The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1997-04-08 - AGENDA REPORTS - NEWHALL METROLINK STATION (2)AGENDA REPORT City Manager Approi Item to be presented Ken Pulskamp PUBLIC HEARING DATE: April 8, 1997 SUBJECT: RAILROAD AVENUE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO, 95-065 NEWHALL METROLINK STATION RESOLUTION NOS. 97-33, 97-31, 97-23, 97-24, 97-25, 97-26, 97-27, 97-28, 97-29, 97-30, AND 97-32 DEPARTMENT: Building and Engineering Services On June 11, 1996, the City Council approved in concept the Newhall Downtown Revitalization Plan. A.major part of this program is the reconstruction of Railroad Avenue from San Fernando Road south of 4th Street to San Fernando Road at 11th Street. On July 9, 1996, Council awarded the design contract to HDR Engineering, Inc. Staff has held.three community meetings with the business and property owners along Railroad Avenue to inform the public about the proposed project and to gain input from the public relating to mitigating the effects of construction. The meetings were held on September 18, 1996, November 21, 1996, and March 6, 1997. On February 25, 1997, staff presented the Railroad Avenue Improvement Project and the Newhall Metrolink Station Project to the City Council. As directed by Council, staff has met with the property and business owners who brought their concerns to the attention of the Council during this meeting. Staff has also made further negotiations with the property owners whose property is to be acquired for the two projects. Most of the acquisitions will be acquired through agreements, but due to our time constraints for this project, staff recommends continuing the eminent domain process for acquiring the parcels in the event that future negotiations deteriorate and it is found necessary to obtain Orders of Immediate Possession. On March 11, 1997, Council authorized the advertising for bids for the Railroad Avenue Improvement Project. The project necessitates the acquisition of one full parcel and twenty-one (21) partial -takes of real property (Assessor's Parcel Nos. 2831-026-001 [full parcel]; 2831-026-900, 901, 904 through 913; 2831-007-028; 2831-010-038;2831-010-011; 2831-014-005; 2831-018-009; 2831-018-014 and 015; 2831-019-021; 2831-010-043 collectively referred to as "Property") for public street purposes and all uses appurtenant thereto. A Negative Declaration has been prepared for the project. AcFenda Item I/L RAILROAD AVENUE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 95-065 April 8, 1997 - Page 2 Attached is a list of property owners of each parcel proposed to be acquired. The Property is described and depicted on the exhibits attached to Resolution Nos. 97-23 through 97-32. Appraisals have been obtained for each parcel. Submitted with this staff report are copies of the offers to purchase the properties, which the City has made to the property owners. Such offers are required to be made pursuant to applicable law. In addition, submitted herewith are copies of the Notice of Hearing, which were delivered to the property owners by first class mail, in accordance with the applicable statutes. At this point, it is necessary for the City Council to conduct a public hearing to consider the adoption of the Resolutions of Necessity, which would authorize the filing of condemnation proceedings to acquire the Property. Notice of this hearing was timely, given in the manner prescribed by law. If the City Council finds that the public necessity so requires, after conducting the public hearing, the City Council should adopt the Resolutions of Necessity authorizing condemnation proceedings for the purpose of acquiring the parcels described in the draft of said Resolutions, which are attached. (Note: A 4/5 vote is required to adopt the Resolutions of Necessity.) The findings that need to be made are as set forth in a draft of the said Resolutions of Necessity. Questions relating to value should not be considered at this meeting as negotiations are ongoing. If the Council adopts the Resolutions of Necessity after the hearing, City staff will contact the property owners and continue to attempt to reach agreement on the value to be paid for the Property. A settlement can be made at any time during this process. After the adoption of the Resolutions of Necessity, the City then files an action and seeks an Order of Immediate Possession from the court. A deposit of the amount of the established fair market value must be made in court to obtain an order as to each property sought. One parcel acquisition requires the relocation of an existing business. The City is required to give a 90 -day notice to vacate if an Order of Immediate Possession is granted by the court. The Notice should be given this month, to allow the business to relocate by June 1997. Construction must begin in July 1997 to meet the schedule of 80 working days, in order to complete this project by November 1997, so all funds, including construction retention, are expended by January 1998. It is important to note that the funding for the Railroad Avenue Improvement Project will expire after January 1998. The Economic Development Administration (EDA) grant has been submitted for final approval. The closing date to submit an EDA grant for final approval has passed; therefore, the grant cannot be redirected to another project. The EDA funds would be lost should the Railroad Avenue Improvement Project be canceled due to lack of time. The Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) of $2,257,715 must also be expended by January 1998. Should the Railroad Avenue Improvement Project be canceled, the CDBG grant would immediately be reallocated to a different project. RAILROAD AVENUE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 95-065 April 8, 1997 - Page 3 MW - %3 Railroad Avenue Improvement Project (85 -Foot Right -of -Way) The proposed project will realign and widen Railroad Avenue from an existing 60 -foot right-of-way width to 85 feet. It would provide two travel lanes, one two-way left -turn lane, parking, sidewalks, landscaping, irrigation, and street lighting on the east and west sides of the street. The improvements on the east side of Railroad Avenue would accommodate service to a future Newhall Metrolink Station. This project would also upgrade the Market Street railroad crossing, interconnect the Market Street railroad crossing signals with the intersection of San Fernando Road and Market Street, and relocate an existing spur track adjacent to Railroad Avenue. The City Council: 1. Approve the location of the Newhall Metrolink Station site. 2. Conduct the public hearing, review the evidence presented, including this staff report and public comments, and close the hearing; and 3. Adopt Resolution No. 97-33 to approve the Negative Declaration for the Railroad Avenue Improvement Project, pursuant to Section 15070 of CEQA. 4. Adopt Resolution No. 97-31 of Necessity, authorizing the commencement of eminent domain proceeding so as to acquire the interests of Assessor's Parcel No. 2831-026-001 required for the widening and reconstruction of Railroad Avenue. 5. Adopt the following Resolutions of Necessity, authorizing the commencement of eminent domain proceeding so as to acquire the interests of the partial -take of the corresponding Assessor's Parcel Numbers required for the widening and reconstruction of Railroad Avenue: Resolution No. 97-23 A.P.N. 2831-026-900, 901, 904 through 913 Resolution No. 97-24 A.P.N. 2831-007-028 Resolution No. 97-25 A.P.N. 2831-010-038 Resolution No. 97-26 A.P.N. 2831-010-011 Resolution No. 97-27 A.P.N. 2831-014-005 Resolution No: 97-28 A.P.N. 2831-018-009 Resolution No. 97-29 A.P.N. 2831-018-014 and 015 Resolution No. 97-30 A.P.N. 2831-019-021 Resolution No. 97-32 A.P.N. 2831-010-043 RAILROAD AVENUE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 95-065 April 8, 1997 - Page 4 6. Direct the City Attorney to file the actions expeditiously; and Authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute all documents necessary for the acquisition. 8. Authorize the City Manager to make deposits of investment funds in amounts totaling approximately $1,400,000, made payable to the Superior Court Clerk, to obtain Orders of Immediate Possession for the purposes of acquisition of the land required for the Newhall Metrolink Station and right-of-way necessary for the construction of the Railroad Avenue Improvement Project. Resolution Nos. 97-33, 97-31, 97-23, 97-24, 97-25, 97-26, 97-27, 97-28, 97-29, 97-30, and 97-32 (Resolutions include exhibits that describe and depict the property) Negative Declaration List of Owners (keyed to Right -of -Way Map) Offers to Property Owners Notices of Hearing to Property Owners Eminent Domain Summary, EIS and Traffic Study - In Reading File in City Clerk's Office BEJ:vii .=Mar2950651ej City of Santa Clarita TO: 23920 Valencia Blvd. Phone Suite 300 (805) 259-2489 Santa Clanta Fax Califomia 91355-2196 (805) 259-8125 NOTICE OF HEARING NOTICE OF HEARING REGARDING THE INTENTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, A GENERAL LAW CITY, TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION OF NECESSITY FOR THE .ACQUISITION OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA. Ms. Cecelia Melanson, Manager Real Estate Services Metropolitan Transportation Authority 1 Gate Plaza Los Angeles, CA 90012 APN NO. 2831-026-900, 901, 904 through 913 - Right -of -Way between 4th Street and 11th Street YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 1230.010 et. Seq., that the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita intends to consider the adoption of a Resolution of Necessity for acquisition by eminent domain of certain real property (`Property"), which is described and depicted on Exhibits A-1, B-1, A-2 and B-2, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference for public street purposes and all uses appurtenant thereto, Railroad Avenue Improvement Project No. 95-065 and Newhall Metrolink Station ("Project"). The hearing will.be held on March 11, 1997 at 6:30 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the City Council can hear said matter, at the City of Santa Clarita Council Chambers, located at 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita, California 91355. You as a person claiming or having an interest in and to the Property are hereby notified that you have the right to appear and be heard on the issues to be considered at that hearing. The issues which will be considered are as follows: MUM ON RECYCLED PAPER NOTICE OF HEARING Page 2 The issues which will be considered are as follows: 1. Whether or not the public interest and necessity require the Project; 2. Whether or not the Projects is planned or located in the manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury; 3. Whether or not the Property sought to be acquired is necessary for the Project; and 4. Whether or not the offer required by Government Code Section 7267.2 has been made to the owner or owners of record. If you wish to be heard at this hearing, you MUST FILE A WRITTEN REQUEST indicating your intent to appear and be heard, within fifteen (15) days of the mailing of this notice by filing or deliver that written request to the City Clerk, City of Santa Clarita, at 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 300, Santa Clarita, California 91355. You may use the enclosure for the purpose of notifying the City of your intent and desire to be heard. Your Ulure to timely file a written reau s . to appear and be heard may result in a waiver of your right to behe rd. For further information, contact Bonnie Joseph at City Hall at (805) 2864139. . 7 / nt Anthony J.1)ii i IZ Director of 'I . g & Engineering Services Date: February 24, 1997 RAILROAD AVENUE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT/ NEWHALL METROLINK STATION RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON REVISED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION INTRODUCTION Questions have arisen related to the four scenarios described in the comprehensive traffic study prepared in conjunction with the project. The project before the Council tonight represents one scenario (Scenario 2). The other three scenarios analyzed in the study were included in the report to address community input regarding the ability of the improved Railroad Avenue to accommodate traffic generated by the Newhall Metrolink Station, future growth unrelated to the Station, and a potential reduction in lanes on San Fernando Road if the Freedman Plan is implemented. These three scenarios, while not part of the project, do illustrate that the improvement of Railroad Avenue will accommodate traffic generated from the station, future growth, and the reduction in lanes on San Fernando Road. Mitigation identified in the three scenarios is not needed to accommodate the Newhall Metrolink Station or the reconstruction of Railroad Avenue. Responses to the issues cited in the Reznik and Reznik letter dated April 7 1997 1) The Mitigated Negative Declaration does not address the impacts that the increased regional through -traffic on Railroad Avenue will have on the area. Response: As described in the Traffic Study under Scenario 2, the improvement of Railroad Avenue and the construction and operation of the Metrolink Station are not expected to result in a significant increase in through -traffic on Railroad Avenue. Instead, the project will result in the redistribution of traffic in the area. 2) The Mitigated Negative Declaration does not address the impacts that the designation of Railroad Avenue as a truck route will have on the area. Response: For clarification purposes, designation of Railroad Avenues as a truck route is not proposed with this project. Scenario 3 in the Traffic Study, which included reducing the number of travel lanes in San Fernando Road from four to two, would include shifting truck traffic from San Fernando Road to Railroad Avenue. Such a reduction in travel lanes is not a part of this project. 3) The traffic analysis concludes that the Metrolink Station might impact intersections along San Fernando Road, and in worst-case scenarios, could reach LOS (Level of Service) "D." Response: The traffic study, in fact concludes that the Railroad Avenue project provides all of the necessary roadway facilities for adequate Metrolink Station access. One intersection, San Fernando Road and Newhall Ave, would be at a LOS "D" in the PM peak hour. However, this intersection is presently at a LOS "D" in the PM peak, and the project will not better or worsen this condition. Table 2 within the Traffic Study clearly shows tl&t=00mentA t,'a? ilroad PART OF THERECORDAT 1 4 i MEETING ITEM NO < <- Avenue result in improved volume -to -capacity ratios at all of the intersections along San Fernando Road and, in most cases, improves the LOS as well. With the addition of the Metrolink Station, all of the intersections along San Fernando Road continue to operate at improved volume -to -capacity ratios compared to existing conditions. 4) The traffic analysis concludes that the Metrolink Station would "significantly" impact intersections on Railroad Avenue, specifically the intersection of Railroad Avenue/11th Street/San Fernando Road, reducing it from LOS "A" to -B." Response: Table 4 in the Traffic Study indicates that the LOS for the above referenced intersection will go from "A" to "B" in the AM peak hour and considers this to be significant in relation to intersection operating levels. LOS "A" indicates that an intersection is operating at an excellent level. LOS "B" indicates that an intersection is operating at a very good level. This reduction in the level of operation does not constitute a significant impact on traffic and circulation within the area. Additionally, the traffic study concludes that this intersection is being designed to handle Metrolink -generated traffic and that no additional capacity is necessary. Other intersections along Railroad Avenue remain are not significantly impacted by the project and would operate at very acceptable LOS. 5) The initial study identifies the loss of 121 parking spaces. Contrary to the initial study, sufficient on -street parking will not be provided for the following reasons: The "observed" demand is based on the existing baseline need for parking; upon completion of the Metrolink Station the demand will "surge" far beyond the existing level and staff claimed that parking lots constructed in conjunction with the station will provide additional parking on evenings and weekends to serve existing businesses now.utilizing parking on Railroad Avenue, but their hours of operation are primarily those when the Metrolink lots would be full. Response: Under the proposed project, no on -street parking would be eliminated along Railroad Avenue. A reduction in parking spaces, if it occurs at all, will only occur if Railroad Avenue is striped for four travel lanes in conjunction with a future reduction in lanes on San Fernando Road. Reducing travel lanes on San Fernando Road is not apart of this project. As part of this project, parking will be improved --parking spaces would change from informal angle parking spaces to parallel parking spaces within the road. The 208 parking spaces proposed on the Metrolink site will be sufficient to accommodate the expected number of station users. 6) The Mitigated Negative Declaration fails to address the impacts from increased traffic to children who cross Railroad Avenue on the way to school. Response: An ancillary part of the project includes the provision of sidewalks on Railroad Avenue and Market Street. Additionally, the project includes signalization of several intersections along Railroad Avenue. Both of these factors are expected to improve safety in the area. 7) Other impacts that have not been studied or mitigated include: a) _- -Increased air pollution from the locomotives. b) Increases air pollution from the increase auto traffic the Metrolink Station will bring. c) Construction noise d) Construction traffic congestion Response: (a) There will be a total of 18 stop and starts from the Newhall Metrolink Station (nine in the morning and nine in the evening). Increased emissions produced by these stops and starts is not considered to be significant. (b) The implementation of the Metrolink Station is expected to have a positive impact on regional air quality by reducing vehicle miles of travel and associated levels of congestion. Additionally, it is expected that the proposed project will improve traffic flow and level of service along San Fernando Road with the result that any sensitive receptors in the area will be exposed to the same or lesser levels of emissions than under current conditions. (c) The Initial Study discusses potential short-term increases in noise levels attributable to site construction, however, noise -sensitive land uses are either sufficiently distant from the project site or separated from it by the Metrolink tracks and Pine Street so as not to be significantly impacted by the project. (d) The Initial Study discusses a potential for traffic congestion due to construction of the project; however, the study indicates that construction will be staged and access will be provided to all of the businesses along Railroad Avenue during construction. Therefore, this impact is not considered significant. 8) The Initial Study displays only token observance of regulatory requirements. It fails to: (a) Note the source or the content of the data relied upon for its conclusions. (b) Explain the proposed mitigation measures "implied" by checking the box "potentially significant impact unless mitigation incorporated." (c) Record consultation with other. agencies, including but not limited to Caltrans, with respect to the safety and feasibility of the new intersections. (d) CEQA requires the project to be revised to include mitigation measures before the Mitigated Negative Declaration is released for public review; no mitigation measures are incorporated into the Negative Declaration. Response: (a) Where sources are not specifically listed within the Initial Study, they are based upon staff expertise and consultation with affected City Departments and outside agencies. Additionally, the General Plan, Zoning Code, Traffic Study, Caltrans, and the SCRRA are all cited as sources within the document. 9) (b and d) The Initial Study does identify a potentially significant impact in the Hazards Section of the document. The related text providesthemitigation measure requiring the City's Transit Division to prepare a Phase II Environmental Assessment and to ensure that the recommendations of this assessment related to soil contamination be cleaned -up prior to site construction. (c) Consultation with Caltrans and other agencies is recorded as part of the Notice of Completion, which was prepared on March 6, 1997. Responses to the Caltrans Comments City staff responded to the comments from Caltrans in a letter dated April 4, 1997. Those comments and the responses are attached to this document. Responses to the letter from Richard Freeland The issues cited in this letter are covered in the above responses. GEAiw nwh1rdv\reep448.Va RESOLUTION NO. 97-33 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION PREPARED FOR THE RAILROAD AVENUE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 95-065 AND NEWHALL METROLINK STATION PROJECT WHEREAS, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The City Council does hereby find, determine and declare: A. That an Initial Study has been prepared for the project and that said study found that no adverse impact to the existing and future environmental resources of the area would result from the proposal with the addition of a mitigation measure to remediate possible pollution per recommendations of the Phase II Environmental Site Assessment; and B. That the potential significant impact of pollution on the site can be reduced to a level less than significant through the following mitigation measure: A Phase 1 environmental site assessment has been completed for the Metrolink station site. This assessment identified a potential for contamination. A Phase II site assessment is required. The Transit Division of the City will remediate any contamination identified during the Phase II assessment prior to site construction (Mitigation Measure developed by the Community Development Department based on information in the Phase I environmental site assessment); and C. That a proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration was posted and advertised on March 7, 1997 in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and D. That the Initial Study includes the determination that the proposed project would not impact resources protected by the California Department of Fish and Game, and that a finding of de minimus impact on such resources was appropriate; and E. That the City Council received a presentation on the Railroad Avenue Improvement Project on February 25, 1997. Staff presented the Council with an overview of the project. No action was taken at this meeting. F. That the City Council conducted a public hearing on March 11, 1997, and continued the hearing to a date certain of April 8, 1997, pursuant to applicable law, to consider Railroad Avenue Improvement Project No..95-065 and the Newhall Metrolink Station Project. The project includes the reconstruction of Railroad Avenue from San Fernando Road south of 4th Street to San Fernando Road at 11th Street and development of a Metrolink Station. The project will require the acquisition of 21 partial -takes of property and the acquisition of one full parcel. { G. Based upon the testimony and other evidence received, the Council further finds an"etermines that the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration is consistent with the goals.and policies of the adopted General Plan, and that the Mitigated Negative Declaration complies with all other applicable requirements of State law and local guidelines. H. Based upon foregoing facts and findings, the City Council hereby determines that a Mitigated Negative Declaration is in compliance with CEQA and that the proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment with the mitigation measure as identified in the document. SECTION 2. The Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project is hereby approved and a mitigationmonitoring program is hereby adopted. The program shall ensure compliance with the mitigation measure set forth in the discussion at Section D{.a.c.d., pages 19, of the Environmental Assessment, to wit, a Phase II site assessment. The agency responsible for the implementation of the measure, the timing of the implementation and other program particulars are set forth in said Section DX.a.c.d. discussion. The Director of Community Development is hereby directed to file the Notice of Determination with the County Clerk of the County of Los Angeles and a mitigation monitoring program is hereby adopted. