HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-06-23 - AGENDA REPORTS - LYONS AVE EXTENSION (2)AGENDA REPORT
City Manager Approval
�I/tem to be presented by/:
UNFINISHED BUSINESS Com'a6khony J. Ni i hI
DATE: June 23. 1992
SUBJECT: LYONS AVENUE EXTENSION ALIGNMENT
DEPARTMENT: Community Development
BACKGROUND
At your meeting of March 24, 1992, the Council moved to:
• Establish the alignment of the Lyons Avenue Extension westerly of the
Vista Valencia project as presented by staff and then easterly and
through Vista Valencia to Sierra Highway along the existing alignment of
Dockweiler.
• Remove the 60 -foot designation and release rights-of-way for Placerita
Canyon Road.
Staff prepared a map showing the alignment approved by the Council, and it'was
presented at the meeting of April 14, 1992 for final approval. The Council
expressed concerns based on public input at the meeting that a number of
affected residents had not agreed with the alignment. It was suggested, and
the Council moved to continue the item further until after the annual meeting
of the Placerita Canyon Homeowner's Association.
On May 14, 1992, staff attended the annual Placerita Canyon Property Owners'
Association meeting to answer questions regarding this issue. After a brief
presentation and a question -and -answer period, the membership took a vote and
voted in favor of adopting the westerly portion of the roadway as -presented
from San -Fernando Road to Dockweiler Drive. They did not vote in favor of its
easterly extension to Placerita .Canyon Road. They voted to accept the
existing alignment of Dockweiler as the easterly connection to Sierra Highway
- (see attached Exhibit 1: Letter from Placerita Canyon Property Owners'
Association).
Subsequent to the meeting, staff received a number of questions from residents
representing both sides of the alignment issue. A list of the questions with
answers and/or comments is attached for Council's information (see
Exhibit 2). Based on the number of questions, there still seems to be
considerable confusion and controversy regarding the alignment issue and the
status of Placerita Canyon Road now and in the future. Ms. Jeanne Hammonds
has also presented staff with a set of comments (Exhibit 3) which are attached
for Council's information.
Agenda Item. _ _ _..
LYONS AVENUE EXTENSION ALIGNMENT
Page 2
As to the issue regarding the right-of-way for Placerita Canyon Road, the
Planning Commission has responded to City Council direction to delete any
future requirements for the dedication of rights-of-way. Staff and the
Commission are now processing projects along Placerita Canyon Road without any
requirements for either public, private, or future street dedications from the
property owners. A General Plan amendment finalizing this direction is also
in process.
ANALYSIS/ALTERNATIVE
The soon-to-be seated Citizen's Transportation Committee was established to
provide a public forum for community input and discussion and to assist the
City Manager in the decision-making process. This Committee could provide the
necessary vehicle to assist staff to arrive at a conclusion and recommendation
on these issues. Staff feels it may be appropriate to bring these issues to
the Committee to provide a public forum for complete discussion. A general
public meeting to discuss only this item has not yet been held.
Decision-making is facilitated when issues having a significant effect are
raised, discussed and considered .in the final analysis. The need for the
Lyons Avenue extension, its alignment, the connection to Placerita Canyon Road
or Sierra Highway, the connection to Arch Street, the railroad crossing, the
status of Placerita Canyon Road now and in the future, and costs are some of
the issues that have a significant effect on this decision. The Citizen's
Transportation Committee can provide the forum and the input to assist staff
in their final recommendations.
RECOMMENDATION
Receive and file. Direct staff to -report back at the August meeting and after
the Transportation Committee Forum is held.
ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit 1: Letter from Placerita Canyon Property Owners' Association dated
May 26, 1992
Exhibit 2: Placerita Canyon Homeowners questions and answers
Exhibit 3: Comments/handouts received from Ms. Jeanne Hammonds
hds:634
PLACERITA CANYON
PROPERTY OWNERS' ASSOCIATION
FC P. O. Bax 245
14=hcll, CA 91322_
May 26, 1992
Mayor Jill Klajic and
Members;of City Council
City.,of Santa Clarita
23920_W.',Valencia Blvd.
