Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Eminent Domain topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County approves revised eminent-domain resolution for Prado Dam project after contested hearing
Summary
After objections from property owners and attorneys about survey data and compensation, the Orange County Board approved a partial rescission and resolution of necessity related to the Prado Dam Rancho Miramonte acquisition, with county counsel and engineers explaining the Corps' timeline and risk assessment.
The Orange County Board of Supervisors on Oct. 22 voted to adopt a resolution of necessity related to the Prado Dam project and to partially rescind an earlier resolution affecting Parcel 1 of the Rancho Miramonte property, following a contested public hearing.
Attorneys for affected property owners urged the board to delay or reject the change, arguing the county relied on incomplete or inaccurate survey data and warning that any taking without full compensation would expose the county to "massive inverse condemnation damages," counsel Robert Silverstein said.
"[If you continue with the taking] you will be subjected to...massive inverse condemnation damages," Silverstein told the board, urging caution and noting survey and hydrology data he said were omitted or mischaracterized.
Chuck Krolikowski, representing the Rancho Miramonte investors, said the proposed acquisition would bisect remainder parcels, complicate development and that the county's initial offer of approximately $1.8 million did not match the owner's appraisal. He described ongoing negotiations over possession-and-use agreements and a stipulation to resolve deposit issues.
County senior assistant counsel Nicole Walsh explained the county's coordination with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, said there was no immediate time urgency and described a discontinuity of 3.22 feet the county identified during its review. Walsh told the board she believed the Corps' schedule allowed time for deliberation and that the Corps had returned a deletion package that supported removing part of the property from acquisition.
After questions from supervisors and presentations by attorneys, the board moved and approved the resolution with the votes required under the statute. The item drew extensive legal argument from property counsel and was described by both sides as involving substantial constitutional and compensation issues.
County staff noted the Army Corps intends to reimburse the county for project expenses under its construction contract assignment; property owners said their compensation estimate was higher and that the county's survey and risk assessment should be reevaluated.
The board approved the item as presented and directed counsel and staff to continue negotiations and documentation for the acquisition and related litigation risk management.
