Berger wrote that the city is in the “very early stages” of planning a project and any environmental study could possibly show that the property owned by Trembley’s clients is “completely inappropriate for constructing,” the wastewater treatment plant.Condemnation or eminent domain was never mentioned in the letter sent by the city’s land agent, Berger added.Trembley replied that the city’s behavior as “coy” in “downplaying its potential use of eminent domain power to acquire our clients’ properties” and that “it does not require NASA employment” i.e. a rocket scientist “to conclude that the city is being coy about its potential condemnation agenda.”Trembley also noted that it is “astonishing” that the city is continuing “wasteful expenditures” and time conducting environmental reviews for property it ultimately would be unable to acquire.If the city does not drop further study of his clients’ land, Trembley added, it would face a “protracted and expensive” court fight.“It is regrettable that you have chosen to elevate the issue of this matter in a way that is counterproductive in the use of time and resources both to your clients and the City of Santa Paula,” Berger noted in his March 3 letter.The council and Vice Mayor Mary Ann Krause, who maintains that the initial letter to property owners was misinterpreted, were expected to discuss the issue at the March 15 meeting.
War of words: Attorneys fire off letters about treatment plant placement
March 17, 2004
Santa Paula City Council
The war of words is continuing between the attorney for a group of ranchers just west of Santa Paula and the city, which had sent a letter to the property owners asking if they would interested in selling their land for the new wastewater treatment plant.
By Peggy KellySanta Paula TimesThe war of words is continuing between the attorney for a group of ranchers just west of Santa Paula and the city, which had sent a letter to the property owners asking if they would interested in selling their land for the new wastewater treatment plant. The dispute started when the ranchers interpreted the letter as a threat to use condemnation and eminent domain to seize property to construct a new plant to replace the aging facility.Attorney Anthony Tremble fired off a February 9-page public records request to the cities of Santa Paula and Fillmore in February; since that time, the cities’ steering committee studying the possible creation of a joint facility have determined that the plan is not workable.The controversy started when the growers received a February letter noting that their properties were the “focus” of an investigation for possible purchase for the shared wastewater plant, percolation ponds and conveyance pipelines that would need up to 60 acres.Early this month, Trembley had fired off a strongly worded letter to City Councils of Santa Paula and Fillmore telling them that his clients – who own about 330 acres - were not interested in selling their property and that locating a treatment plant anywhere in the ag-rich area should not be considered due to greenbelt and SOAR guidelines.Trembley, of Nordman, Cormany, Hair & Compton, represents W.J. Pinkerton Estate Ranch, John Shores Family Partnership, John McGrath & Sons, Frank Brucker Trust, Orr Ranch Company and the Saticoy Foods Corporation, all located in the Briggs Road area.Trembley had notified the city that City Attorney Karl Berger noted in a March 3 letter to Trembley that “it’s unfortunate that you and your clients have not accepted the city’s repeated offer to meet,” with steering committee members Vice Mayor Mary Ann Krause and Councilman John Procter to “discuss this issue.”Berger’s letter also noted that the city is required by law to “identify multiple sites for environmental review before a final location can be selected,” for a new plant.