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of 19_, MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) § CITY OF SANTA CLARITA ) I, Sharon L. Dawson, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita at a regular meeting thereof, held on the day of , 19_ by the following vote of Council: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: . COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: CITY CLERK .0 99.0733.,. RESOLUTION NO. 97-31 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT THE PUBLIC INTEREST, CONVENIENCE, AND NECESSITY REQUIRE THE ACQUISITION OF CERTAIN PROPERTY FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES (RAILROAD AVENUE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT AND NEWHALL METROLINK STATION PROJECT) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA does hereby resolve as follows: SECTION 1. The City Council of the City of Santa Clarita ("City") hereby finds, determines, and declares as follows: A. The public interest, convenience, and necessity require the acquisition by said City of certain real property ('Property') hereafter described, which is located in the City for Metrolink Station and public street purposes and all uses appurtenant thereto ('Project"); and B. The Project is planned and located in a manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and least private injury; and C. The taking of the Property is necessary for the stated Project and such taking is authorized by Section 19, Article I of the California Constitution, Section 37350 et sea. and Section 40401 et sea., of the California Government Code, Section 1230.010 et sea., of the California Code of Civil Procedure, and other applicable law; and D. The offers to purchase required by California Government Code Section 7267.2 have been made to each owner of the Property proposed to be acquired by the City. SECTION 2. The City Council of the City hereby declares that it is its intention to acquire the Property in its name in accordance with the provision of the laws of the State of California with reference to condemnation procedures, for Metrolink Station and public street purposes, and all uses appurtenant thereto. SECTION 3. That if any portion of the Property has been appropriated to some public use, the public use to which they are to be applied by the City, as described above, are more necessary and paramount public uses. SECTION 4. The acquisition of the Property which is required by said public interest, convenience, and necessity for the purposes set forth in Section 1 hereof, is located in the City of Santa Clarita, County of Los Angeles, State of California, and is more particularly described on Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, as set forth in full. SECTION 5. The City Attorney and the firm of Burke, Williams & Sorensen, as special counsel, under the direction of the City Attorney, are authorized and directed to prepare, institute, and prosecute in the name of the City such proceedings in the proper Court having jurisdiction thereof as may be necessary for the acquisition of said Property described in Section 4. SECTION 6. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution. SECTION 7. This Resolution shall be effective immediately upon its adoption. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of '19 MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) § CITY OF SANTA CLARITA ) I, Sharon L. Dawson, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita at a regular meeting thereof, held on the _ day of 19_ by the following vote of Council: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: CITY CLERK BEJ:vjj eng-ch %954065 %xrWhl .pr; EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION THE LAND REFERRED TO HEREIN IS SITUATED IN THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: THAT PORTION OF RANCHO SAN FRANCISCO, IN THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, AS SHOWN ON MAP RECORDED IN BOOK I PAGES 521 AND 522 OF PATENTS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, AS DESCRIBED IN THE DEED TO SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD, RECORDED ON MARCH 29, 1879, IN BOOK 67 PAGE 321 OF DEEDS, IN THE OFFICE OF SAID RECORDER. EXCEPTING THEREFROM ALL MINERALS AND MINERAL RIGHTS INTERESTS, AND ROYALTIES, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITING, THE GENERALITY HEREOF, OIL, GAS AND OTHER HYDROCARBON SUBSTANCES, AS WELL AS METALLIC OR OTHER SOLID MINERALS, IN AND UNDER THE PROPERTY, HOWEVER, GRANTOR OR ITS SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS, SHALL NOT HAVE THE RIGHT FOR ANY PURPOSE WHATSOEVER TO ENTER UPON, INTO OR THROUGH THE SURFACE OF THE PROPERTY IN CONNECTION THEREWITH, AS RESERVED IN THE DEED RECORDED AUGUST 15, 1991 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 91-1294556, OFFICIAL RECORDS. RESOLUTION NO. 97-23 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT THE PUBLIC INTEREST, CONVENIENCE, AND NECESSITY REQUIRE THE ACQUISITION OF CERTAIN PROPERTY FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES (RAILROAD AVENUE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT AND NEWHALL METROLINK STATION PROJECT) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA does hereby resolve as follows: SECTION 1. The City Council of the City of Santa Clarita ("City") hereby finds, determines, and declares as follows: A. The public interest, convenience, and necessity require the acquisition by said City of certain real property ('Property") hereafter described, which is located in the City for Metrolink Station and public street purposes and all uses appurtenant thereto ('Project"); and B. The Project is planned and located in a manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and least private injury; and C. The taking of the Property is necessary for the stated Project and such taking is authorized by Section 19, Article I of the California Constitution, Section 37350 et seq. and Section 40401 et sea., of the California Government Code, Section 1230.010 et sea., of the California Code of Civil Procedure, and other applicable law; and D. The offers to purchase required by California Government Code Section 7267.2 have been made to each owner of the Property proposed to be acquired by the City. SECTION 2. The City Council of the City hereby declares that it is its intention to acquire the Property in its name in accordance with the provision of the laws of the State of California with reference to condemnation procedures, for Metrolink Station and public street purposes, and all uses appurtenant thereto. SECTION 3. That if any portion of the Property has been appropriated to some public use, the public use to which they are to be applied by the City, as described above, are more necessary and paramount public uses. SECTION 4. The acquisition of the Property which is required by said public interest, convenience, and necessity for the purposes set forth in Section 1 hereof, is located in the City of Santa Clarita, County of Los Angeles, State of California, and is more particularly described on Exhibits A-1 and A-2, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, as set forth in full. A map showing the general location of the Property is attached hereto, marked Exhibits B-1 and B-2 and incorporated herein by this reference and made a part hereof. SECTION 5. The City Attorney and the firm of Burke, Williams & Sorensen, as special counsel, under the direction of the City Attorney, are authorized and directed to prepare, institute, and prosecute in the name of the City such proceedings in the proper Court having jurisdiction thereof as may be necessary for the acquisition of said Property described in Section 4. SECTION 6. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution. SECTION 7.This Resolution shall be effective immediately upon its adoption. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of '19 MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) § CITY OF SANTA CLARITA ) I, Sharon L. Dawson, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita at a regular meeting thereof, held on the _ day of 19_ by the following vote of Council: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: CITY CLERK BEJ:vjj mg-dvi\ 95-066\mans.pri EXHI31T A -L LEGAL DESCRIPTION THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTHERN PACIFIC RIGHT OF WAY, IN THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON A.MAP OF THE TOWN OF NEWHALL RECORDED IN BOOK 53, PAGES 21 AND 22 OF MISCELLANEOUS RECORDS IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE CENTERLINE OF 4TH STREET WITH THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF RAILROAD AVENUE, SAID LINE ALSO BEING THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF THE SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD RIGHT of WAY; THENCE S 32015153" E 298.40 FEET ALONG SAID LINE TO A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SAN FERNANDO ROAD, SAID POINT BEING THE WESTERLY TERMINUS OF THAT CERTAIN COURSE WHICH BEARS "S62030'24"E 183.80"' AS SHOWN ON STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RIGHT OF WAY MAP No. P4068 -1 -11 -SAID POINT ALSO BEING THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE S 62018'45" E 27.96 FEET ALONG SAID LINE TO A LINE -WHICH IS PARALLEL WITH AND DISTANT NORTHEASTERLY 14.00 FEET FROM THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF RAILROAD AVENUE; THENCE N 32015'53" W 912.52 FEET ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 509.72 FEET; THENCE NORTHERLY 119.60 FEET ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 13026136" TO A POINT ON THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF RAILROAD AVENUE; THENCE S 32015'53" E 1006.81 FEET ALONG SAID LINE TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. EXHIBIT D-1 CURVE DATA L -13'16'36' R =509.72 L -119.60 SANTA CLARITA - RAILROAD AVENUE AREA - W.715 SQUARE FEET SCALE 1' - 120' EXISTING C/L SPRR R/W ® S 3275'53' E PROPOSED RAILROAD AVENUE R/W ................ . N 327553 W - R RAILROAD AVEIM CENTERLINE 1006.81 - i m, - � OZ- AVEAOEZU71fRt�FE- �`�� I �• i �. r �- I' ( I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 L1_I_LJ I� 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I i l l l l l l l I I I I I I I I I I I I I LLI-LL1_I_LI-I-LIJ FERNANDO ROAD r-r7-1-ri-I-r-r-I-r7-1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I M I I I I- I• I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I LL1_I_L1_I_L1_i-L1J i EXHIBIT A-2 LEGAL DESCRIPTION THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTHERN PACIFIC.RIGHT OF WAY, IN THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON A MAP OF THE.TOWN OF NEWHALL RECORDED IN BOOK 53, PAGES 21 AND 22 OF MISCELLANEOUS RECORDS IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE EASTERLY CORNER OF BLOCK 9 OF SAID TOWN OF NEWHALL; THENCE N 57036'57" E 60.00 FEET ALONG. THE NORTHEASTERLY PROLONGATION OF THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID. BLOCK TO A POINT ON THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF RAILROAD AVENUE AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF SAID TOWN OF NEWHALL; THENCE S 32°21'59" E 731.68.FEET ALONG SAID NORTHEASTERLY LINE TO A POINT ON A NON -TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE NORTHWESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 509.72 FEET, TO WHICH POINT A RADIAL LINE BEARS N 71005'36" E, SAID POINT BEING THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTHERLY 119.74,FEET ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 13027'35" TO A POINT ON A LINE PARALLEL WITH AND DISTANT 14.00 FEET NORTHEASTERLY FROM THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID RAILROAD AVENUE; THENCE N 32021159" W 896.63 FEET ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 1394.35 FEET; THENCE NORTHERLY 158.10 FEET ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 06°29'48" TO THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE CURVE CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 1394.35 FEET; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY 11.38 -FEET ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 00"28'03" TO A POINT ON THE NORTHEASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF RAILROAD AVENUE, SAID LINE BEARS "N 57°31145" E 5.00"t AS SHOWN ON STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RIGHT OF WAY MAP No. P4068-1-7, TO WHICH POINT A RADIAL LINE BEARS S 51036116" W; THENCE S 57038101" W 3.80 FEET ALONG SAID RIGHT OF WAY LINE TO AN ANGLE POINT ON SAID LINE; THENCE S 32°21159" E 1184.34 FEET ALONG SAID NORTHEASTERLY. LINE TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. SANTA CLARITA - RAILROAD AVENUE AREA = 15,452 SQUARE FEET MORE OR LESS N5T38'01'E N57*38'01'E 3.87 QD CURVE DATA � � y YIP ib CURVE DATA R =1 Ir1m 1 n, N57*38'01'E 3.87 QD CURVE DATA A =0'28'03" CURVE DATA R =1 r,'A =6'2948" L =11.361.36 �'� " R -1394.35 P� L =158.10 -757MOVE 3.80"C-1 p PROP= EXHIBIT B-2 ------------------- J -- ------- it EXISTING q flAIL AD AVE T 1 � 1 � 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 K NO SCALE A =13'27'3 R =509.72 L =119.74 i - .------------------------ijDY 1 1 1 ' I 1 ' I I i' I I ' I IN a10 i 1 RESOLUTION NO, 97-24 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT THE PUBLIC INTEREST, CONVENIENCE, AND NECESSITY REQUIRE THE ACQUISITION OF CERTAIN PROPERTY FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES (RAILROAD AVENUE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA does hereby resolve as follows: SECTION 1. The City Council of the City of Santa Clarita ("City") hereby finds, determines, and declares as follows: A. The public interest, convenience, and necessity require the acquisition by said City of certain real property ("Property") hereafter described, which is located in the City for public street purposes and all uses appurtenant thereto ("Project"); and B. The Project is planned and located in a manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and least private injury; and C. The taking of the Property is necessary for the stated Project and such taking is authorized by Section 19, Article I of the California Constitution, Section 37350 et sea. and Section 40401 et sea., of the California Government Code, Section 1230.010 et sea., of the California Code of Civil Procedure, and other applicable law; and D. The offers to purchase required by California Government Code Section 7267.2 have been made to each owner of the Property proposed to be acquired by the City. SECTION 2. The City Council of the City hereby declares that it is its intention to acquire the Property in its name in accordance with the provision of the laws of the State of California with reference to condemnation procedures, for public street purposes, and all uses appurtenant thereto. SECTION 3. That if any portion of the Property has been appropriated to some public use, the public use to which they are to be applied by the City, as described above, are more necessary and paramount public uses. SECTION 4. The acquisition of the Property which is required by said public interest, convenience, and.necessity for the purposes set forth in Section 1 hereof, is located in the City of Santa Clarita, County of Los Angeles, State of California, and is more particularly described on Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, as set forth in full. A map showing the general location of the Property is attached hereto, marked Exhibit B and incorporated herein by this reference and made a part hereof. SECTION 5. The City Attorney and the firm of Burke, Williams & Sorensen, as special counsel, under the direction of the City Attorney, are authorized and directed to prepare, institute, and prosecute in the name of the City such proceedings in the proper Court having jurisdiction thereof as may be necessary for the acquisition of said Property described in Section 4. SECTION 6. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution. SECTION 7. This Resolution shall be effective immediately upon its adoption. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of 119 1707. "M ATTEST: CITY CLERK STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) § CITY OF SANTA CLARITA ) I, Sharon L. Dawson, CMC; City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita at a regular meeting thereof, held on the _ day of 19_ by the following vote of Council: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: CITY CLERK BEJ:vjj eng-avi\95-065\rrallres.pri EXHIBIT A 2831-7-28 THOSEPORTIONSOF LOTS 11 AND 12 OF BLOCK 16 OF THE TOWN OF NEWHALL IN THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON A MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 53, PAGES 21 AND 22 OF MISCELLANEOUS RECORDS IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: A SPANDREL SHAPED PARCEL OF LAND BOUNDED NORTHEASTERLY BY THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID BLOCK, BOUNDED SOUTHEASTERLY BY THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID BLOCK, AND BOUNDED WESTERLY BY THE ARC OF A CURVE CONCAVE WESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 29.00 FEET, BEING TANGENT TO SAID NORTHEASTERLY AND SOUTHEASTERLY LINES OF BLOCK 16. AREA = 181 SQ. FT. MORE OR LESS EXHIBIT B PROPOSED � RAILROAD AVE. SANTA CLARITA - RAILROAD AVENUE APN 2831-7-28 AREA = 181 SQUARE FEET MORE OR LESS SCALE 1" = 10' - -EXISTING Q RAILROAD AVE. �� S 32.14'54' E — -- — — — — — — — — — EXISTING R/W 29.00' = '00'00 =4024.00'' R R 1 � L =4i5Y �- 16 n 0 f c 12. 10- 11 1 � wl �- c n 0 f c W N �I o Z 0- 0 Qf 0 - ST W► � i Ln i 1 ? 3 �- 5 RESOLUTION NO. 97-25 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT THE PUBLIC INTEREST, CONVENIENCE, AND NECESSITY REQUIRE THE ACQUISITION OF CERTAIN PROPERTY FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES (RAILROAD AVENUE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA does hereby resolve as follows: SECTION 1. The City Council of the City of Santa Clarita ("City") hereby finds, determines, and declares as follows: A. The public interest, convenience, and necessity require the acquisition by said City of certain real property ('Property') hereafter described, which is located in the City for public street purposes and all uses appurtenant thereto ('Project"); and B. The Project is planned and located in a manner that.will be most compatible with the greatest public good and least private injury; and C. The taking of the Property is necessary for the stated Project and such taking is authorized by Section 19, Article I of the California Constitution, Section 37350 et seq. and Section 40401 et seq., of the California Government Code, Section 1230.010 et sea.; of the California Code of Civil Procedure, and other applicable law; and D. The offers to purchase required by California Government Code Section 7267.2 have been made to each owner of the Property proposed to be acquired by the City. SECTION 2. The City Council of the City hereby declares that it is its intention to acquire the Property in its name in accordance with the provision of the laws of the State of California with reference to condemnation procedures, for public street purposes, and all uses appurtenant thereto. SECTION 3. That if any portion of the Property has been appropriated to some public use, the public use to which they are to be applied by the City, as described above, are more necessary and paramount public uses. SECTION 4. The acquisition of the Property which is required by .said public interest, convenience, and necessity for the purposes set.forth in Section 1 hereof, is located in the City of Santa Clarita, County of Los Angeles, State of California, and is more particularly described on Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, as set forth in full. A map showing the general location of the Property is attached hereto, marked Exhibit B and incorporated herein by this reference and made a part hereof. SECTION 5. The City Attorney and the firm of Burke, Williams & Sorensen, as special counsel, under the direction of the City Attorney, are authorized and directed to prepare, institute, and prosecute in the name of the City such proceedings in the proper Court having jurisdiction thereof as may be necessary for the acquisition of said Property described in Section 4. SECTION 6. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution. SECTION 7. This Resolution shall be effective immediately upon its adoption. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of 119— MAYOR 19_ MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CITY OF SANTA CLARITA I, Sharon L. Dawson, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita at a regular meeting thereof, held on the _ day of 19_ by the following vote of Council: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: CITY CLERK BEJ:vjj eng-avi\ 95-065\rrailree.pri EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION APN No. 2831-010-038 THAT PORTION OF LOT 1 OF BLOCK 18 OF THE TOWN OF NEWHALL, IN THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, COUNTY.OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA,. AS SHOWN ON A MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 53, PAGES 21 AND 22 OF MISCELLANEOUS RECORDS IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS; BEGINNING AT THE EAST CORNER OF SAID LOT; THENCE N 32014'54" W 15.00 FEET ALONG THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID BLOCK TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING, SAID POINT BEING THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 14.00 FEET; THENCE WESTERLY 11.14 FEET ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE'OF 45034'40" TO A POINT ON THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID BLOCK, TO WHICH POINT A RADIAL LINE BEARS N 12°10'26" E; THENCE N 57°44'07" E 4.20 FEET ALONG SAID LINE TO THE NORTH CORNER OF SAID BLOCK; THENCE S 32014'54"E 10.00 FEET ALONG THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID BLOCK TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. AREA =13 SQ. FT. MORE OR LESS y EXHIBIT 3 APN N0. 2831-010-038 PROPOSED C/L RAILROAD AVE I S 32'14'54" E W 9 SANTA.CLARITA - RAILROAD AVENUE AREA = "13 SQUARE FEET SCALE 1• = 10' 0 EXISTING CA ,RAILROAD AVE 0 M EXISTING ti PROPOSED R/W RAIL A =45'34'40' \`'yo• R =14.00' L =11.14' W \ rlCl \ 18 V' Y N Z 2 L W AVE RESOLUTION NO. 97-26 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT THE PUBLIC INTEREST, CONVENIENCE, AND NECESSITY REQUIRE THE ACQUISITION OF CERTAIN PROPERTY FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES (RAILROAD AVENUE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA does hereby resolve as follows: SECTION 1. The City Council of the City of Santa Clarita ("City') hereby finds, determines, and declares as follows: A. The public interest, convenience, and necessity require the acquisition by said City of certain real property ('Property") hereafter described, which is located in the City for public street purposes and all uses appurtenant thereto ('Project"); and B. The Project is planned and located in a manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and least private injury; and C. The taking of the Property is necessary for the stated Project and such taking is authorized by Section 19, Article I of the California Constitution, Section 37350 et seq. and Section 40401 et sea., of the California Government Code, Section 1230.010 et seq., of the California Code of Civil Procedure, and other applicable law; and D. The offers to purchase required by California Government Code Section 7267.2 have been made to each owner of the Property proposed to be acquired by the City. SECTION 2. The City Council of the City hereby declares that it is its intention to acquire the Property in its name in accordance with the provision of the laws of the State of California with reference to condemnation procedures, for public street purposes, and'all uses appurtenant thereto. SECTION 3. That if any portion of the Property has been appropriated to some public use, the public use to which they are to be applied by the City, as described above, are more necessary and paramount public uses. SECTION 4. The acquisition of the Property which is required by said -public interest, convenience, and necessity for the purposes set forth in Section 1 hereof, is located in the City of Santa Clarita, County of Los Angeles, State of California, and is more particularly described on Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, as set forth in full. A map showing the general location. of the Property is attached hereto, marked Exhibit B and incorporated herein by this reference and made a part hereof. SECTION 5.. The City Attorney and the firm of Burke, Williams & Sorensen, as special counsel, under the direction of the City Attorney, are authorized and directed to prepare, institute, and prosecute in the name of the City such proceedings in the proper Court having jurisdiction thereof as may be necessary for the acquisition of said Property described in Section 4. SECTION 6. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution. SECTION 7. This Resolution shall be effective immediately upon its adoption. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of 119 ATTEST: CITY CLERK STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) § CITY OF SANTA CLARITA ) I, Sharon L. Dawson, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita at a regular meeting thereof, held on the _ day of 19_ by the following vote of Council: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: CITY CLERK BEJ:vjj eng-mvi\95-965 Nmmlm .pri EXHIBIT A 2831-10-11 THOSE PORTIONS OF LOTS 11 AND 12 OF BLOCK 18 OF THE TOWN OF NEWHALL, IN THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS_SHOWN ON A MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 53, PAGES 21 AND 22 OF MISCELLANEOUS RECORDS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE -EASTERLY CORNER OF SAID BLOCK 18; THENCE N 32°14'54" W 10.00 FEET ALONG THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID BLOCK 18 TO.THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUING N 32°14154" W ALONG SAID NORTHEASTERLY LINE, 40.00 FEET TO THE NORTHERLY CORNER OF SAID LOT; THENCE S 57043'47" W 2.85 FEET ALONG- THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 11, TO THE BEGINNING OF A NON -TANGENT CURVE, CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 435.73 FEET, THROUGH WHICH POINT A RADIAL LINE BEARS N 64019109"E; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY 26.35 FEET ALONG SAID CURVE TO THE BEGINNING OF A COMPOUND CURVE, CONCAVE WESTERLY AND.HAVING A RADIUS OF 29.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY 40.45 FEET ALONG SAID CURVE TO THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF LOT 12; THENCE N 57043'47" E 29.20 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF ATANGENT CURVE, CONCAVE WESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS'OF 10.00 FEET; THENCE NORTHERLY 15.72 FEET ALONG SAID CURVE TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. AREA = 428 SQ. FT. MORE OR LESS PROPOSED RAILROAD AVE. EXISTING q RAILROAD AVE. - 0 v EXISTING R 18 ZaT EXHIBIT B SANTA CLARITA - RAILROAD AVENUE APN 2831-10-11 AREA = 428 SQUARE FEET MORE OR LESS S 3214'54" E o� M 4x00' 91 10111 -lwJ 10 SCALE i" = 10' S 3215'46" E i Lu U-1 W� ^cf) z�co � o wl al CL a 91 10111 -lwJ 10 SCALE i" = 10' S 3215'46" E i Lu U-1 W� ^cf) z�co RESOLUTION NO. 97-27 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT THE PUBLIC INTEREST, CONVENIENCE, AND NECESSITY REQUIRE THE ACQUISITION OF CERTAIN PROPERTY FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES (RAILROAD AVENUE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA does hereby resolve as follows: SECTION 1. The City Council of the.City of Santa Clarita ("City') hereby finds, determines, and declares as follows: A. The public interest, convenience, and necessity require the acquisition by. said City of certain real property ("Property') hereafter described, which is located in the City for public street purposes and all uses appurtenant thereto ("Project"); and B. The Project is planned and located in a manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and least private injury; and C. The taking of the Property isnecessaryfor the stated Project and such taking is authorized by Section 19, Article I of the California Constitution, Section 37350 et sea. and Section 40401 et sea., of the. California Government Code, Section 1230.010 et seg., of the California Code of Civil Procedure, and other applicable law; and D. The offers to purchase required by California Government Code Section 7267.2 have been made to each owner of the Property proposed to be acquired by the City. SECTION 2. The City Council of the City hereby declares that it is its intention to acquire the Property in its name in accordance with the provision of the laws of the State of California with reference to condemnation procedures, for. public street purposes, and all uses appurtenant thereto. SECTION 3. That if any portion of the Property has been appropriated to some public use, the public use to which they are to be applied by the City, as described above, are more necessary and paramount public uses. SECTION 4. The acquisition of the Property which is required by said public interest, convenience, and necessity for the purposes set forth in Section 1 hereof, is located in the City of Santa Clarita, County of Los Angeles, State of California, and is more particularly described on Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, as set forth in full. A map showing the general location of the Property is attached hereto, marked Exhibit B and incorporated herein by this reference and made a part hereof. SECTION 5. The City Attorney and the firm of Burke, Williams & Sorensen, as special counsel, under the direction of the City Attorney, are authorized and directed to prepare, institute, and prosecute in the name of the City such proceedings in the proper Court having jurisdiction thereof as may be necessary for the acquisition of said Property described in Section 4. SECTION 6. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution. SECTION 7. This Resolution shall be effective immediately upon its adoption. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of '19 \�� ATTEST: CITY CLERK STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) § CITY OF SANTA CLARITA ) I, Sharon L. Dawson, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita at a regular meeting thereof, held on the _ day of 19_ by the following vote of Council: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: CITY CLERK BEJ:vjj en -eivi\95-065\zrailma.pri THAT PORTION OF BLOC SANTA CLARITA, COUNTY ON A MAP RECORDED IN COUNTY RECORDER OF S EXHIBIT A APN 2831-014-005 K 31 OF THE TOWN OF OF LOS ANGELES, STATE BOOK 53, PAGES 21 AND AID COUNTY, DESCRIBED NEWHALL IN THE CITY OF OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN 22, IN THE OFFICE OF THE AS FOLLOWS: A SPANDREL SHAPED PARCEL OF LAND BOUNDED NORTHWESTERLY BY THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID BLOCK, BOUNDED NORTHEASTERLY BY THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID BLOCK, AND BOUNDED SOUTHERLY BY THE ARC OF A CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 29.00 FEET BEING TANGENT TO THE NORTHWESTERLY AND NORTHEASTERLY LINES OF SAID BLOCK. AREA = 181 SQ. FT. MORE OR LESS EXHIBIT B SANTA CLARITA - RAILROAD AVENUE APN .2831-014-005 AREA = 181 SOUARE FEET MORE OR LESS SCALE 1' = 10' PROPOSED RAILROAD AVE. L _ _ S 3215'46• E RAILROAD A EXISTING � RAILROAD AVE. a EXISTING R/W n PROPO ED R/W e -90wor R -29.00 L -+asr air rrr n � r � LiI _I W *K v W 1 I Pio RESOLUTION NO. 97-28 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT THE PUBLIC INTEREST, CONVENIENCE, AND NECESSITY REQUIRE THE ACQUISITION OF CERTAIN PROPERTY FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES (RAILROAD AVENUE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA does hereby resolve as follows: SECTION 1. The City Council of the City of Santa Clarita ("City") hereby finds, determines, and declares as follows: A. The public interest, convenience, and necessity require the acquisition by said City of certain real property ("Property") hereafter described, which is located in the City for public street purposes and all uses appurtenant thereto ("Project"); and B. The Project is planned and located in a manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and least private injury; and C. The taking of the Property is necessary for the stated Project and such taking is authorized by Section 19, Article I of the California Constitution, Section 37350 et seg. and Section 40401 et sea., of the California Government Code, Section 1230.010 et seq., of the California Code of Civil Procedure, and other applicable law; and D. The offers to purchase required by California Government Code Section 7267.2 have been made to each owner of the Property proposed to be acquired by the City. SECTION 2. The City Council of the City hereby declares that it is its intention to acquire the Property in its name in accordance with the provision of the laws of the State of California with reference to condemnation procedures, for public street purposes, and all uses appurtenant thereto. SECTION 3. That if any portion of the Property has been appropriated to some public use, the public use to which they are to be applied by the City, as described above, are more necessary and paramount public uses. SECTION 4. The acquisition of the Property which is required by said public interest, convenience, and necessity for the purposes set forth in Section 1 hereof, is located in the City of Santa Clarita, County of Los Angeles, State of California, and is more particularly described on Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, as set forth in full. A map showing the general location of the Property is attached hereto, marked Exhibit B and incorporated herein by this reference and made a part hereof. SECTION 5. The City Attorney and the firm of Burke, Williams & Sorensen, as special counsel, under the direction of the City Attorney, are authorized and directed to prepare, institute, and prosecute in the name of the City such proceedings in the proper Court having jurisdiction thereof as may be necessary for the acquisition of said Property described in Section 4. SECTION 6. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution. SECTION 7. This Resolution shall be effective immediately upon its adoption. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of .19 ATTEST: CITY CLERK STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) § CITY OF SANTA CLARITA ) I, Sharon L. Dawson, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita at a regular meeting thereof, held on the _ day of 19_ by the following vote of Council: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: CITY CLERK BEJ:vij mg-6vi\95-066%mwhes.pri EXHIBIT A 2831-18=9 THOSEPORTIONSOF LOTS 1, 2, 3 AND 4 OF BLOCK 35 OF THE TOWN OF NEWHALL IN THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON A MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 53, PAGES 21 AND 22, OF MISCELLANEOUS RECORDS IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHERLY CORNER OF SAID LOT 1; THENCE S 32015'53" E 100.00 FEET ALONG THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID BLOCK TO THE EASTERLY CORNER OF SAID LOT 4, SAID POINT BEING THE BEGINNING OF A NON -TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 435.73 FEET, THROUGH WHICH POINT A RADIAL LINE BEARS N 57043105" E; THENCE NORTHERLY 76.44 FEET ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 10003'11" TO THE BEGINNING OF A COMPOUND CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 29.00 FEET; THENCE NORTHERLY AND WESTERLY 40.45 FEET ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 79056149" TO A POINT ON THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 1, SAID POINT BEING LOCATED SOUTHWESTERLY 35.27 FEET FROM THE NORTHERLY CORNER OF SAID LOT 1; THENCE N 57043'05" E 35.27 FEET ALONG THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 1 TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. EXHIBIT B SANTA CLARITA - RAILROAD AVENUE APN 2831-18-9 AREA = 500 SQUARE FEET MORE OR LESS 3 0 5 0 35 RESOLUTION NO. 97-29 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT THE PUBLIC INTEREST, CONVENIENCE, AND NECESSITY REQUIRE THE ACQUISITION OF CERTAIN PROPERTY FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES (RAILROAD AVENUE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA does hereby resolve as follows: SECTION 1. The City Council of the City of Santa Clarita ("City") hereby finds, determines, and declares as follows: A. The public interest, convenience, and necessity require the acquisition by said City of certain real property ("Property") hereafter described, which is located in the City for public street purposes and all uses appurtenant thereto ('Project"); and B. The Project is planned and located in a manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and least private injury; and C. The taking of the Property is necessary for the stated Project and such taking is authorized by Section 19, Article I of the California Constitution, Section 37350 et seg. and Section 40401 et sea., of the California Government Code, Section 1230.010 et sea., of the California Code of Civil Procedure, and other applicable law; and D. The offers to purchase required by California Government Code Section 7267.2 have been made to each owner of the Property proposed to be acquired by the City. SECTION 2. The City Council of the City hereby declares that it is its intention to acquire the Property in its name in accordance with the provision of the laws of the State of California with reference to condemnation procedures, for public street purposes, and all uses appurtenant thereto. SECTION 3. That if any portion of the Property has been appropriated to some public use, the public use to which they are to be applied by the City, as described above, are more necessary and paramount public uses. SECTION 4. The acquisition of the Property which is required by said public interest, convenience, and necessity for the purposes set forth in Section 1 hereof, is located in the City of Santa Clarita, County of Los Angeles, State of California, and is more particularly described on Exhbit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, as set forth in full. A map showing the general location of the Property is attached hereto, marked Exhibit B and incorporated herein by this reference and made a part hereof. SECTION 5. The City Attorney and the firm of Burke, Williams & Sorensen, as special counsel, under the direction of the City Attorney, are authorized and directed to prepare, institute, and prosecute in the name of the City such proceedings in the proper Court having jurisdiction thereof as may be necessary for the acquisition of said Property described in Section 4. SECTION 6. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution. SECTION 7. This Resolution shall be effective immediately upon its adoption. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of 119 MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) § CITY OF SANTA CLARITA ) I, Sharon L. Dawson, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita at a regular meeting thereof, held on the _ day of 19_ by the following vote of Council: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: CITY CLERK BEJ:vjj e"-avi\M-065\i Ams.pri EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION 2831-18-14115 THAT PORTION OF LOTS 11 AND 12 OF BLOCK 35 OF THE TOWN OF NEWI TALL, IN THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON A MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 53, PAGES 21 AND 22 OF MISCELLANEOUS RECORDS IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS. A SPANDREL SHAPED PARCEL OF LAND BOUNDED NORTHEASTERLY BY THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID BLOCK, BOUNDED SOUTHEASTERLY BY THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID BLOCK AND BOUNDED WESTERLY BY THE ARC OF A CURVE CONCAVE WESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 29.40 FEET, BEING TANGENT TO SAID NORTHEASTERLY AND SOUTHEASTERLY LINES OF SAID BLOCK. AREA 181 SQ. FT. MORE OR LESS R2 EXHIBIT B PROPOSED RAILROAD AVENUE CENTERLINE EXISTING RAILROAD AVENUE CENTERLINE N 3215'53' W 29.00' SANTA CLAR11A - RAILHOAD AVENUE APN 2831-18-14/15 AREA - f181 SOVARF FEET SCALC 1* - 10' 0 N 32'15'53' W N c -4i y� W O I CC Z { S 1 L.1 LLJ o a EXISTING R/W RAILROAD AVE 12 = I F— 35 30_ tf') RESOLUTION NO. 97-30 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT THE PUBLIC INTEREST, CONVENIENCE, AND NECESSITY REQUIRE THE ACQUISITION OF CERTAIN PROPERTY FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES (RAILROAD AVENUE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA does hereby resolve as follows: SECTION 1. The City Council of the City of Santa Clarita ("City") hereby finds, determines, and declares as follows: A. The public interest, convenience, and necessity require the acquisition by said City of certain real property ('Property') hereafter described, which is located in the City for public street purposes and all uses appurtenant thereto ('Project"); and B. The Project is planned and located in a manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and least private injury; and C. The taking of the Property is necessary for the stated Project and such taking is authorized by Section 19, Article I of the California Constitution, Section 37350 et seg. and Section 40401 et sea., of the California Government Code, Section 1230.010 et seg., of the California Code of Civil Procedure, and other applicable law; and D. The offers to purchase required by California Government Code Section 7267.2 have been made to each owner of the Property proposed to be acquired by the City. SECTION 2. The City Council of the City hereby declares that it is its intention to acquire the Property in its name in accordance with the provision of the laws of the State of California with reference to condemnation procedures, for public street purposes, and all uses appurtenant thereto. SECTION 3. That if any portion of the Property has been appropriated to some public use, the public use to which they are to be applied by the City, as described above, are more necessary and paramount public uses. SECTION 4. The acquisition of the Property which is required by said public interest, convenience, and necessity for the purposes set forth in Section 1 hereof, is located in the City of Santa Clarita, County of Los Angeles, State of California, and is more particularly described on Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, as set forth in full. A map showing the general location of the Property is attached hereto, marked Exhibit B and incorporated herein by this reference and made a part hereof. SECTION 5. The City Attorney and the firm of Burke, Williams & Sorensen, as special counsel, under the direction of the City Attorney, are authorized and directed to prepare, institute, and prosecute in the name of the City such proceedings in the proper Court having jurisdiction thereof as may be necessary for the acquisition of said Property described in Section 4. SECTION 6. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution. SECTION 7.' This Resolution shall be effective immediately upon its adoption. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of '19 ATTEST: CITY CLERK STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) § CITY OF SANTA CLARITA ) I, Sharon L. Dawson, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita at a regular meeting thereof, held on the _ day of 19_ by the following vote of Council: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: CITY CLERK BEJ:vjj eng-civi\95A 5\rzailm.Pri . EXHIBIT A LL -GAL DESCRIPTION 2331-19-21 THAT PORTION OF LOTS 1 AND 2 OF BLOCK 42 OF THE TOWN OF NEWHALL, IN THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON A MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 53, PAGES 21 AND 22 OF IrIISCE.L.LANEOUS RECORDS IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: A SPANDREL SHAPED PARCEL OF LAND BOUNDED NORTHEASTERLY BY THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID BLOCK, BOUNDED NORTHWESTERLY BY THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID BLOCK AND BOUNDED SOUTHERLY BY THE ARC OF A CURVECONCAVE SOUTHERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 29.00 FEET, BEING TANGENT TO SAID NORTHEASTERLY AND NORTHWESTERLY LINES OF SAID BLOCK- AREA LOCK AREA = 13 1 SQ. FT. MORE OR LESS EXHIBIT B SANTA CLARITA - RAILROAD AVENUE APN 2831-19-21 AREA - ±181 SQUARE FEET SCALE 1' = 10' PROPOSED RAILROAD AVENUE CENTERLINE 30' =I Ln F EXISTING RAILROAD AVENUE EXISTING R/W RAILROAD AVE N 32'15'53' W 29.00' 2 0 RESOLUTION NO. 97-32 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT THE PUBLIC INTEREST, CONVENIENCE, AND NECESSITY REQUIRE THE ACQUISITION OF CERTAIN PROPERTY FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES (RAILROAD AVENUE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA does hereby resolve as follows: SECTION 1. The City Council of the City of Santa Clarita ("City') hereby finds, determines, and declares as follows: A. The public interest, convenience, and necessity require the acquisition by said City of certain real property ("Property") hereafter described, which is located in the City for public street purposes and all uses appurtenant thereto ("Project"); and B. The Project is planned and located in a manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and least private injury; and C. The taking of the Property is necessary for the stated Project and such taking is authorized by Section 19, Article I of the California Constitution, Section 37350 et sea. and Section 40401 et sea., of the California Government Code, Section 1230.010 et seg., of the California Code of Civil Procedure, and other applicable law; and D. The offers to purchase required by California Government Code Section 7267.2 have been made to each owner of the Property proposed to be acquired by the City. SECTION 2. The City Council of the City hereby declares that it is its intention to acquire the Property in its name in accordance with the provision of the laws of the State of California with reference to condemnation procedures, for public street purposes, and all uses appurtenant thereto. SECTION 3. That if any portion of the Property has been appropriated to some public use, the public use to which they are to be applied by the City, as described above, are more necessary and paramount public uses. SECTION 4. The acquisition of the Property which is required by said public interest, convenience, and necessity for the purposes set forth in Section 1 hereof, is located in the City of Santa Clarita, County of Los Angeles, State of California, and is more particularly described on Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, as set forth in full. A map showing the general location of the Property is attached hereto, marked Exhibit B and incorporated herein by this reference and made a part hereof. SECTION 5. The City Attorney and the firm of Burke, Williams & Sorensen, as special counsel, under the direction of the City Attorney, are authorized and directed to prepare, institute, and prosecute in the name of the City such proceedings in the proper Court having jurisdiction thereof as may be necessary for the acquisition of said Property described in Section 4. SECTION 6. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution. SECTION 7. This Resolution shall be effective immediately upon its adoption. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of , 19_. MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CITY OF SANTA CLARITA I, Sharon L. Dawson, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita at a regular meeting thereof, held on the _ day of 19_ by the following vote of Council: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: CITY CLERK BEJ:vjj engcivi \ 95-065 \ rrailre a. pri EXHIBIT A 2831-10-43 THOSE PORTIONS OF LOTS 9 AND 10 OF BLOCK 18 OF THE TOWN OF NEWHALL, IN THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON A MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 53, PAGES 21 AND 22 OF MISCELLANEOUS RECORDS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE EASTERLY CORNER OF SAID LOT 10; THENCE S 57043'47" W 2.85 FEET ALONG THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 10, TO THE BEGINNING OF A NON -TANGENT CURVE, CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 435.73 FEET, THROUGH WHICH POINT A RADIAL LINE BEARS N 64°19'09"E; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY 49.80 FEET ALONG SAID CURVE TO THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID BLOCK 18; THENCE S 32014'54" E 49.69 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; AREA - 48 SQ. FT. MORE OR LESS EXHIBIT B SANTA CLARITA - RAILROAD AVENUE APN 2831-10-43 AREA = 48 SQUARE FEET MORE OR LESS PROPOSED- � RAILROAD AVE. 0 EXISTING C RAILROAD AVE. —�7's274's E c) EXISTING R/W� ,".u• .� //2'°5 SCALE 1" = 10' 3� 5 32'15'46" E 7 / R s�S80' L -49.80' $' $ r �1 a 0 a 8 7 8 SCALE 1" = 10' 3� 5 32'15'46" E 7 / CITY OF SANTA CLARITA REVISED NEGATIVE DECLARATION [ X ] Proposed [ ] Final PERM177PROJECT: Construction of a Metrolink Station and Roconstruction of Railroad Avenue APPLICANT: City of Santa Clarita MASTER CASE NO.mk ?Ac6ec� tio. 195'0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT: The project involves the widening, realignment and extension of Railroad Avenue from south of 4th Street to north of 11th Street, and the construction of a Metrolink Train Station and accessory parking on four parcels located in downtown Newhall area of the City. The parcels are specifically located at the northeast and southeast corner of Market Street and Railroad Avenue, and adjacent to the present and future Pine Street as shown on the project site plan. At its northern and .southern termini Railroad Avenue would connect with San Fernando Road. When completed, Railroad Avenue will consist of one travel lane in each direction, a two-way left turn lane, and on -street parking. Other improvements include the installation of a storm drain to handle surface drainage and the installation of street lights. The proposed project will occur substantially within the existing street. However, additional right-of-way will need to be acquired to accommodate the reconstruction of the street. The proposed Metrolink Station would include the construction of a station building, platform, and 208 parking spaces. Construction of the station requires the acquisition of four properties. Additional improvements related to landscaping and handicapped access would be provided on- site. Based on the information contained in the Initial Study prepared for this project, and pursuant to the requirements of Section 15065 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City of Santa Clarita [X] City Council [ I Planning Commission [ ] Director of Community Development finds that the project as proposed or revised will have no significant effect upon the environment, and that a Mitigated Negative Declaration shall be adopted pursuant to Section 15070 of CEQA. Mitigation measures for this project [ ] are not required. [X] are attached. [] are not attached. Prepared by: Glenn Adrimick. Associate Planner (Sigp.ture) Reviewed by-, it -.2_ Latira Stotler, Associate Planne �1i Public Rcview Poriod From: Public Notice Given On: (XI Legal Advertisement. CERTIFICATION DATE: GE&.nwhlydv\ndrlyd.gcn 3-7-97 To: _'�--7-`i7 -3- 7-c,7 By: I Posting of Properties. . I. I Written Notice 1. 2. LIST OF OWNERS E=D TO ATTACHED RIGHT-OF-WAY MAP Resolution No. 97.31 6. Resolution No. 97-27 Don F. Guglielmino Flora N. Guglielmino 24322 San Fernando Road Newhall, CA 91321 APN No. 2831-026.001 - Full Take at Railroad Avenue and Market Street Resolution No. 97.23 Ms. Cecelia Melanson, Manager Real Estate Services Metropolitan Transportation Authority 1 Gate Plaza Los Angeles, CA 90012 APN No. 2831-026-900, 901, 904 through 913 - Right -of -Way between 4th Street and 11th Street 3. Resolution No. 97-24 Robert C. and Suzette M. Crozier 15800 Condor Ridge Road Canyon Country, CA 91351 APN No. 2831-007-028 - Corner Cut at Railroad Avenue and 9th Street 4. Resolution No. 97.25 Mr. Archibald Higman, Trustee Mr. Glen R. Phillips P.O. Box 801569 Santa Clarita, CA 91380 APN No. 2831-010-038 - Corner Cut at Railroad Avenue and 9th Street 5. Resolution No. 97.26 Thomas E. Patrick, Trustee 17552 Index Street Granada Hills, CA 91344 APN No. 2831-010.011- Corner Cut at 8th Street and Railroad Avenue Frank Maga P.O. Box 6805 Pine Mountain .Club, CA 93222 APN No. 2831.014-005 - Corner Cut at Market Street and Railroad Avenue 7. Resolution No. 97-28 Don Guglielmino, Trustee P.O. Box 220849 Newhall, CA 91322 APN No. 2831-018-009 - Corner Cut at 6th Street and Railroad Avenue S. Resolution No. 97-29 Newhall Buildings, Inc. P.O. Box 800 Newhall, CA 91322 APN No. 2831-018-014, 015 - Corner Cut at 5th Street and Railroad Avenue 9. Resolution No. 97-30 Don F. Guglielmino, Trustee P.O. Box 220849 Newhall, CA 91322 APN No. 2831.019-021 - Corner Cut at 5th Street and Railroad Avenue 10. Resolution No. 97-32 Hart Family Trust Richard T. Hart 17827 Ridgeway Road Granada Hills, CA 91344 APN No. 2831-010.043 - Partial Take on Railroad Avenue north of 9th Street EYGC %95-MWWYERLSTXE7 c o � �� q lArl tom' I UTH IT LTOM ATI EM R1ght-ot-Rny 3. $1. 04.000 i 4. `10. 5. 1. 1. 2. 'NIM -111111 Wr. -if —r AVENUE OTs eSl / ars 6. L 7. L8. 9. IT X 10 i City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Blvd. Suite 300 Santa Clarita California 91355-2196 January 30, 1997 Phone (805) 259-2489 Fax (805)259-8125 Don F. Guglielmino, Trustee 24322 San Fernando Road Newhall, CA 91321 Reference: Railroad Avenue Improvement Project Portion of Assessor Parcel No.: 2831-026-001 Dear Mr. Guglielmino: The City of Santa Clarita City Council has approved plans for a public improvement project of Railroad Avenue for street realignment and widening purposes. This project requires the acquisition of your property as listed below. Therefore, the City of Santa Clarita hereby makes an offer to settle the acquisition of your property located at the Northwest and Southwest comer of Market Street and Railroad Avenue, Santa Clarita, California, for the sum of $710,000.00. The City's offer is the full amount determined to be just compensation for the property interest. The basis for that determination is explained in the attached Information and Appraisal Summary Statement. It is the City's hope that this price is agreeable to you and that the acquisition can begin immediately. Cutler & Associates, Inc., the acquisition agent for the City, will contact you regarding the acquisition of your property and answer any questions you have regarding this letter, Information and Appraisal Summary Statement. The acquisition agent can be reached at (310) 431-6789 (collect). It is requested that you acknowledge receipt of the City's offer by signing a copy of this letter and returning same to this office. Your signature on the copy does not signify acceptance of the City's offer to settle the acquisition; it only acknowledges receipt of the City's offer. PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Page 2 Your cooperation in this matter will be greatly appreciated. Sincerely, Anthon�isich Director of Building & Engineering Services AJN:JMC:lc scn002\010otr OFFER RECEIVED By: Date: Receipt of Offer Does Not Constitute Acceptance ROISIOMMUG:1 This approved offer is presented in settlement of the acquisition of your property. $ 710,000.00 Land and Improvements The value of the property being purchased is based upon a market value appraisal prepared by an independent appraisal firm in accordance with accepted appraisal procedures. Where applicable, the valuation of your property is based upon an analysis of, recent sales of comparable sites and similar properties in this locality with consideration to the highest and best use for development of the property; an income approach based on the potential fair rental for your property has been considered; and a replacement cost approach considering the estimated depreciated cost of the improvements, together with the value of the land, has been considered. Before arriving at a conclusion of value, the appraiser conducted an investigation in order to obtain the information necessary. The investigation generally includes an inspection of the property and improvements,and review of the improvements,a review of the immediate surrounding and regional influences, the property zoning and uses permitted, a study of the highest and best use to which the property can be put, easements which may exist on the property, the availability of utilities, access and street improvements. The appraisermay conduct interviews with knowledgeabb persons, collect comparable sales data, information relating to fair rental value of the property and the cost of reproducing the improvements on the property. The offer is the full amount believed by the City to be just compensation for your property. It is not less than the City's highest approved appraisal of the Fair Market Value of the property. Any decreases or increases in the Fair Market Value of the real property to be acquired prior to the date of the valuation caused by the public improvements or project for which the property is to be acquired, or by the likelihood that the property would be acquired for such improvement or project, other than that due to physical deterioration within the reasonable control of the owner, has been disregarded by the City and its appraiser in making their determination of the Fair Market Value of such property. FAIR MARKET VALUE, as used in the appraisal, is "........the highest price on the date of valuation that would be agreed by a seller, being willing to sell but under no particular or urgent necessity for doing so, nor obligated to sell, and a buyer; being ready, willing and able to buy but under no particular necessity for so doing, each dealing with the full knowledge of all the uses and purposes for which the property is reasonably adaptable and available." (Section 1263.320 Code of Civil Procedure) The determination of just compensation does not reflect any consideration of or allowance for relocation assistance and payments to which you may be entitled to receive under applicable State or Federal Law or of the City's agreement to pay certain settlement costs. This summary of the basis of the amount offered as just compensation is presented in compliance with State and where applicable Federal Law. Attached is an Appraisal Summary Statement including information pertinent to our offer to acquire the property. In the event you are the owner of a business conducted on the property being acquired by the City, you may be entitled to compensation for loss of goodwill, if any, if you are able to make a showing of such loss pursuant to the requirements of California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1263.510. For your information, Section 1263.510 is reprinted below in its entirety. (A) The owner of a business conducted on the property taken, or on the remainder if such property is part of a larger parcel, shall be compensated for loss of goodwill if the owner proves all of the following: (1) The loss is caused by the taking of the property or the injury to the remainder. (2) The loss cannot reasonably be prevented by relocation of the business or by taking steps and adopting proceduresthat a reasonablyprudent person would take and adopt in preserving the goodwill. (3) Compensation for the loss will not be included in payments under Section 7262 of the Government Code. (4) Compensation for the loss will not be duplicated in the compensation otherwise awarded to the owner. (B) Within the meaning of this article, "goodwill" consists of the benefits that accrue to a business as a result of its location, reputation for dependability, skill or quality, and any other circumstances resulting in probable retention of old or acquisition of new patronage." ScROOMinfo APPRAISAL SUMMARY STATEMENT PROPERTYINFORMATION Project Name: Railroad Avenue Realignment and Widening Property Owner: Don F. Guglielmino, Trustee of the Don and Flora Guglielmino Trust, a revocable living trust, U/D/T July 31, 1985. Property Address: Northwest and Southwest corner of Market Street and Railroad Avenue, Santa Clarita, California Assessors Parcel Number: 2831-026-001 Legal Description: See Exhibit "A" Attached Site Area: 67,808 square feet Improvements to be Acquired: 677 square feet building, concrete, brick, brickstone, asphalt, chain link, concrete block with brick cap, light standards, water fountain, stone waterfall, 17 metal frame tree tacks, 14 marked auto parking spaces, several canopies ranging from 238 to 1180 square feet and all other miscellaneous site improvements. Zoning: CC Interest Being Valued: Fee Severance Damage: None YALUATIONAPPROACHES USED APPROACH YES NO Market Data X Cost/Data Reproduction X Income X LEGAL DESCRIPTION THE LAND REFERRED TO HEREIN IS SITUATED IN THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: THAT PORTION OF RANCHO SAN FRANCISCO, IN THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, AS SHOWN ON MAP RECORDED IN BOOK I PAGES 521 AND 522 OF PATENTS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, AS DESCRIBED IN THE DEED TO SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD, RECORDED ON MARCH 29, 1879, IN BOOK 67 PAGE 321 OF DEEDS, IN THE OFFICE OF SAID RECORDER. EXCEPTING THEREFROM ALL MINERALS AND MINERAL RIGHTS INTERESTS, AND ROYALTIES, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITING, THE GENERALITY HEREOF, OIL, GAS AND OTHER HYDROCARBON SUBSTANCES, AS WELL AS METALLIC OR OTHER SOLID MINERALS, IN AND UNDER THE PROPERTY; HOWEVER, GRANTOR OR ITS SUCCESSORS AND 'ASSIGNS, SHALL NOT HAVE THE RIGHT FOR ANY PURPOSE WHATSOEVER .TO ENTER UPON, INTO OR THROUGH THE SURFACE OF THE PROPERTY IN CONNECTION THEREWITH, AS RESERVED IN THE DEED RECORDED AUGUST 15, 1991 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 91-1294556, OFFICIAL RECORDS. EXHIBIT "A" City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Blvd. Suite 300 Santa Clarita California 91355-2196 January 30, 1997 Phone (805) 259-2489 Fax (805)259-8125 Metropolitan Transportation Authority 1 Gateway Plaza Los Angeles, CA 90012 Reference: Railroad Avenue Improvement Project Portion of Assessor Parcel No.: 2831-026-900-913 Dear Property Owners: The City of Santa Clarita City Council has approved plans for a public improvement project of Railroad Avenue for street realignment and widening purposes. This project requires the acquisition of a portion of your property as listed below. Therefore, the City of Santa Clarita hereby makes an offer to settle the acquisition of a portion of your property located at 24400+ Railroad Avenue, Santa Clarita, California, as shown on the attached map and legal description, for the sum of $263,000.00 which is segregated as follows: $263,000.00 Land and Improvements $ 0.00 Severance Damage $263,000.00 Total The City's offer is the full amount determined to be just compensation for the property interest. The basis for that determination is explained in the attached Information and Appraisaf Summary Statement. It is the City's hope that this price is agreeable to you and that the acquisition can begin immediately. Cutler & Associates, Inc., the acquisition agent for the City, will contact you regarding the acquisition of that portion of your property and answer any questions you have regarding this letter, Information and Appraisal Summary Statement. The acquisition agent can be reached at (3101431-6789 (collect). PRINTED QN RECYCLED PAPER Page 2 It is requested that you acknowledge receipt of the City's offer by signing a copy of this letter and returning same to this office. Your signature on the copy does not signify acceptance of the City's offer to settle the acquisition; it only acknowledges receipt of the City's offer. Your cooperation in this matter will be greatly appreciated. Sincerely, Anthony J. i 'ch Director of Building & Engineering Services AJN:JMC:lc son002\002ore. OFFER RECEIVED Date: Receipt of Offer Does Not Constitute Acceptance INFORMATION STATEMENT This approved offer is presented in settlementof the acquisitionof a portionof your property. $263,000.00 Land and Improvements $ 0.00 Severance Damage The value of the portion of your property being purchased is based upon a market value appraisal prepared by an independent appraisal firm in accordance with accepted appraisal procedures. Where. applicable, the valuation of the portion of your property is based upon an analysis of, recent sales of comparable sites and similar properties in this locality with consideration to the highest and best use for development of the property; an income approach based on the potential fair rental for your property has been considered; and a replacement cost approach considering the estimated depreciated cost of the improvements, together with the value of the land, has been considered. Any diminution in value of the remainder parcel, or costs to mitigate same, have also been considered. Before arriving at a conclusion of value, the appraiser conducted an investigation in order to obtain the information necessary. The investigation generally includes an inspection of the property and improvements, and review of the improvements, a review ofthe immediate surrounding and regional influences, the property zoning and uses permitted, a study of the highest and best use to which the property can be put, easements which may exist on the property, the availability of utilities, access and street improvements. 'Me appraisermay conduct interviews with knowledgeable persons, collect comparable sales data, information relating to fair rental value of the property and the cost of reproducing the improvements on the property. The offer is the full amount believed by the City to be just compensation for the portion of your property. It is not less than the City's highest approved appraisal of the Fair Market Value of the property. Any decreases or increases in the Fair Market Value of the real property to be acquired prior to the date of the valuation caused by the public improvements or project for which the property is to be acquired, or by the likelihood that the property would be acquired for such improvement or project, other than that due to physical deterioration within the reasonable control of the owner, has been disregardedby the City and its appraiser in making their determination of the Fair Market Value of such property. FAIR MARKET VALUE, as used in the appraisal, is "........the highest price on the date of valuation that would be agreed by a seller, being willing to sell but under no particular or urgent necessity for doing so, nor obligated to sell, and a buyer, being ready, willing and able to buy but under no particular necessity for so doing, each dealing with the full knowledge of all the uses and purposes for which the property is reasonably adaptable and available." (Section 1263.320 Code of Civil Procedure) The determination of just compensation does not reflect any consideration of or allowance for relocation assistance and payments to which you may be entitled to receive under applicable State or Federal Law or of the City's agreement to pay certain settlement costs. This summary of the basis of the amount offered as just compensation is presented in compliance with State, and where applicable, Federal Law. Attached is an Appraisal Summary Statement including information pertinent to our offer to acquire the property. In the event you are the owner of a business conducted on the property being acquired by the City, you may be entitled to compensation for loss of goodwill, if any, if you are able to make a showing of such loss pursuant to the requirements of California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1263.510. For your information, Section 1263.510 is reprinted below in its entirety. (A) The owner of a business conducted on the property taken, or on the remainder if such property is part of a larger parcel, shall be compensated for loss of goodwill if the owner proves all of the following: (1) The loss is caused by the taking of the property or the injury to the remainder. (2) The loss cannot reasonably be prevented by relocation of the business or by taking steps and adopting procedures that a reasonably prudent person would take and adopt in preserving the goodwill. (3) Compensation for the loss will not be included in payments -under Section 7262 of the Government Code. (4) Compensation for the loss will not be duplicated in the compensation otherwise awarded to the owner. (B) Within the meaning of this article, "goodwill' consists of the benefits that accrue to a business as a result of its location, reputation for dependability, skill or quality, and any other circumstances resulting in probable retention of old or acquisition of new patronage." sc1\002\info APPRAISAL SUMMARY STATEMENT PROPERTY INFORMATION Project Name: Railroad Avenue Realignment and Widening Property Owner: Los Angeles County Transportation Commission, a County Transportation Commission existing under the authority of 130050 et seq of the California Public Utilities code. Property Address: 24400+ Railroad Avenue, Santa Clarita, CA Assessors Parcel Number: 2831-026-900-913 Legal Description: See Exhibit "A" Attached Site Area: 153,411+ square feet Part Taken: 29,167 square feet Improvements to be Acquired: None Zoning: CC Interest Being Valued: Fee Severance Damage: None VALUATIONAPPROACHES USED APPROACH YES NO Market Data X Cost/Data Reproduction X Income X LEGAL DESCRIPTION THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTHERN PACIFIC RIGHT OF WAY, IN THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON A MAP OF THE TOWN OF NEWHALL RECORDED IN BOOK 53, PAGES 21 AND 22 OF MISCELLANEOUS RECORDS IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE CENTERLINE OF 4TH STREET WITH THE -NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF RAILROAD AVENUE, SAID LINE ALSO BEING THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF THE SOUTHERN. PACIFIC RAILROAD RIGHT OF WAY; THENCE S 32°15'53" E 298.40 FEET ALONG SAID LINE TO A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY 'LINE OF SAN FERNANDO ROAD, SAID POINT BEING THE WESTERLY TERMINUS OF THAT CERTAIN COURSE WHICH BEARS "S62°30'24"E 183.80111 AS SHOWN ON STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RIGHT OF WAY MAP No. P4068-1-1, POINT ALSO BEING THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE S 62018145" E 27.96 FEET ALONG SAID LINE TO A LINE WHICH IS PARALLEL WITH AND DISTANT NORTHEASTERLY 14.00 FEET FROM THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF RAILROAD AVENUE; THENCE N 32015'53" W 1FN E TO TE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVECON AVE SOUTHWESTERLY AND HAVINGIjA RADIUS OF 509.72 FEET; THENCE 19.60 FEET A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 13026'361LY 1 TO ALONG TO A PO NT ONTHE NORTHE STERLYHLIINEIOF RAILROAD AVENUE; THENCE S 32015'53" E 1006.81 FEET ALONG SAID LINE TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. LEGAL DESCRIPTION THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTHERN PACIFIC RIGHT OF WAY, IN THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON A MAP OF THE TOWN OF NEWHALL RECORDED IN BOOK 53, PAGES 21 AND 22 OF MISCELLANEOUS RECORDS IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE EASTERLY CORNER OF BLOCK 9 OF SAID TOWN OF NEWHALL; THENCE N 57036'57" E 60.00 FEET ALONG THE NORTHEASTERLY PROLONGATION OF THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID BLOCK TO A POINT ON THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF RAILROAD AVENUE AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF SAID TOWN OF NEWHALL; THENCE S 32021'59" E 731.68 FEET ALONG SAID NORTHEASTERLY LINE TO A POINT ON A NON—TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE NORTHWESTERLY'AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 509.72 FEET; TO WHICH POINT A RADIAL LINE BEARS N 71005136" E, SAID POINT BEING THE TRUE POINT OF 'BEGINNING; THENCE NORTHERLY 119.74.FEET ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF NE PALLEL WITH 14.00 FEET oNORTHEASTERLY POINTON THE (NORTHEASTERLY* LINED DISTANT OF SAID RAILROAD AVENUE; THENCE N 32021159" W 9FALONG BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY AND HAV NGHA RADIUS OF 1394.35 FEET; THENCE NORTHERLY 158.10 FEET ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 06029'48" TO THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE CURVE CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 1394.35 FEET; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY 11.38 FEET ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF RAILROAD AVENUE, SAIDTLINE BEARS ON THE NORTHEASTERLY H57-31'45" RIGHT 5.00111 W OF 00*2810311 TO A " AY LINEAS WAY WMAP NNO. AP4068 C2-7, TO WHICH ALIFORNIA APOINT ARTMENT O RADIALSLINE ARIGHT OF BEARS S 51036116" W; THENCE S 57038101" W 3.80 FEET ALONG SAID RIGHT OF WAY LINE TO AN ANGLE POINT ON SAID LINE; THENCE S 32°21'59" E 1184.34 FEET ALONG SAID NORTHEASTERLY. LINE TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. SANTA CLARITA - RAILROAD AVENUE AREA = 15,452 SQUARE FEET MORE OR LESS N5T3ToloE 5.00' 11 N5T38'Oi'E 3.80' yIr b+ U W 1� N5T3ToloE 5.00' 11 N5T38'Oi'E 3.80' I I I I! FYI I I I I I I! I I I I I -1,.! 1"I I I I I ! I ' 4 I 1 1 I I NO SCALE QURVE DATA A =13'27'35' ,R =509.72 L =119.74 CURVE DATA A =0'28'03" CURVE DATA R =1394.35 r,; p --6'29-48- L =11.38 R =1394.35 L =158.10 M PROPOSED I I I I! FYI I I I I I I! I I I I I -1,.! 1"I I I I I ! I ' 4 I 1 1 I I NO SCALE QURVE DATA A =13'27'35' ,R =509.72 L =119.74 0 CURVE DATA A =13'26'36' R =509.72 L =119.60 EXISTING C/L SPRR R/W _ e v)-Wrl' G PROPOSED r�- I'I I I I I I I I I I I I LJ._I_LJ I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I i l l l l l l l l l l l L.L1_I_L1_I_L1_LL1J ROAD I PROPOSED RAIVDAD AVENUE CENTERLINE N A LROAU" AM rMI L N rr-r-rr-r-rr-t-I-r-r-I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I� i l F�• �• I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I i l l l l l l l l I I I I I I I I I I I I I LLJ._I-L1_I-L1•_I_L1J SANTA CLARITA - RAILROAD AVENUE AREA = ±13.715 SQUARE FEET SCALE 1' = 120' / CUTLER & ASSOCIATES, INC. Real Estate and Pmpern• Acquisilion Consultants February 21, 1997 Mr. Robert T. Crozier Route 1 Box 110B Ladonia, Texas 75449 Regarding: City of Santa Clarita Railroad Avenue Improvement Project Assessor Parcel No.: 2831-007-19 Dear Mr. Crozier: As we discussed last evening, enclosed is the offer to purchase the portion of the above referenced parcel needed for the Railroad Avenue ImprovementProject. A map delineating the needed property is attached to the offer. After you have reviewed the enclosed material, please call me at 1-800-535-6679 so we can discuss the offer, project and any other issues relative to this proposed acquisition. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. I look forward to working with you on this transaction. Sincerely, CUTLER & ASSOCL4TES, INC. C_Zq(JF M. Cutler Principal Consultant JMC:cm \sc1\002\003tran.1tr SOUTA1311.4T CALWORNIA CENTRAL CALIFORNIA BAYAREA 610Fn6fir Coa.vl fliglnrge. SLire 100 2941 S.n,ire Blvd. SMI, 245 210t W b.,w Srn•rl. Shire 1500 Sru/f)rarlr, Califmnhr 90740-6604 H.,. h. Gmlurn, Crdif,�rnia 95742 MAI mid, Cdifnniia 946/2 Teh-ph.w.- (310) 431-6759 Fav (310) 431.19.15 - T,*ph nir: (916) S'53-9777 F rz: NIN S53 -L 494 ! Irphnnc (51U) 446-7775 Fa, (510) $36.450.1 City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Blvd. Suite 300 Santa Clarita California 91355.2196 January 30, 1997 Phone (805)259-2489 Fax (805)259-8125 Robert T. Crozier Suzette M. Crozier 15800 Condor Ridge Road Canyon Country, CA 91351 Reference: Railroad Avenue Improvement Project Portion of Assessor Parcel No.: 2831-007-019,028 Dear Property Owners: The City of Santa Clarita City Council has approved plans for a public improvement projectof Railroad Avenue for street realignment and widening purposes. Thisproject requires the acquisition of a portion of your property as listed below. Therefore, the City of Santa Clarita hereby makes an offer to settle the acquisition of a portion of your property located at 24406 San Fernando Road, Santa Clarita, California, as shown on the attached map and legal description, for the sum of $2,000.00 which is segregated as follows: $2,000.00 Land and Improvements $ 0.00 Severance Damage $2,000.00 Total The City's offer is the full amount determined to be just compensation for the property interest. The basis for that determination is explained in the attached Information and Appraisal Summary Statement. It is the City's hope that this price is agreeable to you and that the acquisition can begin immediately. Cutler & Associates, Inc., the acquisition agent for the City, will contact you regarding the acquisition of that portion of your property and answer any questions you have regarding this letter, Information and Appraisal Summary Statement. The acquisition agent can be reached at (310) 431-6789 (collect). PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Page 2 It is requested that you acknowledge receipt of the City's offer by signing a copy of this letter and returning same to this office. Your signature on the copy does not signify acceptance of the City's offer to settle the acquisition; it only acknowledges receipt of the City's offer. Your cooperation in this matter will be greatly appreciated. Sincerely, Antho�i�iCh Y Director of Building & Engineering Services AJN:JMC:lc scR0021003off OFFER RECEIVED By: Date: Receipt of Offer Does Not Constitute Acceptance INFORMATION STATEMENT This approved offer is presented in settlementof the acquisitionof a portion of your property. $ 2,000.00 Land and Improvements $ 0.00 Severance Damage The value of the portion of your property being purchased is based upon a market value appraisal prepared by an independent appraisal firm in accordance with accepted appraisal procedures. Where applicable, the valuation of the portion of your property is based upon an analysis of, recent sales of comparable sites and similar properties in this locality with consideration to the highest and best use for development of the property; an income approach based on the potential fair rental for your property has been considered; and a replacement cost approach considering the estimated depreciated cost of the improvements, together with the value of the land, has been considered. Any diminution in value of the remainder parcel, or costs to mitigate same, have also been considered. Before arriving at a conclusionof value, the appraiser conducted an investigation in order to obtain the information necessary. The investigation generally includes an inspection of the property and improvements, and review of the improvements, a review of the immediate surrounding and regional influences, the property zoning and uses permitted, a study of the highest and best use to which the property can be put, easements which may exist on the property, the availability of utilities, access and street improvements. The appraiser may conduct interviews with knowledgeablepersons, collect comparable sales data, information relating to fair rental value of the property and the cost of reproducing the improvements on the property. The offer is the full amount believed by the City to be just compensation for the portion of your property. It is not less than the City's highest approved appraisal of the Fair Market Value of the property. Any decreases or increases in the Fair Market Value of the real property to be acquired prior to the date of the valuation caused by the public improvements or project for which the property is to be acquired, or by the likelihood that the property would be acquired for such improvement or project, other than that due to physical deterioration within the reasonable control of the owner, has been disregarded by the City and its appraiser in making their determinationof the Fair Market Value of such property. FAIR MARKET VALUE, as used in the appraisal, is "........the highest price on the date of valuation that would be agreed by a seller, being willing to sell but under no particular or urgent necessity for doing so, nor obligated to sell, and a buyer, being ready, willing and able to buy but under no particular necessity for so doing, each dealing with the full knowledge of all the uses and purposes for which the property is reasonably adaptable and available." (Section 1263.320 Code of Civil Procedure) The determinationof just compensation does not reflect any considerationof or allowance for relocation assistance and payments to.which you may be entitled to receive under applicable State or Federal Law or of the City's agreement to pay certain settlement costs. This summary of the basis of the amount offered as just compensation is presented in compliance with State, and where applicable, Federal Law. Attached is an Appraisal Summary Statement including information pertinent to our offer to acquire the property. In the event you are the owner of a business conducted on the property being acquired by the City, you may be entitled to compensation for loss of goodwill, if any, if you are able to make a showing of such loss pursuant to the requirements of California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1263.510. For your information, Section 1263.510 is reprinted below in its entirety. (A) The owner of a business conducted on the. property taken, or on the remainder if such property is part of a larger parcel, shall be compensated for loss of goodwill if the owner proves all of the following: (1) The loss is caused by the taking of the property or the injury to the remainder. (2) The loss cannot reasonably be prevented by relocation of the business or by taking steps and adopting procedures that a reasonably prudent person would take and adopt in preserving the goodwill. (3) Compensation for the loss will not be included in payments under Section 7262 of the Government Code. (4) Compensation for the loss will not be duplicated in the compensation otherwise awarded to the owner. (B) Within the meaning of this article, "goodwill" consists of the benefits that accrue to a business as a result of its location, reputation for dependability, skill or quality, and any other circumstances resulting in probable retention of old or acquisition of new patronage." scl\002\info APPRAISAL SUMMARY STATEMENT PROPERTYINFORMATION Project Name: Railroad Avenue Realignment and Widening Property Owner: Robert T. Crozier and Suzette M. Crozier Property Address: 24406 San Fernando Road, Santa Clarita, CA Assessors Parcel Number: 2831-007-019,028 Legal Description: See Exhibit "A" Attached Site Area: 53,640 square feet Part Taken: 181 square feet Improvements to be Acquired: A 6 foot high gravel surfacing chain link fence, an 8 foot high chain link fence and all other miscellaneous site improvements. Zoning: CC Interest Being Valued: Fee Severance Damage: None VAL UA TION A PPR OA CHES USED APPROACH YES NO Market Data X Cost/Data Reproduction X Income X LEGAL DESCRIPTION 2831-7-28 THOSE PORTIONS OF LOTS 11 AND 12 OF BLOCK 16 OF THE TOWN OF NEWHALL IN THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, .AS SHOWN ON A MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 53, PAGES 21 AND 22 OF MISCELLANEOUS RECORDS IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: A SPANDREL SHAPED PARCEL OF LAND BOUNDED NORTHEASTERLY BY THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID BLOCK, BOUNDED SOUTHEASTERLY BY THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID BLOCK, AND BOUNDED WESTERLY BY THE ARC OF A CURVE CONCAVE WESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 29.00 FEET, BEING TANGENT TO SAID NORTHEASTERLY AND SOUTHEASTERLY LINES OF BLOCK 16. EMBIT nAn PAGE 1 of 2 PROPOSED � RAILROAD AVE: EXISTING (� RAILROAD AVE. /�^ EXISTING R/W ,,,,-EXISTING 21W � wl r 0 d v cn L O z d O CC Lil L1J SANTA CLARITA - RAILROAD AVENUE APN 2831-7-28 AREA = 181 SQUARE FEET MORE OR LESS SCALE 1" = 10' S 32'14'54" E — EXHIBIT "A" PAGE 2 of 2 :-2; 0'00' R R =29.00 L =15.51' 116 -1? 10 . 11 � wl r 0 d v cn L O z d O CC Lil L1J SANTA CLARITA - RAILROAD AVENUE APN 2831-7-28 AREA = 181 SQUARE FEET MORE OR LESS SCALE 1" = 10' S 32'14'54" E — EXHIBIT "A" PAGE 2 of 2 Ce� CUTLER & ASSOCIATES, INC. Real Estate and Property Acquisition Consultants February 21, 1997 Mr. Glen R. Phillips, Trustee 443 Blaine Street Fillmore, CA 93015 Regarding: City of Santa Clarita Railroad Avenue Improvement Project Assessor Parcel No. 2831-010-038 Dear Mr. Phillips: As I mentioned in our brief conversation, my firm represents the City of Santa Clarita with regard to the property acquisition for the above referenced project. My understanding is that the current property occupant, Mr. Joseph Jasik, occupies the property under a 99 year lease, and he would be the responsible party for determining the acceptability of the offer and design. I met with Mr. Jasik yesterday and reviewed the offer and improvement plans with him. He indicated that he was in agreement. Since the Phillips and the Higmans are the vested owner, subject to the lease, the conveyance of the portion of the property needed for the improvement will have to agreed to by all parties. I have enclosed the original and copy of the offer to purchase the needed property for your review. As you will see, only 13 square feet is required.' After you have reviewed the enclosed material, please call me at 1-800-535-6679 so that we can discuss this matter further. Additionally, please be advised that the City will be mailing a notice of hearing regarding this project. We can also discuss this matter when we talk early next week. Sincerely, C ERS�&AA ASSOCIATES, ohn M. Cutler Principal Consultant JMC/cm sc1%002W04un:.1tr SOUTIIF'RN CAUFORNIA CENTRAL CAI.1FORNIA IIAYAREA 610 Parifrr Gmrel lliglnnn. Sail, 100 7941 Snnrier RhrL, Suilr 245 7101 19eheorr Svrrl, Suite 1500 Seal Beni$, Caljfrniu 90740.6604 Ruaoha Curdnrn, Califmiia 95747 Oniland. Califrreia 94612 Meld nnr.(310)431.6789 rm(310)431.198.5 Trlrphaur:(916)853-9777 Fa. (916)h53-1394 Trlrph.air:(310) 446-7775 Fax: 610)X36-4523 City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Blvd. Suite 300 Santa Clarita California 91355-2196 February 19, 1997 Phone (805) 259-2489 Fax (805)259-8125 Glen R. Phillips, Trustee Harriet I. Phillips, Trustee Arch Higman, Trustee Ethel R. Higman, Trustee P.O. Box 801569 Santa Clarita, CA 91380 Reference: Railroad Avenue Improvement Project Portion of Assessor Parcel No.: 2831-010-038 Dear Property Owners: The City of Santa Clarita City Council has approved plans for a public improvement projectof Railroad Avenue for street realignment and widening purposes. Thisproject requires the acquisition of a portion of your property as listed below. Therefore, the City of Santa Clarita hereby makes an offer to settle the acquisition of a portion of your property located at 22510 91" Street, Santa Clarita, California, as shown on the attached map and legal description, for the sum of $470.00 which is segregated as follows: $470.00 Land and Improvements $ .00 J, Reference: Railroad Avenue Improvement Project Portion of Assessor Parcel No.: 2831-010-038 Dear Property Owners: The City of Santa Clarita City Council has approved plans for a public improvement projectof Railroad Avenue for street realignment and widening purposes. Thisproject requires the acquisition of a portion of your property as listed below. Therefore, the City of Santa Clarita hereby makes an offer to settle the acquisition of a portion of your property located at 22510 91" Street, Santa Clarita, California, as shown on the attached map and legal description, for the sum of $470.00 which is segregated as follows: $470.00 Land and Improvements $ .00 Severance Damage $470.00 Total The City's offer is the full amount determined to be just compensation for the property interest. The basis for that determination is explained in the attached Information and Appraisal Summary Statement. It is the City's hope that this price is agreeable to you and that the acquisition can begin immediately. Cutler & Associates, Inc., the acquisition agent for the City, will contact you regarding the acquisition of that portion of your property and answer any questions you have regarding this letter, Information and Appraisal Summary Statement. The acquisition agent can be reached at (310) 431-6789 (collect). PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Page 2 It is requested that you acknowledge receipt of the City's offer by signing a copy of this letter and returning sante to this office. Your signature on the copy does not signify acceptance of the City's offer to settle the acquisition; it only acknowledges receipt of the City's offer. Your cooperation in this matter will be greatly appreciated. Sincerely, Anthony Jisich Director of Building & Engineering Services AJN:JMC:lc scl\002\004ofi: OFFER RECEIVED ON Date: Receipt of Offer Does Not Constitute Acceptance INFORMATION STATEMENT This approved offer is presented in settlement of the acquisition of a portion of your property. S 470.00 Land and Improvements S 0.00 Severance Damage The value of the portion of your property being purchased is based upon a market value appraisal prepared by an independent appraisal firm in accordance with accepted appraisal procedures. Where applicable, the valuation of the portion of your property is based upon an analysis of, recent sales of comparable sites and similar properties in this locality with consideration to the highest and best use for development of the property; an income approach based on the potential fair rental for your property has been considered; and a replacement cost approach considering the estimated depreciated cost of the improvements, together with the value of the land, has been considered. Any diminution in value of the remainder parcel, or costs to mitigate same, have also been considered. Before arriving at a conclusion of value, the appraiser conducted an investigation in order to obtain the information necessary. The investigation generally includes an inspection of the property and improvements, and review of the improvements,a review of the immediate surrounding and regional influences, the property zoning and uses permitted, a study of the highest and best use to which the property can be put, easements which may exist on the property, the availability of utilities, access and street improvements. The appraiser may conduct interviews with knowledgeable persons, collect comparable sales data, information relating to fair rental value of the property and the cost of reproducing the improvements on the property. The offer is the full amount believed by the City to be just compensation for the portion of your property. It is not less than the City's highest approved appraisal of the Fair Market Value of the property. Any decreases or increases in the Fair Market Value of the real property to be acquired prior to the date of the valuation caused by the public improvements or project for which the property is to be acquired, or by the likelihood that the property would be acquired for such improvement or project, other than that due to physical deterioration within the reasonable control of the owner, has been disregarded by the City and its appraiser in making their determination of the Fair Market Value of such property. FAIR MARKET VALUE, as used in the appraisal, is "........the highest price on the date of valuation that would be agreed by a seller, being willing to sell but under no particular or urgent necessity for doing so, nor obligated to sell, and a buyer, being ready, willing and able to buy but under no particular necessity for so doing, each dealing with the full knowledge of all the uses and purposes for which the property is reasonably adaptable and available." (Section 1263.320 Code of Civil Procedure) The determination of just compensation does not reflect any consideration of or allowance for relocation assistance and payments to which you may be entitled to receive under applicable State or Federal Law or of the City's agreement to pay certain settlement costs. This summary of the basis of the amount offered as just compensation is presented in compliance with State, and where applicable, Federal Law. Attached is an Appraisal Summary Statement including information pertinent to our offer to acquire the property. In the event you are the owner of a business conducted on the property being acquired by the City, you may be entitled to compensation for loss of goodwill, if any, if you are able to make a showing of such loss pursuant to the requirements of California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1263.510. For your information, Section 1263.510 is reprinted below in its entirety. (A) The owner of a business conducted on the property taken, or on the remainder if such property is part of a larger parcel, shall be compensated for loss of goodwill if the owner proves all of the following: (1) The loss is caused by the taking of the property or the injury to the remainder. (2) The loss cannot reasonably be prevented by relocation of the business or by taking steps and adopting procedures that a reasonably prudent person would take and adopt in preserving the goodwill. (3) Compensation for the loss will not be included in payments