Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Eminent Domain topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Property owners challenge Orange County plan to rescind part of Prado Dam land taking
Summary
At a public hearing on Rancho Miramonte (Prado Dam project), property owners and their counsel said removing Parcel 1 from an earlier condemnation would expose the county to "massive inverse condemnation damages," and pressed the board for more evidence; county counsel said staff had surveyed the site and found a discontinuity supporting the change.
Orange County held a public hearing Oct. 22 about a proposed partial rescission and resolution of necessity related to the Prado Dam project, a multi‑county flood-control effort that would affect properties in Chino.
Robert Silverstein, an attorney representing Fisher Scientific Company, told the board the county’s proposed removal of Parcel 1 from its prior acquisition decision relied on "incomplete and inaccurate data" and warned the board that the action "will subject you to ... massive inverse‑condemnation damages" if flooding occurs and just compensation is not paid.
Chuck Krolikowski, representing the Rancho Miramonte owner and developer, said the acquisition would bisect remainder parcels and leave development‑constrained pieces; he said the district’s offer of roughly $1.8 million for those impacts was far below the owners’ valuation and that negotiations over compensation were continuing.
County counsel Nicole Walsh said staff had previously sought deletion of the parcel from the Army Corps package in 2018 and had conducted site visits and follow‑up engineering review. Walsh told supervisors the county believed the Army Corps’ later decision to delete the parcel was supported by a discontinuity in elevation data and that "there is no major time urgency" to complete the action because Supervisor Sarmiento was expected back to vote and the Army Corps process includes deadlines extending into 2025.
Supervisors asked staff for clarifications about timing and risk; after hearing comments, moving, seconding and brief discussion, the board voted to carry the item (the record shows the motion carried unanimously). County staff noted the Army Corps of Engineers is expected to reimburse certain county expenses under project agreements and that possession and compensation issues remain subject to appraisal and negotiation.
No final compensation for affected owners was determined at the hearing; several speakers asked the board to delay final action until additional data and compensation negotiations were complete.