Valencia, CA 91355
Dear Mayor Klajic and Council:
During your recent consideration of the.Lyons Avenue extension/Placerita
Canyon, bypass route, you asked us to go,back to our membership and get a
consensus..of•neighborhood opinion on the topic. We did so at our May 14
meeting,'. -.which was attended by.more-than 120 Placerita Canyon property
owners. (That's quite a large. attendance for us, thanks primarily to the
door-to-door efforts of those who oppose the extension who were
attempiing.to get out the negative vote.)
The proposed extension was discussed at length for over an hour; giving
ampletimefor both proponents and opponents to present their viewpoints
and answer questions. Tony Nisish, the new City Engineer, was present to
answer..questions from a neutral point of -view. At the.end of this time,
the following votes -were taken:. (The issue of the.eastern alignment
into..the.:canyon,was.separated from the western alignment as far as
Dockweiler since -there seemed,to be a more widely -.divergent opinion on
the :,eastern'end:)
MOVED: -,,-..That the Association accept the proposed alignment of Lyons
Avenue at -:the -western end of,the canyon to the point where it joins
--:Dockweiler.:, AYES:�47;,NAY:-21:'
MOVED::r,.That the -Association accept the ,remainder of the alignment from
Dockweiler into Placerita Canyon.-. AYES: 30; NAY: 31.
MOVED: That the -Association accept the alignment continuing down
Dockweiler to Sierra Highway. AYE. 34; NAY: 9.
Please note that theservotes.represent.households, not individuals,
hence the count is smaller than the actual number of people that each
vote represents.
These votes clearly -show that, in an open forum where all views are
aired, a clear majority of the Placerita Canyon property owners support
the western alignment from the present Lyons Avenue to its connection
with-Dockweiler. This would support the staff recommendation presented
at your recent City Council meeting, which would:
* Approve the western portion -of the alignment
* Direct staff to stop requiring dedication of right-of-way along
Placerita Canyon Road and
* Seek Public input on design of the Lyons/Arch connection,
1 e Pao. 1 4 2
The deadlocked vote on the eastern end of the alignment into the canyon
should give the City's engineering staff and City Council some
flexibility in determining which alignment best meets the traffic needs
of both the valley and the canyon, since their is no clear-cut canyon
opinion at this time.- The third motion was simply a reiteration -by `
opponents of the eastern canyon route,''clarifying where Lyons Avenue
extension traffic will go once it reaches Dockweiler. The relatively low
number of total votes on that issue probably reflects its source --from
those who oppose the canyon route.
Hopefully this meeting also will answer some charges that the Placerita
Canyon Property Owners Association does not truly represent the canyon.
This was our Annual Meeting, at which two of our seven director posts
were up for election. Notice was sent to all of -the more than 360 homes
in the canyon, and the turnout of 120. -plus people is a good
representation. Election results showed one present director re-elected
and one new director elected from the challenging -faction of property
owners. We welcome this new representation on the board: Hopefully,
having "their own" board member will help them feel more truly
represented, although I can assure you that every member's voice has
always been welcomed by the board.
`It is my understanding that the group which opposes the Lyons Avenue
extension continues to circulate their "survey" regardless of the
outcome of the recent meeting. The route's supporters undoubtedly could
circulate its own document as well, and I have no doubt that we could
get as many or more signatures favoring the route. The point is simply
that we feel that a decision taken in open meeting, when all points of
view have been aired, is a far more accurate reflection of public
opinion that a "survey" conducted door-to-door with only one .point of
view expressed.
You have asked for consensus from the canyon. I am convinced that we
have that. We may not have unanimity, but how many of your decisions
provide you with that luxury? You will have to decide how to weigh the
input of a public vote versus a "survey".conducted by people who
admittedly..have.their own pointof view
Jill, I would like to briefly address your concern for the Valencia
Villa condominium owners'who live along Dockweiler: That road was there
in its four -lane format long before they bought their homes. It's
inclusion in the valley circulation system was part of Palmer's approval
for developing the'pro3ect. The Lyons Avenue extension simply makes a
logical.connection to that road; it doesn't widen it or otherwise
increase the design capacity.- In fact, it is far less onerous
than the 100 -foot -wide Rio Vista alignment that you have already_
approved through -that development as part of the General Plana
I would hope that this answers some -of your concerns about the proposed
Lyons.Avenue extension and that.you will now feel comfortable in
adopting the staff recommendations as they were presented at your recent
meeting. If I can provide further information, please contact me at 259-
3845.
rSi cerely,
u
Pat Willett, President
Placerita Canyon Property
Owners Association
cc: George Carvalho, City Manager ExFj� fjj $ PaG� 2 O�
Tony Nisish, City Engineer cI
PLACERITA CANYON HOMEOWNERS QUESTIONS .