under Section 7262 of the Government Code. (4) Compensation for the loss will not be duplicated in the compensation otherwise awarded to the owner. (B) Within the meaning of this article, "goodwill" consists of the benefits that accrue to a business as a result of its location, reputation for dependability, skill or quality, and any other circumstances resulting in probable retention of old or acquisition of new patronage." sc1\002\info APPRAISAL SUMMARY STATEMENT PR OPER TYINFORMATION Project Name: Railroad Avenue Realignment and Widening Property Owner: Glen R. Phillips and Harriet I. Phillips, Co -Trustees of the Phillips family revocable trust dated January 9, 1996, as to an undivided V2 interest; and Arch Higman and Ethel R. Higman, Trustees under trust agreement dated June 23, 1982 or any successor trustee thereunder as to an undivided 1/2 interest. Property Address: 22510 9`" Street, Santa Clarita, CA Assessors Parcel Number: 2831-010-038 Legal Description: See Exhibit "A" Attached Site Area: 18,750 square feet Part Taken: 13 +/- square feet Improvements to be Acquired: 13 square feet of asphalt paving, 14 linear feet of wrought iron fence, and all other miscellaneous site improvements. Zoning: CC Interest Being Valued: Fee Severance Damage: Mitigated - See Construction Contract Work Section Construction Contract Work: Project contractor to rework wrought iron fence end posts, realign existing roll gate, and relocate concrete auto stops. VALUATION APPROACHES USED APPROACH YES NO Market Data X Cost/Data Reproduction X Income X LEGAL DESCRIPTION THAT PORTION OF LOT 1 OF BLOCK 19 OF THE TOWN OF NEWHALL, IN THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON A MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 53, PAGES 21 AND 22,OF MISCELLANEOUS RECORDS IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE EAST CORNER OF SAID LOT; THENCE N 32014'54" W 15.00 FEET ALONG THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID BLOCK TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING, SAID POINT BEING THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 14.00 FEET; THENCE WESTERLY 11.14 FEET ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE -OF 45034'40" TO A POINT ON THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID BLOCK, TO WHICH POINT A RADIAL LINE BEARS N 12°10'26" E; THENCE N 57044'07" E 4.20 FEET ALONG SAID LINE TO THE NORTH CORNER OF SAID BLOCK; THENCE S 32014'54" E 10.00 FEET ALONG THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID BLOCK TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. AREA= 13 SQ. FT. MORE OR LESS EX[iIBIT "A" PAGE 1 of 2 PROPOSED C/L RAILROAD AVE —7S 3214'54" E c� �` Lil LTJ Cl' f— En C� L�1 SANTA CLARITA - RAILROAD AVENUE AREA = t13 SQUARE FEET SCALE 1" = 10' 0 EXISTING CA RAILROAD AVE w U Ln �M z ti W, M pWIBtT"A" PAGE 2 OF.2 0 M 532 nn 4 E EXISTING PROPOSED R/W RAILRO =45'34'40" { \ �`�yo• R =14.00' �`\3F L =11.14' 18 ` 1 AVE City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Blvd. Suite 300 Santa Clarita California 91355-2196 January 30, 1997 Phone (805)259-2489 Fax (805) 259-8125. Thomas E. Patrick, Trustee 17552 Index Street Granada Hills, CA 91344 Reference: Railroad Avenue Improvement Project Portion of Assessor Parcel No.: 2831-010-011 Dear Mr. Patrick: The City of Santa Clarita City Council has approved plans for a public improvement project of Railroad Avenue for street realignment and widening purposes. This project requires the acquisition of a portion of your property as listed below. Therefore, the City of Santa Clarita hereby makes an offer to settle the acquisition of a portion of your property located at 22505-22509 8' Street, Santa Clarita, California, as shown on the attached map and legal description, for the sum of $60,200.00 which is segregated as follows: $ 5,200.00 Land and Improvements $55.000.00 Severance Damage $60,200.00 Total The City's offer is the full amount determined to be just compensation for the property interest. The basis for that determination is explained in the attached Information and Appraisal Summary Statement. It is the City's hope that this price is agreeable to you and that the acquisition can begin immediately: Cutler & Associates, Inc., the acquisition agent for the City, will contact you regarding the acquisition of that portion of your property and answer any questions you have regarding this letter, Information and Appraisal Summary Statement. The acquisition agent can be reached at (310) 431-6789 (collect). PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Page 2 It is requested that you acknowledge receipt of the City's offer by signing a copy of this letter and returning same to this office. Your signature on the copy does not signify acceptance of the City's offer to settle the acquisition, it only acknowledges receipt of the City's offer. Your cooperation in this matter will be greatly appreciated. Sincerely, Anthony J. Nisich Director of Building & Engineering Services AJN:JMC:lc u1\002\005off OFFER RECEIVED Date: Receipt of Offer Does Not Constitute Acceptance This approved offer is presented in settlement of the acquisition of a portion of your property. $ 5,200.00 Land and Improvements $ 55,000.00 Severance Damage The value of the portion of your property being purchased is based upon a market value appraisal prepared by an independent appraisal firm in accordance with accepted appraisal procedures. Where applicable, the valuation of the portion of your property is based upon an analysis of, recent sales of comparable sites and similar properties in this locality with consideration to the highest and best use for development of the property; an income approach based on the potential fair rental for your property has been considered; and a replacement cost approach considering the estimated depreciated cost of the improvements, together with the value of the land, has been considered. Any diminution in value of the remainder parcel, or costs to mitigate same, have also been considered. Before arriving at a conclusion of value, the appraiser conducted an investigation in order to obtain the information necessary. The investigation generally includes an inspection of the property and improvements, and review of the improvements, a review of the immediate surrounding and regional influences, the property zoning and uses permitted, a study of the highest and best use to which the property can be put, easements which may exist on the property, the availability of utilities, access and street improvements. The appraiser may conduct interviews with knowledgeable persons, collect comparable sales data, information relating to fair rental value of the property and the cost of reproducing the improvements on the property. The offer is the full amount believed by the City to be just compensation for the portion of your property. It is not less than the City's highest approved appraisal of the Fair Market Value of the property. Any decreases or increases in the Fair Market Value of the real property to be acquired prior to the date of the valuation caused by the public improvements or project for which the property is to be acquired, or by the likelihood that the property would be acquired for such improvement or project, other than that due to physical deterioration within the reasonable control of the owner, has been disregarded by the City and its appraiser in making their determination of the Fair Market Value of such property. FAIR MARKET VALUE, as used in the appraisal, is "........the highest price on the date of valuation that would be agreed by a seller, being willing to sell but under no particular or urgent necessity for doing so, nor obligated to sell, and a buyer, being ready, willing and able to buy but under no particular necessity for so doing, each dealing with the full knowledge of all the uses and purposes for which the property is reasonably adaptable and available." (Section 1263.320 Code of Civil Procedure) The determination of just compensation does not reflect any consideration of or allowance for relocation assistance and payments to which you may be entitled to receive under applicable State or Federal Law or of the City's agreement to pay certain settlement costs. This summary of the basis of the amount offered as just compensation is presented in compliance with State, and where applicable, Federal Law. Attached is an Appraisal Summary Statement including information pertinent to our offer to acquire the property. In the event you are the owner of a business conducted on the property being acquired by the City, you may be entitled to compensation for loss of goodwill, if any, if you are able to make a showing of such loss pursuant to the requirements of California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1263.510. For your information, Section 1263.510 is reprinted below in its entirety. (A) The owner of a business conducted on the property taken, or on the remainder if such property is part of a larger parcel, shall be compensated for loss of goodwill if the owner proves all of the following: (1) The loss is caused by the taking of the property or the injury to the remainder. (2) The loss cannot reasonably be prevented by relocation of the business or by taking steps and adopting procedures that a reasonably prudent person would take and adopt in preserving the goodwill. (3) Compensation for. the loss will not be included in payments under Section 7262 of the Government Code. (4) Compensation for the loss will not be duplicated in the compensation otherwise awarded to the owner. (B) Within the meaning of this article, "goodwill" consists of the benefits that accrue to a business as a result of its location, reputation for dependability, skill or quality, and any other circumstances resulting in probable retention of old or acquisition of new patronage." scROMinfo APPRAISAL SUMMARY STATEMENT PROPERTY INFORMATION Project Name: Railroad Avenue Realignment and Widening Property Owner: Thomas E. Patrick, Trustee of his revocable living trust. Property Address: 22505-22509 81" Street, Santa Clarita, CA Assessors Parcel Number: 2831-010-011 Legal Description: See Exhibit "A" Attached Site Area: 6,228 square feet Part Taken: 429 square feet Improvements to be Acquired: Asphalt paving, concrete auto stops, marked parking spaces and all other miscellaneous site improvements. Zoning: CC Interest Being Valued: Fee Severance Damage: Loss of Parking VALUATIONAPPROACHES USED APPROACH YES NO Market Data X Cost/Data Reproduction X Income X LEGAL DESCRIPTION 2831-10-11 THOSE PORTIONS OF LOTS 11 AND 12 OF BLOCK 18 OF THE TOWN OF NEWHALL, IN THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON A MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 53, PAGES 21 AND 22 OF MISCELLANEOUS RECORDS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: AT THE EASTERLY CORNER OF.SAID BLOCK'18; THENCE N 32014'54" W 10.00 FEET ALONG THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID BLOCK 18 TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUING N 32014'54" W ALONG SAID NORTHEASTERLY LINE, 40.00 FEET TO.THE NORTHERLY CORNER OF SAID LOT; THENCE S 57043'47" W 2.85 FEET ALONG THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 11, TO THE BEGINNING. OF A NON -TANGENT CURVE, CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 435.73 FEET, THROUGH WHICH POINT A RADIAL LINE BEARS N 64019'09"E; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY 26.35 FEET ALONG SAID CURVE TO THE BEGINNING OF A COMPOUND CURVE, CONCAVE WESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 29.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY 40.45 FEET ALONG SAID CURVE TO THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF LOT 12; THENCE N 57043'47" E 29.20- FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE, CONCAVE WESTERLY -AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 10.00 FEET; THENCE NORTHERLY 15.72 FEET ALONG SAID CURVE TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. EXHIBIT "A" PAGE 1 of 2 PROPOSED � RAILROAD AVE. T-EXfS-TING q RAILROAD AVE.- SANTA CLARITA - RAILROAD AVENUE APN 2831-10-11 AREA = 428 SQUARE FEET MORE OR LESS S Taw 32'14'54" E R :I0.00' L -1532' 1 SCALE 1" = 10' o Ell r � L �1 z1 a�J �g 30' S 32'15'46" E C KJ j� 1 8 7 8 9 10 �w w �� WI-- EMBIT "A" ~ Z 100 PAGE 2 of 2 City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Blvd. Suite 300 Santa Clarita California 91355-2196 January 30, 1997 Phone (805)259-2489 Fax (805)259-8125 Frank B. Maga, Trustee P.O. Box 6805 Pine Mountain Club, CA 93222 Reference: Railroad Avenue Improvement Project Portion of Assessor Parcel No.: 2831-014-005, 006 Dear Mr. Maga: The City of Santa Clarita City Council has approved plans for a public improvement project of Railroad Avenue for street realignment and widening purposes. This project requires the acquisition of a portion of your property as listed below. Therefore, the City of Santa Clarita hereby makes an offer to settle the acquisition of a portion of your property located at 22508 Market Street and 24220-24266 San Fernando Road, Santa Clarita, Califomia, as shown on the attached map and legal description, for the sum of $3,000.00 which is segregated as follows: $3,000.00 Land and Improvements $ 0.00 Severance Damage $3,000.00 Total The City's offer is the full amount determined to be just compensation for the property interest. The basis for that determination is explained in the attached Information and Appraisal Summary Statement. It is the City's hope that this price is agreeable to you and that the acquisition can begin immediately. Cutler & Associates, Inc., the acquisition agent for the City, will contact you regarding the acquisition of that portion of your property and answer any questions you have regarding this letter, Information and Appraisal Summary Statement. The acquisition agent can be reached at (310) 431-6789 (collect). PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Page 2 It is requested that you acknowledge receipt of the City's offer by signing a copy of this letter and returning same to this office. Your signature on the Copy does not signify acceptance of the City's offer to settle the acquisition; it only acknowledges receipt of the City's offer. Your cooperation in this matter will be greatly appreciated. Sincerely, Anthony J. Nisich Director of Building & Engineering Services AJN:JMC:lc scl\002\006o1r OFFER RECEIVED Date: Receipt of Offer Does Not Constitute Acceptance INFORMATION STATEMENT This approved offer is presented in settlementof the acquisition of a portion of your property. $ 3,000.00 Land and Improvements $ 0.00 Severance Damage The value of the portion of your property being purchased is based upon a market value appraisal prepared by an independent appraisal firm in accordance with accepted appraisal procedures. Where applicable, the valuation of the portion of your property is based upon an analysis of, recent sales of comparable sites and similar properties in this locality with consideration to the highest and best use for development of the property; an income approach based on the potential fair rental for your property has been considered; and a replacement cost approach considering the estimated depreciated cost of the improvements, together with the value of the land, has been considered. Any diminution in value of the remainder parcel, or costs to mitigate same, have also been considered. Before arriving at a conclusion of value, the appraiser conducted an investigation in order to obtain the information necessary. The investigation generally includes an inspection of the property and improvements, and review of the improvements,a review of the immediate surrounding and regional influences, the property zoning and uses permitted, a study of the highest and best use to which the property can be put, easements which may exist on the property, the availability of utilities, access and street improvements. The appraiser may conduct interviews with knowledgeable persons, collect comparable sales data, information relating to fair rental value of the property and the cost of reproducing the improvements on the property. The offer is the full amount believed by the City to be just compensation for the portion of your property. It is not less than the City's highest approved appraisal of the Fair Market Value of the property. Any decreases or increases in the Fair Market Value of the real property to be acquired prior to the date of the valuation caused by the public improvements or project for which the property is to be acquired, or by the likelihood that the property would be acquired for such improvementor project, other than that due to physical deterioration within the reasonable control of the owner, has been disregardedby the City and its appraiser in making their determinationof the Fair Market Value of such property. FAIR MARKET VALUE, as used in the appraisal, is "........the highest price on the date of valuation that would be agreed by a seller, being willing to sell but under no particular or urgent necessity for doing so, nor obligated to sell, and a buyer, being ready, willing and able to buy but under no particular necessity for so doing, each dealing with the full knowledge of all the uses and purposes for which the property is reasonably adaptable and available." (Section 1263.320 Code of Civil Procedure) The determination of just compensation does not reflect any consideration of or allowance for relocation assistance and payments to which you may be entitled to receive under applicable State or Federal Law or of the City's agreement to pay certain settlement costs. This summary of the basis of the amount offered as just compensation is presented in compliance with State, and where applicable, Federal Law. Attached is an Appraisal Summary Statement including information pertinent to our offer to acquire the property. In the event you are the owner of a business conducted on the property being acquired by the City, you may be entitled to compensation for loss of goodwill, if any, if you are able to make a showing of such loss pursuant to the requirements of California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1263.510. For your information, Section 1263.510 is reprinted below in its entirety. (A) The owner of a business conducted on the property taken, or on the remainder if such property is part of a larger parcel, shall be compensated for loss of goodwill if the owner proves all of the following: (1) The loss is caused by the taking of the property or the injury to the remainder. (2) The loss cannot reasonably be prevented by relocation of the business or by taking steps and adopting procedures that a reasonably prudent person would take and adopt in preserving the goodwill. (3) Compensation for the loss will not be included in payments under Section 7262 of the Government Code. (4) Compensation for the loss will not be duplicated in the compensation otherwise awarded to the owner. (B) Within the meaning of this article, "goodwill" consists of the benefits that accrue to a business as a result of its location, reputation for dependability, skill or quality, and any other circumstances resulting in probable retention of old or acquisition of new patronage." sc1\002\info APPRAISAL SUMMARY STATEMENT PROPERTYINFORMATION Project Name: Railroad Avenue Realignment and Widening Property Owner: Frank B. Maga, as Trustee of the Pete J. Maga and Virginia B. Maga living trust dated March 31, 1993 to be held for the benefit of Pete J. Maga and Virginia B. Maga. Property Address: 22508 Market Street and 24220-24266 San Fernando Road Santa Clarita, CA Assessors Parcel Number: 2831-014-005, 006 Legal Description: See Exhibit "A" Attached Site Area: 29,667 square feet Part Taken: 181 square feet Improvements to be Acquired: 181 square feet of asphalt paving, 58 linear feet of concrete block walls, and miscellaneous site improvements. Zoning: CC Interest Being Valued: Fee Severance Damage: None VAL UA TION APPROA CHES USED APPROACH YES NO Market Data X Cost/Data Reproduction X Income X LEGAL 2831-1-5 THAT PORTION OF BLOCK 31 OF THE TOWN OF NEWHALL IN THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON A MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 53, PAGES 21 AND 22, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: A SPANDREL SHAPED PARCEL OF LAND BOUNDED NORTHWESTERLY BY THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID BLOCK, BOUNDED NORTHEASTERLY BY THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID BLOCK, AND BOUNDED SOUTHERLY BY THE ARC OF A CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 29.00 FEET BEING TANGENT TO THE NORTHWESTERLY AND NORTIiEASTERLY LINES OF SAID BLOCK. EXHIBIT "A" 4 �o �A�. vti::•e _ •u"Nr I I to _ p Of I e; =W J `3 adoa11da o "s `^ Ad I r o 'vw, f1+ f7 ('GOA) :V.9)dYN (NX) 1.il.tF'S E/t O7 OiYO r sYn fe'opry OS/ OFDS I I n 09 � �• Ft JF � iI U I I b 1 o hl4 ^ W as OJ u 4 M� wI V � 1 bI r 2 Jn m Nit h .m' !D` FNS N= h. ID`"uf�Y'd NO` N` N N N OF 6L N N rn m O 1®r17�Oe I OW O O O I N Qa I m IK 90 1x1�°pj!!a C m , I FIt 09 OLYY Vi " OFELI (itiwJ:u•%LIN _ a N 7-— L� —Stns{)'f.fF.tF'r m vt Qa OCIN`dNa3d NVS % g o0 Q� s m = CO N m .G r i e I I to _ p Of I e; I 1 I r M 'vw, f1+ f7 SL D/ fi Gz ft sYn fe'opry ` L w =6em);u.9)•LIYr �• Ft JF � iI U sz Jn m Nit h .m' !D` FNS N= h. ID`"uf�Y'd NO` N` N N N N N N rn m O 1®r17�Oe O O I IK 90 1x1�°pj!!a C I sstt� E m 'LS sr R sz. vGT a N 7-— -1-n N -1VM m vt s) L.JG e g o0 J m kn = : J o d Q �~yJ ry— N J Ygi X09 N cr m C S9 1 Z N Q L O N V � o t- Q� s m = CO N m .G r i 2831-1-5 THAT PORTION OF BLOCK 31 OF THE TOWN OF NEWHALL IN THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON A MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 53, PAGES 21 AND 22, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: A SPANDREL SHAPED PARCEL OF LAND BOUNDED NORTHWESTERLY BY THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID BLOCK, BOUNDED NORTHEASTERLY BY THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID BLOCK, AND BOUNDED SOUTHERLY BY THE ARC OF A CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 29.00 FEET BEING TANGENT TO THE NORTHWESTERLY AND NORTHEASTERLY LINES OF SAID BLOCK. AREA = 181 SQ. FT. MORE OR LESS XICOTENCATL E. SALAZAR, PLS 5507 LICENSE EXPIRES 9-30-00 SANTA CLARITA — RAILROAD AVENUE APN 2831-1-5 AREA = 181 SQUARE FEET MORE OR LESS SCALE 1" = 10' PROPOSED CL RAILROAD AVE. L _ _ S 32.15'46" E RAILROAD AVE g EXISTING q RAILROAD AVE. 0 EXISTING R/W--N, M PROPO ED R/W. ' e =so oo'oo" R =29.00' L -455Y W LiJ C I ry Q 11 City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Blvd. Suite 300 Santa Clarita California 91355-2196 January 30, 1997 Phone (805) 259-2489 Fax (805)259-8125 Don F. Guglielmino, Trustee P.O. Box 220849 Newhall, CA 91322 Reference: Railroad Avenue Improvement Project Portion of Assessor Parcel No.: 2831-018-009 Dear.Mr. Guglielmino: The City of Santa Clarita City Council has approved plans for a public improvement project of Railroad Avenue for street realignment and widening purposes. This project requires the acquisition of a portion of your property as listed below. Therefore, the City of Santa Clarita hereby makes an offer to settle the acquisition of a portion of your property located at 22504 6" Street, Santa Clarita, California, as shown on the attached map and legal description, for the sum of $6,000.00 which is segregated as follows: $6,000.00 Land and Improvements 0.00 Severance Damage $6,000.00 Total The City's offer is the full amount determined to be just compensation for the property interest. The basis for that determination is explained in the attached Information and Appraisal Summary Statement. It is the City's hope that this price is agreeable to you and that the acquisition can begin immediately. Cutler & Associates, Inc., the acquisition agent for the City, will contact you regarding the acquisition of that portion of your property and answer any questions you have regarding this letter, Information and Appraisal Summary Statement. The acquisition agent can be reached at (310) 431-6789 (collect). PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Page 2 It is requested that you acknowledge receipt of the City's offer by signing a copy of this letter and returning same to this office. Your signature on the copy does not signify acceptance of the City's offer to settle the acquisition; it only acknowledges receipt of the City's offer. Your cooperation in this matter will be greatly appreciated. Sincerely, Anthon� h` Director of Building & Engineering Services AJN:JMC:lc 5dnoo2NOMM OFFER RECEIVED Receipt of Offer Does Not Constitute Acceptance INFORMATION STATEMENT This approved offer is presented in settlementof the acquisitionof a portionof your property. $ 6,000.00 Land and Improvements 0.00 Severance Damage The value. of the portion of your property being purchased is based upon a market value appraisal prepared by an independent appraisal firm in accordance with accepted appraisal procedures. Where applicable, the valuation of the portion of your property is based upon an analysis of, recent sales of comparable sites and similar properties in this locality with consideration to the highest and best use for development of the property; an income approach based on the potential fair rental for your property has been considered; and a replacement cost approach considering the estimated depreciated cost of the improvements, together with the value of the land, has been considered. Any diminution in value of the remainder parcel, or costs to mitigate same, have also been considered. Before arriving at a conclusion of value, the appraiser conducted an investigation in order to obtain the information necessary. The investigation generally includes an inspection of the property and improvements, and review of the improvements,a review of the immediate surrounding and regional influences, the property zoning and uses permitted, a study of the highest and best use to which the property can be put, easements which may exist on the property, the availability of utilities, access and street improvements. The appraisermay conduct interviews with knowledgeable persons, collect comparable sales data, information relating to fair rental value of the property and the cost of reproducing the improvements on the property. The offer is the full amount believed by the City to be just compensation for the portion of your property. It is not less than the City's highest approved appraisal of the Fair Market Value of the property. Any decreases or increases in the Fair Market Value of the real property to be acquired prior to the date of the valuation caused by the public improvements or project for which the property is to be acquired, or by the likelihood that the property would be acquired for such improvement or project, other than that due to physical deterioration within the reasonable control of the owner, has been disregarded by the City and its appraiser in making their determination of the Fair Market Value of such property. FAIR MARKET VALUE, as used in the appraisal, is "........the highest price on the date of valuation that would-be agreed by a seller, being willing to sell but under no particular or urgent necessity for doing so, nor obligated to sell, and a buyer, being ready, willing and able to buy but under no particular necessity for so doing, each dealing with the full knowledge of all the uses and purposes for which the property is reasonably adaptable and available." (Section 1263.320 Code of Civil Procedure) The determination of just compensation does not reflect any consideration of or allowance for relocation assistance and payments to which you may be entitled to receive under applicable State or Federal Law or of the City's agreement to pay certain settlement costs. This summary of the basis of the amount offered as just compensation is presented in compliance with State, and where applicable, Federal Law. Attached is an Appraisal Summary Statement including information pertinent to our offer to acquire the property. In the event you are the owner of a business conducted on the property being acquired by the City, you may be entitled to compensation for loss of goodwill, if any, if you are able to makea showing of such loss pursuant to the requirements of California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1263.510. For your information, Section 1263.510 is reprinted below in its entirety. (A) The owner of a business conducted on the property taken, or on the remainder if such property is part of a larger parcel, shall be compensated for loss of goodwill if the owner proves all of the following: (1) The loss is caused by the taking of the property or the injury to the remainder. (2) The loss cannot reasonably be prevented by relocation of the business or by taking steps and adopting procedures that a reasonably prudent person would take and adopt in preserving the goodwill. (3) Compensation for the loss will not be included in payments under Section 7262 of the Government Code. (4) Compensation for the loss will not be duplicated in the compensation otherwise awarded to the owner. (B) Within the meaning of this article, "goodwill" consists of the benefits that accrue to a business as a result of its location, reputation for dependability, skill or quality, and any other circumstances resulting in probable retention of old or acquisition of new patronage." scl\002\info APPRAISAL SUMMARY STATEMENT PROPERTYINFORMATION Project Name: Railroad Avenue. Realignment and Widening Property Owner: Don F. Guglielmino, Trustee of the Don Guglielmino and Flora Guglielmino Trust, a revocable living trust, U/D/T July 31, 1985. Property Address: 22504 61" Street, Santa Clarita, CA Assessors Parcel Number: 2831-018-009 Legal Description: See Exhibit "A" Attached Site Area:, 7,200 square feet Part Taken: 500 square feet Improvements to be Acquired: 500 square feet of asphalt paving and all other miscellaneous site improvements. Zoning: CC Interest Being Valued: Fee Severance Damage: None VALUATIONAPPROACHES USED APPROACH YES NO Market Data X Cost/Data Reproduction X Income X LEGAL DESCRIPTION 2831-18-9 THOSE PORTIONS OF LOTS 1, 2, 3 AND 4 OF BLOCK 35 OF THE TOWN OF NEWHALL IN THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON A MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 53, PAGES 21 AND 22, OF MISCELLANEOUS RECORDS IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHERLY CORNER OF SAID LOT 1; THENCE S 32*15'53" E 100.00 FEET ALONG THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID BLOCK TO THE EASTERLY CORNER OF SAID LOT 4, SAID POINT BEING THE BEGINNING OF A NON -TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 435.73 FEET, THROUGH WHICH POINT A RADIAL LINE BEARS N 57043'05" E; THENCE NORTHERLY 76.44 FEET ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 10003'11" TO THE BEGINNING OF A COMPOUND CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 29.00 FEET; THENCE NORTHERLY AND WESTERLY 40.45 FEET ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 79056'49" TO A POINT ON THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 1, SAID POINT BEING LOCATED SOUTHWESTERLY 35.27 FEET FROM THE NORTHERLY CORNER OF SAID LOT 1; THENCE N 57°43'05" E 35.27 FEET ALONG THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 1 TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. EIHiIBIT "A" PAGE 1 of 2 05 2 SANTA CLARITA - RAILROAD AVENUE APN 2831-18-9 AREA = 500 SQUARE FEET MORE OR LESS SCALE 1" = 10' s EMBTT "All PAGE 2 of 2 CUTLER & ASSOCIATES, INC. Real Evale and Propeny Acquisition Consultants February 21, 1997 Mr. Don F. Guglielmino Newhall Buildings, Inc. c/o Mr. Doug Wubbena P. 0. Box 193 Brea, CA 92622 Regarding: City of Santa Clarita Railroad Avenue Improvement Project Dear Mr. Wubbena: As you are aware, the.City of Santa Clarita has been working with you, as the representative of Mr. Guiglielmino and Newhall Buildings, Inc., in the acquisitionof the various properties needed for the above referenced project. We explained in our last meeting that the original improvement plans included the modification of the intersection of V Street and Railroad Avenue. There was some discussion regardingthe potential vacation of 511, Street, between Railroad Avenue and San Fernando Road, which would have eliminated the need for the modification of the comers. To date, no determination to pursue the vacation of 511 Street has been made. Therefore, enclosed are the two formal offers from the City relative to the acquisition of the needed right-of-way for the improvement of the 51 Street and Railroad Avenue intersection. As before, please present these offers to Mr. Guglielmino and have him receipt for same on the enclosed copy. I look forward to working with you on these acquisitions, and the acquisitions previously submitted to you. As always, if you have any questions regarding these offers, or any other matters relative to this project, please do not hesitate to call me. Sincerely, John Cut el r Pri final Consultant JMC/cm sc1100210081v SOOTIIERNCAMFORI'IA CFNTRALCALFORMA RAYAREA 610 Furifre O.ai Nigh .vn Suite 100 2941S ri.,, Rh•d-, Suite 245 2101111,hoer Sneer. Swire 1501 Sra1 B., h. Gdifmria 90740.6601 Rnarlrn Cordova. Cdif n da 95742 Oakland, Cali/nnia 94612 T,Irph,, e, (310) 4.11.6789 Fra: (310) 431.1985' 7i•leplu"w (91611'53.9777 F v: f91h 53-1394 'Teleph,-,,, (510)446-777.5 Fax: (510) V6.4503 City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Blvd, Suite 300 Santa Clarita California 91355-2196 February 19, 1997 Phone (805)259-2489 Fax (805)259-8125 Newhall Buildings, Inc., A Corporation P.O. Box 800 Newhall, CA 91322 Reference: Railroad Avenue Improvement Project Portion of Assessor Parcel No.: 2831-018-015 Dear Property Owners: The City of Santa Clarita City Council has approved plans for a public improvement project of Railroad Avenue for street realignment and widening purposes. This project requires the acquisition of a portion of your property as listed below. Therefore, the City of Santa Clarita hereby makes an offer to settle the acquisition of a portion of your property located at 24219 Railroad Avenue, Santa Clarita, California, as shown on the attached map and legal description, for the sum of $2,700.00 which is segregated as follows: $2,700.00 Land and Improvements $ 0.00 Severance Damage $2,700.00 Total The City's offer is the full amount determined to be just compensation for the property interest. The basis for that determination is explained in the attached Information and Appraisal Summary Statement. It is the City's hope that this price is agreeable to you and that the acquisition can begin immediately. Cutler & Associates, Inc., the acquisition agent for the City, will contact you regarding the acquisition of that portion of your property and answer any questions you have regarding this letter, Information and Appraisal Summary Statement. The acquisition agent can be reached at (310) 431-6789 (collect). PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Page 2 It is requested that you acknowledge receipt of the City's offer by signing a copy of this letter and returning same to this office. Your signature on the copy does not signify acceptance of the City's offer to settle the acquisition; it only acknowledges receipt of the City's offer. Your cooperation in this matter will be greatly appreciated. Sincerely, OFFER RECEIVED By: ,pAnthony J. Nisich Date: Director of Building & Engineering Services Receipt of Offer Does Not Constitute Acceptance AJN:JMC:lc scl\002\008off - - " INFORMATION STATEMENT This approved offer is presented in settlement of the acquisitionof a portion of your property. $ 2,700.00 Land and Improvements $ 0.00 Severance Damage The value of the portion of your property being purchased is based upon a market value appraisal prepared by an independent appraisal firm in accordance with accepted appraisal procedures. Where applicable, the valuation of the portion of your property is based upon an analysis of, recent sales of comparable sites and similar properties in this localitywith consideration to the highest and best use for development of the property; an income approach based on the potential fair rental for your property has been considered; and a replacement cost approach consideringthe estimated depreciated cost of the improvements, together with the value of the land, has been considered. Any diminution in value of the remainder parcel, or costs to mitigate same, have also been considered. Before arriving at a conclusion of value, the appraiser conducted an investigation in order to obtain the information necessary. The investigation generally includes an inspection of the property and improvements, and review ofthe improvements,a review of the immediate surrounding and regional influences, the property zoning and uses permitted, a study of the highest and best use to which the property can be put, easements which may exist on the property, the availability of utilities, access and street improvements. The appraiser may conduct interviews with knowledgeable persons, collect comparable sales data, information relating to fair rental value of the property and the cost of reproducing the improvements on the property. The offer is the full amount believed by the City to be just compensation for the portion of your property. It is not less than the City's highest approved appraisal of the Fair Market Value of the property. Any decreases or increases in the Fair Market Value of the real property to be acquired prior to the date of the valuation caused by the public improvements or project for which the property is to be acquired, or by the likelihood that the property would be acquired for such improvement or project, other than that due to physical deterioration within the reasonable control of the owner, has been disregarded by the City and its appraiser in making their determination of the Fair Market Value of such property. FAIR MARKET VALUE, as used in the appraisal, is "........the highest price on the date of valuation that would be agreed by a seller, being willing to sell but under no particular or urgent ` necessity for doing so, nor obligated to sell, and a buyer, being ready, willing and able to buy but under no particular necessity for so doing, each dealing with the full knowledge of all the uses and purposes for which the property is reasonably adaptable and available." (Section 1263.320 Code of Civil Procedure) The determination of just compensation does not reflect any consideration of or allowance for relocation assistance and payments to which you may be entitled to receive under applicable State or Federal Law or of the City's agreement to pay certain settlement costs. This summary of the basis of the amount offered as just compensation is presented in compliance with State, and where applicable, Federal Law. Attached is an Appraisal Summary Statement including information pertinent to our offer to acquire the property. In the event you are the owner of a business conducted on the property being acquired by the City, you may be entitled to compensation for loss of goodwill, if any, if you are able to make a showing of such loss pursuant to the requirements of California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1263.510. For your information, Section 1263.510 is reprinted below in its entirety. (A) The owner of a business conducted on the property taken, or on the remainder if such property is part of a larger parcel, shall be compensated for loss of goodwill if the owner proves all of the following: (1) The loss is caused by the taking of the property or the injury to the remainder. (2) The loss cannot reasonably be prevented by relocation of the business or by taking steps and adopting procedures that a reasonablyprudent person would take and adopt in preserving the goodwill. (3) Compensation for the loss will not be included. in payments under Section 7262 of the Government Code. (4) Compensation for the loss will not be duplicated in the compensation otherwise awarded to the owner. (B) Within the meaning of this article, "goodwill" consists of the benefits that accrue to a business as a result of its location, reputation for dependability, skill or quality, and any other circumstances resulting in probable retention of old or acquisition of new patronage." scl%002Vnfo APPRAISAL SUMMARY STATEMENT PROPERTYINFORMATION Project Name: Railroad Avenue Realignment and Widening Property Owner: Newhall Buildings, Inc., A Corporation Property Address: 24219 Railroad Avenue, Santa Clarita, CA Assessors Parcel Number: 2831-018-015 Legal Description: See Exhibit "A" Attached Site Area: 25,000 square feet Part Taken: 181 square feet Improvements to be Acquired: 181 square feet of gravel surfacing and 58 linear feet of chain link fencing. Zoning: CC Interest Being Valued: Fee Severance Damage: None YALUATIONAPPROACHES USED APPROACH YES NO Market Data X Cost/Data Reproduction X Income X 0 SANTA CLARITA - RAILROAD AVENUE APN 2831•-18-14/15 AREA - 3181 SQUARE FEET PROPOSED RAILROAD AVENUE CENTERLINE SCALE 1 -10 I EXISTING RAILROAD AVENUE CENTERLINE N 32'15'53" W I N 32415'53" W 29.00' w h 12 0 0 of N w Q ih r- u a EXISTING R/W RAILROAD AVE 30' LJJ 1- cn = I Ln LEGAL DESCRIPTION 2831-18-14115 THAT PORTION OF LOTS 11 AND 12 OF 13LOCK 35 OF THE TOWN OF NEWHALL, IN THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON A MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 53, PAGES 21 AND 22 OF MISCELLANEOUS RECORDS IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: A SPANDREL SHAPED PARCEL OF LAND BOUNDED NORTHEASTERLY BY THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID BLOCK, BOUNDED SOUTHEASTERLY BY THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID BLOCK AND BOUNDED WESTERLY BY THE ARC OF A CURVE.CONCAVE WESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 29.00 FEET, BEING TANGENT TO SAID NORTHEASTERLY AND SOUTHEASTERLY LINES OF SAID BLOCK. AREA - 181 SQ. FT. MORE OR LESS EXHIBIT "A" C:::�, CUTLER & ASSOCIATES, INC. Real Estate and Propem-Acyuisirion fonsulrann February 21, 1997 Mr. Don F. Guglielmino Newhall Buildings, Inc. c/o Mr. Doug Wubbena P. 0. Box 193 Brea, CA 92622 Regarding: City of Santa Clarita Railroad Avenue Improvement Project Dear Mr. Wubbena: As you are aware, the City of Santa Clarita has been working with you, as the representative of Mr. Guiglielmino and Newhall Buildings, Inc., in the acquisition of the various properties needed for the above referenced project. We explained in our last meeting that the original improvement plans included the modification of the intersection of 5ih Street and Railroad Avenue. There was some discussion regarding the potential vacation of 51 Street, between Railroad Avenue and San Fernando Road, which would have eliminated. the need for the modification of the comers. To date, no determination to pursue the vacation of 51" Street has been made. Therefore, enclosed are the two formal offers from the City relative to the acquisition of the needed right-of-way for the improvement of the 51 Street and Railroad Avenue intersection. As before, please present these offers to Mr. Guglielmino and have him receipt for same on the enclosed copy. I look forward to working with you on these acquisitions, and the acquisitions previously submitted to you. As always, if you have any questions regarding these offers, or any other matters relative to this project, please do not hesitate to call me. Sincerely, PCuSSOITES,Joht tel rPrionsultant JMC/cm sc1\002\008.Itr SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA C6.NTRAI.CALIFORNIA RAYAREA 6701'a,I r Cann High.m. Sona HK) 2941S .. r,h, ehd.. Sil, 745 2101 Wrhsrcr S1,r,1, Sail, 1500 Sea1 Rea,h. Califomiu 90740-6604 Ranrha C..YlawL Colifa.da 95742 Oakland. Calf vain 44472 Tikphaae:(310) 431-6789 Par: f310) 431.19.X5 Trlrphnnr:(916)85.9-9777 Far. (916) 853.1394 Telepi :(510) 446.7773 Fav (510).V36-4.50.? City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Blvd. Suite 300 Santa Clarita California 91355-2196 February 19, 1997 Phone (805)259-2489 Fax (805)259-8125 Don F. Guglielmino, Trustee P.O. Box 220849 Newhall, CA 91322 Reference: Railroad Avenue Improvement Project Portion of Assessor Parcel No.: 2831-019-021 Dear Mr. Guglielmino: The City of Santa Clarita City Council has approved plans for a public improvement projectof Railroad Avenue for street realignment and widening purposes. Thisproject requires the acquisition of a portion of your property as listed below. Therefore, the City of Santa Clarita hereby makes an offer to settle the acquisition of a portion of your property located at 22510 5t° Street, Santa Clarita, California, as shown on the attached map and legal description, for the sum of $3,600.00 which is segregated as follows: $3,600.00 Land and Improvements $ 0.00 Severance Damage $3,600.00 Total The City's offer is the full amount determined to be just compensation for the property interest. The basis for that determination is explained in the attached Information and Appraisal Summary Statement. It is the City's hope that this price is agreeable to you and that the acquisition can begin immediately. Cutler & Associates, Inc., the acquisition agent for the City, will contact you regarding the acquisition of that portion of your property and answer any questions you have regarding this letter, Information and Appraisal Summary Statement. The acquisition agent can be reached at (310) 431-6789 (collect). PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Page 2 It is requested that you acknowledge receipt of the City's offer by signing a copy of this letter and returning same to this office. Your signature on the copy does not signify acceptance of the City's - offer to settle the acquisition; it only acknowledges receipt of the City's offer. Your cooperation in this matter will be greatly appreciated. Sincerely, OFFER RECEIVED By: ;.fthony J. N�isich� Date: Director of Building & Engineering Services Receipt of Offer Does Not Constitute Acceptance AJN:JMCac scl\0021009off M INFORMATION STATEMENT This approved offer is presented in settlement of the acquisition of a portion of your property. $ 3,600.00 Land and Improvements 0.00 Severance Damage The value of the portion of your property.being purchased is based upon a market value appraisal prepared by an independent appraisal firm in accordance with accepted appraisal procedures. Where applicable, the valuation of the portion of your property is based upon an analysis of, recent sales of comparable sites and similar properties in this locality with consideration to the highest. and best use for development of the property; an income approach based on the potential fair rental for your property has been considered; and a replacement cost approach considering the estimated depreciated cost of the improvements, together with the value of the land, has been considered. Any diminution in value of the remainder parcel, or costs to mitigate same, have also been considered. Before arriving at a conclusion of value, the appraiser conducted an investigation in order to obtain the information necessary. The investigation generally includes an inspection of the property and improvements, and review of the improvements,a review of the immediate surrounding and regional influences, the property zoning and uses permitted, a study of the highest and best use to which the property can be put, easements which may exist on the property, the