bottleneck condition and therefore meet the terms required to eliminate the need for the temporary easement, based on the intent as outlined by Public Works back in 1978. The construction project took place between 2001-2003, and at no point prior to the completion of the County’s proposed project were there any discussions from County Public Works with the property owner that would suggest the easement would remain in perpetuity or that its scope would change or be reinterpreted upon completion of the project. The project was certified complete by the County on June 24, 2003. This is when the temporary easement should have been lifted. |
2003.
Someone happened that drastically altered the fate of this property, again. (No, that’s not a typo.)
Just six months prior to the project's completion and
25 years after the Moradians bought the property and the temporary easement had been put in place ...
Linda Parks was elected and started her first term as Ventura County Board of Supervisors for Area 2, where the Borchard Property is located, and therefore under her purview.
Let the games begin.
Someone happened that drastically altered the fate of this property, again. (No, that’s not a typo.)
Just six months prior to the project's completion and
25 years after the Moradians bought the property and the temporary easement had been put in place ...
Linda Parks was elected and started her first term as Ventura County Board of Supervisors for Area 2, where the Borchard Property is located, and therefore under her purview.
Let the games begin.