The following are the City staff responses to the questions raised by some of
the residents. living in the Placerita Canyon area. These questions were
delivered to City staff by Ms. Jeanne Hammonds:
1. Does the City ever intend to widen Placerita Canyon Road?
Response: The City has no current plan to widen Placerita Canyon Road.
2. Is the City willing to delete requirements to dedicate right-of-ways
along Placerita Canyon Road with or without the Lyons Avenue Extension?
Response: City staff has been directed by the Planning. Commission to
delete the requirement to dedicate right-of-ways along Placerita Canyon
Road.
3. Is the City willing to return existing right-of-ways along Placerita
Canyon Road with or without the Lyons Avenue bypass?
Response: The City could vacate only those portions of Placerita Canyon
Road which are currently dedicated as public road easements, currently
approximately 50% of the roadway. This would require specific Council
direction and a public hearing in accordance with the Streets and Highway
Code.
4. As Placerita Canyon Road now exists,. would the City be willing to allow
some quick fixes, such as stop signs and decreased speed limits?
Response: This response applies only to the sections of Placerita Canyon
Road designated as a public road. Any changes to the existing speed
limit would have to be supported by an Engineering & Traffic survey
according to the California Vehicle Code and the California Department of
Transportation's traffic manual guidelines. The traffic manual also has
established criteria for stop sign installations.
5. If the right-of-ways on Placerita Canyon Road are given back to property
owners, will Placerita Canyon Road then be considered private?
Response: If the City vacates its interest in the right-of-way, there is
no specific status for it as a. private street. -It would revert to the
other owners of interest.
Exhibit 2 - Page 1 of 3
PLACERITA CANYON HOMEOWNERS QUESTIONS
Page 2
6. If Placerita Canyon Road is then private, can the Placerita property
owners put up stop signs and speed limit signs? Can they also gate one
end of the road?
Response: The uses of any private street are usually described in the
official document which designates it as a private street. If there is
no document, or the document is silent on the uses such as much of
Placerita Canyon Road, then each property owner onwhich the road
currently exists must rely on their own legal advice to determine if they
would allow such traffic control devices and their responsibility in
having them on their "nronerty".
7. If Placerita Canyon Road is completely private, will the City not be
liable and no longer do minimum maintenance on the road?
Response: The City has no obligation to perform any maintenance on any
private road. Moreover, the state law prohibits the City from. spending
gas tax funds to maintain privately -owned streets.
8. Can the City assess Placerita property owners for Lyons Avenue Extension
without their approval?
The City must conduct a hearing and provide specific documents relating
to the work and the assessments before it may assess property owners. In
some cases, a majority protest prevents the City from assessing the
property owners. Specific assessments acts have their own requirements
regarding the effects of a majority protest, and it may be technically
possible to assess property owners without their consent.
9. Is Placerita Canyon Road on the circulation element of the General Plan?
Response: No. The segment of Placerita Canyon Road between San Fernando
Road and Sierra Highway is not on the circulation element of the General
Plan. The highway on the circulation element is not Placerita Canyon
Road, it is Rio Vista Road. Placerita Canyon Road, east of Sierra
Highway, is shown on the County's Circulation Element as a limited
secondary highway.
10. Is the portion of Rio Vista Road which would run through Placerita Canyon
adopted or proposed, and can it be built at any time?
Response: The City Council has adopted the Lyons Avenue Extension on an
alignment from San Fernando Road to the existing Dockweiler Drive and
connecting to Sierra Highway, subject to a final plan.map being submitted
and approved by the City Council. This alignment is nominally the same
as the east -west portion of the Rio Vista Road in the General Plan. The
building of Lyons Avenue extension will be contingent on the availability
of funds and direction to proceed by the City Council.
Exhibit 2 - Page 2 of 3
'PLACERITA CANYON HOMEOWNERS QUESTIONS
Page 3
11. Are you aware of any proposed projects large enough to fund the entire
Lyons Avenue Extension which would be built on the ends of Placerita
Canyon?
Response: No.
12. Does the City Council have the authority to remove the proposed
alternatives of Rio Vista Road?
Response: Yes.
BJ:hds/1629
Exhibit 2 - Page 3 of 3
POSITIVE PROPOSALS SOUGHT BY
PLACERITA CANYON PROPERTY OWNERS
The majority of property owners in Placerita Canyon are
not in favor of the adoption of Lyons Avenue Extension, RioVista
Road, or any other highway through the canyon. The City states
that the purpose of the Lyons Avenue Extension is to alleviate
future traffic on Placerita Canyon Road (See Project Report,
Lyons Avenue Extension, Oct., 1991, p.4). In contrast, the
majority of property owners surveyed are in favor of the follow-
ing proposals to reduce traffic on Placerita Canyon Road:
1. The City developing a road that would bisect the valley more
centrally, north of Placerita Canyon and south of Soledad
to the 14 freeway.
a. Via Princessa is partly constructed and developer funds
may further the construction. Eventually it will bean
east/west route from the 5 freeway to the 14 freeway,
but in the near future could be an east/west route from
San Fernando Road to the 14 freeway.
b. Santa Clarita Parkwa would replace the'need for Rio
Vista Roa . Anden Corp. may fund part of the road.
2. Giving back any right-of-ways taken by the City (which may
only involve one piece of property) on Placerita Canyon Road
so that it can be completely private.
3. Not requiring any future right-of-ways from Placerita Canyon
Road.
4. Putting'2 or 3 stop signs on Placerita Canyon Road paid for
by PCPOA funds.
5. Installing speed limit signs at 25 mph paid for by PCPOA funds.
6. Police enforcement of the new speed limit.
7. Possible gating of the east end of Placerita Canyon near AES.
Many residents are concerned about who will maintain Placerita
Canyon Road. A possible solution would be to form a Maintenance
District where percentagesof the usage of Placerita Canyon Road
by the City and by residents could be determined.
C"".'4 pre_p,,/ar� 6y,
ffi!5. ;JZa-nnx- 11am io%d5. O
PLACERITA CANYON PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION
GENERAL MEMBERSHIP MEETING - MAY 14, 1992
The purpose of postponing the City Council vote on
April 21, 1992 to adopt the alignment of Lyons ave Extension•from
Dockweiler to the intersection of Dockweiler and Sierra Highway,
was to wait until a consensus could be reached by Placerita Canyon
property owners on whether or not they wanted Lyons Avenue extension
in Placerita Canyon.
The PCPOA met on May 14th. However, the vote was not neces-
sarily a true consensus of Placerita property owners because the
information presented was either misleading or incomplete, and
a vote was never taken as to who was in favor or not in favor
of the road, but instead voted only on alignment choice.
I. Misleading Information presented
A. The original map with the alignment to Placerita Canyon
was solely presented.
1. Question asked Where is Dockweiler on that map?
Answer by PCPOA president - Over there somewhere.
2. It looked like the City Council was still considering
this alignment (meeting Placerita Cyn. Rd.)
B. Rio Vista Road from Bouquet area would eventually connect
to Lyons Avenue Extension. (inevitably)
1. Question - It was asked if there was a choice between
Lyons Avenue/Rio Vista Road and Santa Clarita Parkway.
Answer - No, we need all of the proposed roads to
alleviate future traffic in the City.
Not Mentioned:
..there is a proposal to substitute Santa Clarita
Parkway for the north/south leg of Rio Vista Road..."
--Project Report, Lyons Avenue Extension, October, 1991, p.9
2. We need an east -west route, and if it doesn't go
on the Lyons Avenue Extension alignment, it will have
to go SOMEWHERE! (To many residents, the fear was the
main east/west route would become Placerita Canyon Road.)
3. Via Princessa as an east/west route was not discussed
as an alternative.
In Contrast•
"The construction of the Lyons Avenue extension in and
of itself provides no significant benefit to the over-
all Circulation Element but would reduce future traffic
volumes on Placerita Canyon Road." --Project Report,
Lyons Avenue Extension, October, 1991, p. 4.
C. As presented, it looked like the only choice was to pick
between the two alignments: Down Dockweiler or down
to Placerita Canyon Road.
D. The City will probably never assess Placerita property
owners for Lyons Avenue extension because there has to
be benefit to them.
Ms. T.ea..�.2.e �amno•-x�5
Page 2
However: The City sees the benefit for Placerita Canyon:
".:.although the Lyons Avenue extension has a minimal
positive effect on the Circulation Element, it does provide
the only suitable relief for expected future traffic
volumes on Placerita Canyon Road." --Project Report, Lyons
Avenue Extension, Oct., 1991, p.6
However:
"It is clear that unless other infrastructure projects
are delayed or other sources of funds are made available,
such as special assessments, special taxes, or bond issues,
the Lyons Avenue extension, as well as other major road-
way construction, remains unfunded for the forseeable
future." --Project Report, Lyons Ave. Extension, Oct., 1991, p.42
II. Incomplete information
A. A 15 minute presentation by those in favor and then by
those against the proposal was not done. '
1. The PCPOA President picked those with'hands raised for
discussion..'
2. The PCPOA president.picked a known proponent for the
road extension to give the motion while many still
wanted to discuss the issues.
B. .Twelve questions were faxed to Tony Nisi.tch which many
residents asked when surveyed.Most were not discussed.
1. PCPOA president only allowed him to answer 2 of the
questions: Items "h': and"i"(see below),
2. City Engineer thoroughly answered these questions
by phone previous to the meeting. "
3. Many questions pertained to positive improvements
to Placerita Canyon Road which the City would probably
allow to alleviate traffic on Placerita Cyn. Road.
The questions were: (with answers later given by staff)
a. Does the City ever intend to widen Placerita
Canyon Road? No
b. Is the City willing to delete requirements to
dedicate right of ways along Placerita Canyon Road
with or without the Lyons Avenue extension? Yes
C. Is the City willing to return existing right of
ways along Placerita Canyon Road with or without
the Lyons Avenue.Bypass? Yes
d. As Placerita Canyon Road now exists, would the
City be willing to allow some quick fixes such
as stop signs and decreased speed limits? not sure
e. If the Right of Ways on Placerita Cyn. Road are
given back to property owners, will Placerita
Canyon Road then be considered private? yes
f. If Placerita Cyn. Rd. is then private, can the
Placerita property owners put up stop signs and speed
limit signs? Can they also gate one end of the
road? yes
g. If Placerita Canyon Road is completely private,
will lthe City not be liable and no longer do
minimum maintenance on the road? yes
Page 3
h. Can the City assess Placerita property owners
for Lyons Avenue Extension without their approval? Yes
i. Is Placerita Canyon Road on the circulation element
of the General Plan? No
j. Is the portion of Rio Vista Road which would run
through Placerita Canyon adopted or proposed,
and can it be built at any time? No
k. Are you aware of any proposed projects large
enough to fund the entire Lyons Ave. Extension
which would be built on the ends of Placerita Canyon? No
1. Does the City Council have the authority -to remove
the proposed alternatives of Rio Vista Road? Yes
C. The option of not having the road at all was never presented.
III. The purpose of the vote was to get a consensus as to whether
Placerita Canyon.property owners were in favor or not in favor
of Lyons Avenue Extension.
A. The first motion should have been in regards to the.above
stated purpose.
B. A second motion could have been in regards to a choice
of alignments if the vote had been in favor of the road.
C. Because of the information presented and the motion given
to adopt the alignment down Dockweiler, many people who
were not in favor of a road at all felt they had to vote
for the lesser of the two evils: the alignment which
would,least affect the canyon.
IV. A Survey has been circulated which states whether or not
Placerity property owners are in favor of Lyons Avenue
extension. As of the date of the PCPOA meeting, 97 out of
111 oppose Lyons Avenue or Rio Vista Road in Placerita Canyon.
HIGHLIGHTS FROM THE PROJECT REPORT, LYONS AVENUE
EXTENSION, OCTOBER, 1991
RECEI VIE®
JUN 1-1 1992
..Since the Lyons Avenue extension would replace the east/west
leg of Rio Vista Road and a proposal to construct a north/south
route, designated as Santa Clarita Parkway, easterly of Rio Vista
Road, an analysis was conducted to evaluate how each of these
roadwaysaffectedthe Circulation Element. Each of these reviewed
and proposed routes is able to be acted upon individually and need
not be considered as a package." p. 1
"Upon further study, the Lyons Avenue extension could require a
grade separation across the Southern Pacific Railroad because
of the volume of traffic it is expected to carry." p.4
"The extension of Via Princessa to Wiley Canyon Road (see Figure 1.),
is necessary for San Fernando Road, Santa Clarita Parkway or
Rio Vista Road to function in the current Circulation.Element." p.4
"The construction of the Lyons Avenue extension in -and of itself
provides no significant benefit to the overall Circulation Element
but would reduce future traffic volumes on Placerita Canyon Road." p.4
(Cost --Only when
combined with another
roadway does
reduce in
cost/100 vehicle mile
trips. The
of itself
is very costly.)
Const. Cost
"Rio Vista
(Bouquet to Lyons)
0,000,000
Rio Vista
(Lyons to SR 14)
24 400 000
Rio Vista
(Total)
$ 00,000
Santa Clarita
Parkway
(Bouquet
to SR 14)
$48,000,000
Lyons Ave. Extension (San
Fernando Rd. to SR 14) $24,400,000*
Lyons Ave. Extension in Combina-
tion with Santa Clarita
Parkway $72,400,000
*Does not include right-of-way
separation at Lyons Avenue and
is required." p. 5
.Lyons Ave.
road in and
Cost/100 Vehicle
Mile Trips
.71
8.43
4.29
4.71
10.47
3.24
in the event that a grade
the Southern Pacific Railroad
"The Lyons Avenue extension provides an east/west corridor for traffic
moving between SR 14.and Interstate 5 (I-5). .This extension was
shown on the Circulation Element as the east/west continuation of
Rio Vista Road through Placerita Canyon. The current alternate
would be essentially in the same location, except there would be no
proposal for the construction of Rio Vista Road and thus no connection
to it. p.5
GDm/19 17r'.1_11D10_y c !may%5 POO
100. �2� rrne /-�, myna
Page 2
"...We also need to compare its cost to the relatively -low volume
of traffic it services." p. 6
" ..The Lyons Avenue extension has a minimal positive effect on the
Circulation Element." p. 6 1
"The most significant aspect of this alternative is the need to
provide for a crossing.of the Southern Pacific Railroad tracks.
This proposal would double the traffic flow at 13th Street. There-
fore, negotiations would have to be opened with the Public Utilities
Commission in support of an exchange of crossings, i.e., open a
crossing for the Lyons Avenue extension in'exchange for closing
the 13th Street crossing. In the worst case a grade separation
bridge may be required to extend Lyons as proposed. However, a
final ruling cannot be made until after a detailed proposal is
submitted based on the results of this study." p. 6
There is a proposal to substitute Santa Clarita Parkway for the
north/south leg of -Rio Vista Road.'.." -p. 9
"Since the Lyons Avenue Extension operates at a Level of Service A
as.a secondary highway, there is no advantage of constructing a
wider road. Only long-term future land density increases would
provide any advantage in constructing a wider roadway." p. 31
Lyons Avenue Extension Railroad Crossing
"Because of the expense of a grade separation (overpass/underpass)
and the competition for roadway funds, the extension of. Lyons
Avenue across the Southern Pacific Transportation Company Railroad
tracks has been proposed as an at -grade crossing similar to the
one that currently exists at 13th Street. However, recent experience
with similar proposals for at -grade crossings has shown that the
Public Utilities Commission may be resistant to this type of pro-
posal. Since an overpass/underpass can be between $6 and $12 million
more than an at -grade crossing, it has a significant affect on a
proposal which must cross railroad right-of-way.
lie discussed the proposal with representatives of the Public
Utillities Commission (PUC) who must approve all new crossings
and the two agencies which operate the trains on the right-of-way -
the Southern Pacific Transportation Company (SPTC) and the Southern
California Regional Rail Authority (SORRA)." p. 39
PUC - RAYMOND TOOHEY - SENIOR ENGINEER
"The PUC would be extremely reluctant in approving a new at -grade
crossing for the Lyons Avenue extension even though the 13th Street
at -grade crossing would be closed. The .likelihood of it being
approved is maybe 10%, that is if no�complaints or oppositions are
received. Opposition could come from the two agencies, i.e., SPTC
and SCRRA, who operate freight and passenger service on the line.
