February 6, 2025
Property

Property easement settlement becomes official


UNDEVELOPED—The Borchard parcel in Newbury Park on Jan. 21. It’s the largest privately owned undeveloped property in the city. MICHAEL COONS/Acorn NewspapersUNDEVELOPED—The Borchard parcel in Newbury Park on Jan. 21. It’s the largest privately owned undeveloped property in the city. MICHAEL COONS/Acorn Newspapers

UNDEVELOPED—The Borchard parcel in Newbury Park on Jan. 21. It’s the largest privately owned undeveloped property in the city. MICHAEL COONS/Acorn Newspapers

Following a Ventura County Board of Supervisors vote last week, a prominent Thousand Oaks property owner is expected to dismiss his lawsuit against the county regarding a flood control easement on his land.

The supervisors voted 4-1 on Jan. 14 to release an existing easement on the city’s largest privately owned undeveloped property near the 101 Freeway and Borchard Road and issue a replacement easement. The new document outlines more detailed conditions for release, largely surrounding flood mitigation measures, and potential development.

“After more than one year of negotiations, I applaud the staff and board for settling this lawsuit favorably to the community, rather than dragging out litigation for years, costing taxpayers significant money and creating the risk of a less favorable outcome for residents from a court or jury,” District 2 Supervisor Jeff Gorell told the Acorn.

Property owner Shawn Moradian declined to comment on the vote.

In a complaint filed Dec. 6, 2023, Moradian’s company, Mason Partners, LLC, sought a judgment declaring that the easement would be eliminated and that the County of Ventura and Ventura County Watershed Protection District would have no rights on the 37-acre lot.

The Moradian family purchased the property in 1979 under the understanding that the easement was temporary and would be removed following county improvements, according to the lawsuit; Moradian, however, claimed the county has not used the easement or made any improvements to water flow on the property.

Though the land is designated mixed-use, which would allow up to 1,100 residential units per acre plus commercial establishments, Moradian said in the lawsuit that the easement has prevented development, including a $12.5-million deal with Warmington Homes in 2014.

The county and the district disputed all allegations in Moradian’s suit.

Under the settlement agreement, reached Nov. 5, the parties asked the Board of Supervisors to release the existing easement, replacing it with the new easement with the understanding that Moradian would dismiss the suit; the parties would pay their own attorney fees, and neither would admit fault or liability.

The replacement easement will continue to prohibit development and authorize the periodic inundation of the Borchard property with water just like the previous one, Jeff Barnes, chief assistant county counsel, said during the Jan. 14 meeting.

“This point is critical because we are absolutely preserving the rights that exist in the existing easement in terms of using that land right now to basically park water when there is a lot of water coming down the watershed,” he said.

The primary difference between the two easements, he said, is that the replacement includes specific conditions that must be met before it can be released and development can begin.

“Right now, the flowage easement is silent as to what the watershed district would require before it was released, and what the property owner is telling us is that more certainty needs to be placed into the easement in order for any development proposal to get off the ground,” Barnes said, describing the replacement easement as a win-win for both parties.

Before the replacement easement can be released, the City of Thousand Oaks must approve any development on the property; the process would require an environmental impact study performed by an independent analyst that determines what volume of water displacement must be accounted for.

The developer must complete all required flood mitigation measures, accounting for the existing detention capacity of the property as well as runoff from future construction. The developer—not the taxpayers—must pay for all those measures in addition to reimbursing the county and watershed district up to $25,000 for the costs of determining whether the release conditions have been met.

The developer must also obtain all required permits and approvals from the watershed district.

During the public comment portion of the meeting, just one speaker supported the replacement easement, citing a need for additional housing in the county.

The other roughly dozen speakers— one of whom yelled “shame on you” after the supervisors’ vote—expressed concern over the potential for flooding on the property that would damage their nearby homes; lack of county oversight; harm to the environment and wildlife; and development on the property.

District 5 Supervisor Vianey Lopez, who cast the single dissenting vote, said she was also unsure future development would incorporate adequate flood mitigation that would protect the county from liability.

“I am not quite hearing the certainty that this easement is no longer needed,” she said.

The other four supervisors, however, said they felt the new terms retained extensive flood protections and review processes.

Gorell told the Acorn he based his vote on the expertise of subject matter experts at the watershed district, county public works department and county counsel’s office.

“They all, collectively, recommended that the proposed resolution was the best path to protect the community,” he said. “Their guidance and the newly adopted language ensure that future decisions regarding the flood easement are based on data and expertise rather than influenced by politics.”

“I think this process will provide a thorough and complete environmental and technical review of any proposed project that comes forward, and I’m comfortable with the process as laid out,” Jeff Palmer, watershed protection district director, told Gorell during the meeting.





Source link

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *