PC 010803 - Laserfiche WebLink

Following the adoption of the Specific Plan Amendment, the City would then be required to go through the eLrLinent domain process, which would require the cooperation and/or participation of the County, given that most of the proposed alternatives go through unincorporated County land, in order to permit the construction of the bypass road in a new location. Only after all these steps are complete can the City even begin building the bypass road. Completion of all these required steps would add years to the existing timetable for construction of tihe bypass road. Given that the golf course is already under construction, this would mean that the golf course and the adjacent homes would most likely be built and occupied long before the bypass road is completed- Such an outcome would be contrary to the intent of the Specific Plan, and would be extremely detrimental to our clients and the other homeowners in the Happy Valley area. Note also that most, if not all, of the alternative locations proposed for consideration would require condemnari on of private property in Happy Valley, which would significantly increase the costs associated with the bypass road. Our client's second issue relates to the certain of the alternatives, in which the City is proposing to include in the study. In reviewing the updated staff report for the above-referenced item, our clients discovered that at least two of these alternatives would bisect their property. Adoption of any such alternative would require the condemnation of a large and critical part of our clients' property, and would significantly devalue the separate retained by our client. Our clients would strongly object to and opposed any such condemnation for a number of reasons, including the fact that the Specific Plan EIR specifically analyzed and rejected a number of alternatives to the bypass road, and these were among them [that we've already talked about]. We believe that any resolution of necessity adopted by the City in support of such condemnation would not withstand judicial scrutiny due to the failure to provide the required substantial evidence that the proposed project was most compatible with the greatest public good and the ]cast private injury. Additionally, the mere fact that the City's proposing to analyze alternative road layouts, which would required condemnation of our clients' property places a cloud on our clients' title. If the City does not take immediate steps to eliminate such alternatives from further consideration, the City will be liable for damages to our clients resulting from the cloud on title. Thank you in advance for your consideration of our clients' concerns. We look forward to working with the City and other affected property owners in resolving the issues regarding the bypass road. Please ensure that this letter is made part of the admiiii strative record _" Vanessa Kawaihali, 871 Sycamore Road, noted that she would address the existing alternatives before City Council. She noted that Alternative 2 was suggested at the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES January 8, 2003 Page 11