He also stated that the Federal Government wants 25% of all exist-
ing at -grade crossings closed. He mentioned that a grade separa-
tion would be backed 100% by the PUC and would be what they would
recommend." p. 39
Comm" 44 Pt,�OQr�
14.5. jz&. n_r_.. f�a,��mo✓��S
SPTC - BOB PRINCE
"He stated that Southern Pacific Transportation Co.
oppose any new at -grade crossing whether or not any
crossing -were closed in exchange. They would insist
separation and would participate with SPTC funds if
at -grade crossing were closed." p. 40
Page 3
would generally
existing grade
on a grade
our existing
SCRRA - RON MATHIEU - PUBLIC PROJECTS ENGINEER
"He mentioned the likelihood of them supporting any new at -grade
crossings is very small. They recently passed a resolution/policy
which -does not allow any new at -grade crossings. He also mentioned
that if possibly we had a,two-for-one swap they "might" consider it.
These discussions point out the need to develop a strategy and
thorough cost analysis of a grade separation of any proposals to '
extend Lyons Avenue easterly." p. 40
"It is clear that unless other infrastructure projects are delayed
or other sources of funds are made available, such as special
assessments, special taxes or bond issues, the Lyons Avenue Extension,
as well as other major roadway construction, remains unfunded for
the forseeable future." p. 42
G��/; _ L �rr
I`�S. pine fez twd"ds k XIN ;T o Pam 7 %
p4 ^j
CITY
-L
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY, JUNE 23, 1992
SUBJECT: Item $4 -- Lyons Avenue Extension Alignment
The Santa Clarita Valley Chamber of Commerce is very
supportive of the easterly extension of Lyons Avenue, from
San Fernando Road to Highway 14. Our Transportation
Committee has reviewed this proposal, and our Chamber has
previously expressed its support for the expeditious setting
of the appropriate alignment. Continuing the discussion on
this issue puts Master's College and all of the homeowners
along Placerita Canyon Road in a tenuous situation and
delays the ultimate completion of an important road.
We urge the Council to move forward in a timely fashion to
complete this critical component in our valley's circulation
system.
N6114 th I El E;'Ir
Vilma um jD kilo
June 22, 1992 Gm v v,%umlk'M'iA
TO ALL SANTA CLARITA VALLEY CITY -COUNCIL MEMBERS
6� s
Since Bob and I initiallyy�tie ltd PfaJeerita Canyon almost 20 years ago,
we have seen a consistently growing problem caused by the traffic here.
Though we no longer live in the Canyon, our business is right at the
mouth of Placerita, and this is�where..we spend the better part of our
day. So, we.are directly @#fected,by"this traffic problem. This sit-
uation is now being contributed to by City development, and growth. The
eventual improvements at 13th Street, and San Fernando Road coupled with
Incorporation of additional housing developments East of Highway 14 will
place an extreme hardship on those who live and work in Placerita Canyon.
The plan for this rural area never included all this traffic, by either
design or acquisition. Failure to plan now and alleviate the burden as
well as accompanying liability is tantamount to disaster, we feel. Are
we a City of indecision or inaction? I think not.
In the spirit of good planning we urge you to adopt the Lyons bypass
for Placerita Canyon. It just makes good sense. Ten thousand cars a
day on a 20 foot wide street just doesn't fly. We need more roads, not
less; emergency situations have proven this time after time.
An unfortunate by product of the wrong decision might be for the Canyon
to lose a very good neighbor, The Masters College. They have been good
neighbors to the whole community, and their facility is an attractive,
functional one which would be sorely missed if they were to fold. We
fear this would happen if the Lyons bypass is not adopted.
We urge you to consider the facts carefully, and -make this a win-win
situation for all concerned.
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Bob and Jami Kennedy