availability of utilities, access and street improvements. The appraiser may conduct interviews with knowledgeable persons, collect comparable sales data, information relating to fair rental value of the property and the cost of reproducing the improvements on the property. The offer is the full amount believed by the City to be just compensation for the portion of your property. It is not less than the City's highest approved appraisal of the Fair Market Value of the property. Any decreases or increases in the Fair Market Value of the real property to be acquired prior to the date of the valuation caused by the public improvements or project for which the property is to be acquired, or by the likelihood that the property would be acquired for such improvement or project, other than that due to physical deterioration within the reasonable control of the owner, has been disregarded by the City and its appraiser in making their determinationof the Fair Market Value of such property. FAIR MARKET VALUE, as used in the appraisal, is "........the highest price on the date of valuation that would be agreed by a seller, being willing to sell but under no particular or urgent necessity for doing so, nor obligated to sell, and a buyer, being ready, willing and able to buy but under no particular necessity for so doing, each dealing with the full knowledge of all the uses and purposes for which the property is reasonably adaptable and available." (Section 1263.320 Code of Civil Procedure) The determination of just compensation does not reflect any consideration of or allowance for relocation assistance and payments to which you may be entitled to receive under applicable State or Federal Law or of the City's agreement to pay certain settlement costs. This summary of the basis of the amount offered as just compensation is presented in compliance with State, and where applicable, Federal Law. Attached is an Appraisal Summary Statement including information pertinent to our offer to acquire the property. In the event you are the owner of a business conducted on the property being acquired by the City, you may be entitled to compensation for loss of goodwill, if any, if you are able to make a showing of such loss pursuant to the requirements of California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1263.510. For your information, Section 1263.510 is reprinted below in its entirety. (A) The owner of a business conducted on the property taken, or on the remainder if such property is part of a larger parcel, shall be compensated for loss of goodwill if the owner proves all of the following: (1) The loss is caused by the taking of the property or the injury to the remainder. (2) The loss cannot reasonably be prevented by relocation of the business or by taking steps and adopting procedures that a reasonablyprudent person would take and adopt in preserving the goodwill. (3) Compensation for the loss will not be included in payments under Section 7262 of the Government Code. (4) Compensation for the loss will not be duplicated in the compensation otherwise awarded to the owner. (B) Within the meaning of this article, "goodwill" consists of the benefits that accrue to a business as a result of its location, reputation for dependability, skill or quality, and any other circumstances resulting in probable retention of old or acquisition of new patronage." scl%002%info APPRAISAL SUMMARY STATEMENT PROPERTYINFORMATION Project Name: Railroad Avenue Realignment and Widening Property Owner: Don F. Guglielmino, Trustee of the Don and Flora Guglielmino Trust, a revocable living trust, U/D/T, July 31, 1985, Property Address: 22510 5`h Street, Santa Clarita, CA Assessors Parcel Number: 2831-019-021 Legal Description: See Exhibit "A" Attached Site Area: 28,125 square feet PartTaken: 181 square feet Improvements to be Acquired: 181 square feet of asphalt paving, 20 linear feet of 3 foot high concrete block walls, 29 linear feet of 5 foot high concrete block walls, 29 linear feet of 5 foot high concrete block/chain link walls, and 10 metal posts. Zoning: CC Interest Being Valued: - Fee Severance Damage: None VALUATIONAPPROACHES USED APPROACH YES NO Market Data X Cost/Data Reproduction X Income X SANTA CLARITA - RAILROAD AVENUE APN 2831-19-21 AREA - f181 SQUARE FEET SCALE 1" = 10' PROPOSED RAILROAD AVENUE CENTERLINE 0 I EXISTING RAILROAD AVENUE CENTERLINE 1 o I EXISTING R/W RAILROAD AVE N 32'15'53" W 29.00' I X4556 I 3D, I I I N 4 I W � o � I v $ a I L~ a I ex 0f I 0fCL cn 1 � 2 sl I r 42 Ln I LEGAL DESCRIPTION 2831-19-21 THAT PORTION OF LOTS 1 AND 2 OF BLOCK 42 OF THE TOWN OF NEWHALL, IN THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON A MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 53, PAGES 21 AND 22 OF MISCELLANEOUS RECORDS IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, DESCR)BED AS FOLLOWS: A SPANDREL. SHAPED PARCEL OF LAND BOUNDED NORTHEASTERLY BY THE NORtHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID BLOCK, BOUNDED NORTHWESTERLY BY THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID BLOCK AND SOUNDED SOUTHERLY BY THE ARC OF A TANGENT`ECONCAVE SOUTHERLY AND TO SAID NORTHEASTERLY AND HNORTHWESTERLY LINES OF SAAID RADIUS OF 29.00 FEET, L LNG BLOCK. AREA= ISI SQ. FT. MORE ORLESS EXHIBIT "A" City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Blvd. Suite 300 Santa Clarita California 91355-2196 January 30, 1997 Richard T. Hart, Trustee Lillian M. Hart, Trustee 17827 Ridgeway Road Granada Hills, CA 91344 Phone (805)259-2489 fax (805)259-8125 Reference: Railroad Avenue Improvement Project Portion of Assessor Parcel No.: 2831-010-043 Dear Property Owners: The City of Santa Clarita City Council has approved plans for a public improvement projectof Railroad Avenue for street realignment and widening purposes. Thisproject requires the acquisition of a portion of your property as listed below. Therefore, the City of Santa Clarita hereby makes an offer to settle the acquisition of a portion of your property located at 24355-24357 Railroad Avenue, Santa Clarita, California, as shown on the attached map and legal description, for the sum of $650.00 which is segregated as follows: $ 600.00 Land and Improvements $ 50.00 Severance Damage $ 650.00 Total The City's offer is the full amount determined to be just compensation for the property interest. The basis for that determination is explained in the attached Information and Appraisal Summary Statement. It is the City's hope that this price is agreeable to you and that the acquisition can begin immediately. Cutler & Associates, Inc., the acquisition agent for the City, will contact you regarding the acquisition of that portion of your property and answer any questions you have regarding this letter, Information and Appraisal Summary Statement. The acquisition agent can be reached at (310) 431-6789 (collect). . PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Page 2 It is requested that you acknowledge receipt of the City's offer by signing a copy of this letter and returning same to this office. Your signature on the copy does not signify acceptance of the City's offer to settle the acquisition; it only acknowledges receipt of the City's offer. Your cooperation in this matter will be greatly appreciated. Sincerely, Anthony J. isich Director of Building & Engineering Services AJN:JMC:lc 5on002m Iofr OFFER RECEIVED 2 Receipt of Offer Does Not Constitute Acceptance INFORMATION STATEMENT This approved offer is presented in settlement of the acquisition of a portion of your property. $ 600.00 Land and Improvements $ 50.00 Severance Damage The value of the portion of your property being purchased is based upon a market value appraisal prepared by an independent appraisal firm in accordance with accepted appraisal procedures. Where applicable, the valuation of the portion of your property is based upon an analysis of, recent sales of comparable sites and similar properties in this locality with consideratim to the highest and best use for development of the property; an income approach based on the potential fair rental for your property has been considered; and a replacement cost approach considering the estimated depreciated cost of the improvements, together with the value of the land, has been considered. Any diminution in value of the remainder parcel, or costs to mitigate same, have also been considered. Before arriving at a conclusion of value, the appraiser conducted an investigation in order to obtain the information necessary. The investigation generally includes an inspection of the property and improvements, and review of the improvements,a review of the immediate surrounding and regional influences, the property zoning and uses permitted, a study of the highest and best use to which the property can be put, easements which may exist on the property, the availability of utilities, access and street improvements. The appraisermay conduct interviews with knowledgeable persons, collect comparable sales data, information relating to fair rental value of the a property and the cost of reproducing the improvements on the property. The offer is the full amount believed by the City to be just compensation for the portion of your property. It is not less than the City's highest approved appraisal of the Fair Market Value of the property. Any decreases or increases in the Fair Market Value of the real property to be acquired prior to the date of the valuation caused by the public improvements or project for which the property is to be acquired, or by the likelihood that the property would be acquired. for such improvement or project, other than that due to physical deterioration within the reasonable control of the owner, has been disregarded by the City and its appraiser in making their determination of the Fair Market Value of such property. FAIR MARKET VALUE, as used in the appraisal, is "........the highest price on the date of valuation that would, be agreed by a seller, being willing to sell but under no particular or urgent necessity for doing so, nor obligated to sell, and a buyer, being ready, willing and able to buy but under no particular necessity for so doing, each dealing.with the full knowledge of all the uses and purposes for which the property is reasonably adaptable and available." (Section 1263.320 Code of Civil Procedure) The determination of just compensation does not reflect any consideration of or allowance for relocation assistance and payments to which you may be entitled to receive under applicable State or Federal Law or of the City's agreement to pay certain settlement costs. This summary of the basis of the amount offered as just compensation is presented in compliance with State, and where applicable, Federal Law. Attached is an Appraisal Summary Statement including information pertinent to our offer to acquire the property. In the event you are the owner of a business conducted on the property being acquired by the City, you may be entitled to compensation for loss of goodwill, if any, if you are able to make a showing of such loss pursuant to the requirements of California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1263.510. For your information, Section 1263.510 is reprinted below in its entirety. (A) The owner of a business conducted on the property taken, or on the remainder if such property is part of a larger parcel, shall be compensated for loss of goodwill if the owner proves all of the following: (1) The loss is caused by the taking of the property or the injury to the remainder. (2) The loss cannot reasonably be prevented by relocation of the business or by taking steps and adopting procedures that a reasonably prudent person would take and adopt in preserving the goodwill. (3) Compensation for the loss will not be included in payments under Section 7262 of the Government Code. (4) Compensation for the loss will not be duplicated in the compensation otherwise awarded to the owner. (B) Within the meaning of this article, "goodwill" consists of the benefits that accrue to a business as a result of its location, reputation for dependability, skill or quality, and any other circumstances resulting in probable retention of old or acquisition of new patronage." sc11002\info APPRAISAL SUMMARY STATEMENT PROPERTYINFORMATION Project Name: Railroad Avenue Realignment and Widening Property Owner: Richard T. Hart and Lillian M. Hart as Trustee's of the Hart Trust dated April 18, 1990. Property Address: 24355-24357 Railroad Avenue, Santa Clarita, CA Assessors Parcel Number: 2831-010-043 Legal Description: See Exhibit "A" Attached Site Area: 6000 square feet Part Taken: 48 square feet Improvements to be Acquired: 15 square feet of concrete paving and 1 juniper shrub. Zoning: CC Interest Being Valued: Fee Severance Damage: Mitigation of severance damages: rework irrigation system. VALUATIONAPPROACHES USED APPROACH YES NO Market Data X Cost/Data Reproduction X Income X LEGAL DESCRIPTION 2831-10-43 THOSE PORTIONS OF LOTS 9 AND 10 OF BLOCK 1S OF THE TOWN OF NEWHALL, IN THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON A MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 53, PAGES 21 AND 22 OF MISCELLANEOUS RECORDS, IN THE OFFICE OF -THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: AT THE EASTERLY CORNER.OF SAID LOT 10; THENCE S 57043'47" W 2.85 FEET ALONG THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 10, TO THE BEGINNING OF A NON -TANGENT CURVE, CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 435.73 FEET, THROUGH WHICH POINT A RADIAL LINE BEARS N 64019'09"E; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY 49.80 FEET ALONG SAID CURVE TO THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID BLOCK 18; THENCE S 32014154" E 49.69 FEET TO THE POINT.OF BEGINNING;. EXHIBIT "A" PAGE 1 of 2 PROPOSED � RAILROAD AVE. 0 EXISTING C RAILROAD AVE— Sr'T4w- E lb 2.85' EXHIBIT "A" PAGE 2 of 2 SANTA CLARITA - RAILROAD AVENUE APN 2831-10-43 AREA = 48 SQUARE FEET MORE OR LESS SCALE 1" = 10' 30` S 32'1546" E A =37750' L =49 80�' 3 z s� al � o 0 o_ CL 1 8 7 8 10 1 'I 1 Z - EXHIBIT "A" PAGE 2 of 2 SANTA CLARITA - RAILROAD AVENUE APN 2831-10-43 AREA = 48 SQUARE FEET MORE OR LESS SCALE 1" = 10' 30` S 32'1546" E 23920 Valencia Blvd. Phone Suite 300 (805) 259.2489 Santa Clanta Fax Califomia 91355-2196 (805) 259-8125 City of NOTICE OF HEARING Santa Clarita TO: NOTICE OF HEARING REGARDING THE INTENTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, A GENERAL LAW CITY, TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION OF NECESSITY FOR THE ACQUISITION OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA. Ms. Cecelia Melanson, Manager Real Estate Services Metropolitan Transportation Authority 1 Gate Plaza Los Angeles, CA 90012 APN NO.. 2831.026-900, 901, 904 through 913 - Right -of -Way between 4th Street and 11th Street YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 1230.010 et. Seq., that the City Council of the City of Santa Clanta intends to consider the adoption of a Resolution of Necessity for acquisition by eminent domain of certain real property ("Property"), which is described and depicted on Exhibits A-1, B-1, A-2 and B-2, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference for public street purposes and all uses appurtenant thereto, Railroad Avenue Improvement Project No. 95-065 and Newhall Metrolink Station ("Project"). The hearing will be held on March 11, 1997 at 6:30 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the City Couu6). can hear said matter, at the City of Santa Clanta Council Chambers, located at 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clanta, California 91355. You as a person claiming or having an interest in and to the Property are hereby notified that you have the right to appear and be heard on the issues to be considered at that hearing. The issues which will be considered are as follows: NOTICE OF HEARING Page 2 The issues which will be considered are as follows: Whether or not the public interest and necessity require the Project; 2. Whether or not the Projects is planned or located in the manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury; 3. Whether or not the Property sought to be acquired is necessary for the Project; and 4. Whether or not the offer required by Government Code Section 7267.2 has been made to the owner or owners of record. If you wish to be heard at this hearing, you MUST FILE A WRITTEN REQUEST indicating your intent to appear and be heard, within fifteen (15) days of the mailing of this notice by filing or deliver that written request to the City Clerk, City of Santa Clarita, at 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 300, Santa Clarita, California 91355. You may use the enclosure for the purpose of notifying the City of your intent and desire to be heard. Your failure im ly. file a written request to appear and be heard may result in a w iy r of your right to be heard. For further information, contact Bonnie Joseph at City Hall at (805) 256-4139. `lmu Anthony J. i i Director of . g & Engineering Services Date: February 24, 1997 NOTICE OF HEARING Page 3 REQUEST TO BE HEARD ON RESOLUTION OF NECESSITY FOR THE ACQUISITION OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY Name Telephone Date Signature engdvi%9S-W Vpubhgntb0 EXHLBCT A -L LEGAL DESCRIPTION THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTHERN PACIFIC RIGHT OF WAY, IN THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON A MAP OF THE TOWN OF NEWHALL RECORDED IN BOOK 53, PAGES 21 AND 22 OF MISCELLANEOUS RECORDS IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER'OF SAID COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS -FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE CENTERLINE OF 4TH STREET WITH THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF RAILROAD AVENUE, SAID LINE ALSO BEING THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF THE SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD RIGHT OF WAY; THENCE S 32015153" E 298.40 FEET ALONG SAID LINE TO A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SAN FERNANDO ROAD, SAID POINT BEING THE WESTERLY TERMINUS OF THAT CERTAIN COURSE WHICH BEARS "S62°30'24"E 183.80"' AS SHOWN ON STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RIGHT OF WAY MAP No. P4068-1-1, SAID POINT ALSO BEING THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE S 62018'45" E 27.96 FEET ALONG SAID LINE TO A LINE WHICH IS PARALLEL WITH AND DISTANT NORTHEASTERLY 14.00 FEET FROM THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF RAILROAD AVENUE; THENCE N 32°15'53" W 912.52 FEET ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 509.72 FEET; THENCE NORTHERLY 119.60 FEET ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 13026'36" TOA POINT ON THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF RAILROAD AVENUE; THENCE S 32015'53" E 1006.81 FEET ALONG. SAID LINE TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. EXHIBIT B-1 9) CURVE 4 -13.26,360 R =509.72 L =119.60 SANTA CLARITA - RAILROAD AVENUE AREA - 113,715 SQUARE FEET SCALE 1' - 120' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - EXISTING C/L SPRR R/W - - ® S 327553 E PROPOSED RAILROAD AVENUE R �t�9!`' N 3215 53 W R Fig RAI AD AVENUE CENTERLINE 1006.81 - i m Chi 7--5cTM�N RxIfR0A6� AVENUE CfAifRIIFtL 1 1 1 1 1 1�j 1 1 1 1 1 1 L1_I_LJ I� 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i l l l l l l l l LL1—I_L1_I_L1_LL1J FERNANDO ROAD r r7-1—r7—i—r7-1—r7-1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i l I I I •- I• I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I t_L1_I_L1 L1_I_LIJ i 5i, EXHIBIT A-? LEGAL DESCRIPTION THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTHERN PACIFIC RIGHT OF WAY, IN THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON A MAP OF THE TOWN OF NEWHALL RECORDED IN BOOK 53, PAGES 21 AND 22 OF MISCELLANEOUS RECORDS IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE EASTERLY CORNER OF BLOCK 9 OF SAID TOWN OF NEWHALL; THENCE N 57036'57" E 60.00 FEET ALONG THE NORTHEASTERLY PROLONGATION OF THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID BLOCK TO A POINT ON THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF RAILROAD AVENUE AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF SAID TOWN OF NEWHALL; THENCE S 32°21'59" E 731.68 FEET ALONG SAID NORTHEASTERLY LINE TO A POINT ON A NON -TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE NORTHWESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 509.72 FEET, TO WHICH POINT A RADIAL LINE BEARS N 71005'36" E, SAID POINT BEING THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTHERLY 119.74.FEET ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 13°27135" TO A POINT ON A LINE PARALLEL WITH AND DISTANT 14.00 FEET NORTHEASTERLY FROM THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID RAILROAD AVENUE; THENCE N 32021'59" W 896.63 FEET ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 1394.35 FEET; THENCE NORTHERLY 158.10 FEET ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 06029148" TO. THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE CURVE CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 1394.35 FEET; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY 11.38 FEET ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 00°28103" TO A POINT ON THE NORTHEASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF RAILROAD AVENUE, SAID LINE BEARS "N 57031145" E 5.00"' AS SHOWN ON STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RIGHT OF WAY MAP No. P4068-1-7, TO WHICH POINT A RADIAL LINE BEARS S 51036116" W; THENCE S 57038'01" W 3.80 FEET ALONG SAID RIGHT OF WAY LINE TO AN ANGLE POINT ON SAID LINE; THENCE S 32021159" E 1184.34 FEET ALONG SAID NORTHEASTERLY. LINE TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. i SANTA CLARITA - RAILROAD AVENUE AREA = 15,452 SOUARE FEET MORE OR LESS Iz o i� In � ------------ 1 53271'59"E 11E NST38 WE 5.00' N57*38'01'E 3.80' )/ Jo VI t Abu1 1 � PROPOSE k M EXHIBIT B-2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 � 1 1 1 \ 1 NO SCALE A =13'27'3; R =509.72 L =119.74 CURVE DATA A =0'28'03" CURVE DATA R =1394.35 �1 p =6 2948" L =11.38 R =1394.35: " L =158.10 _ )/ Jo VI t Abu1 1 � PROPOSE k M EXHIBIT B-2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 � 1 1 1 \ 1 NO SCALE A =13'27'3; R =509.72 L =119.74 23920 Valencia Blvd. Phone Suite 300 (805) 259-2489 Santa Clarita Fax Califomia 91355-2196 (905) 259.8125 City of Santa Clarita NOTICE OF HEARING TO: NOTICE OF HEARING REGARDING THE INTENTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, A GENERAL LAW CITY, TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION OF NECESSITY FOR THE ACQUISITION OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA. M�� Robert C. and Suzette M. Crozier 15800 Condor Ridge Road Canyon Country, CA 91351 APN NO. 2831.007-028 - Corner Cut at Railroad Avenue and 9th Street YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 1230.010 et. Seq., that the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita intends to consider the adoption of a Resolution of Necessity for acquisition by eminent domain of certain real property ("Property"), which is described and depicted on Exhibits A and B, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference for public street purposes and all uses appurtenant thereto, Railroad Avenue Improvement Project No. 95-065 ("Project"). The hearing will be held on March 11, 1997 at 6:30 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the.City Council can hear said matter, at the City of Santa Clarita Council Chambers, located at 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita, California 91355. You as a person claiming or having an interest in and to the Property are hereby notified that you have the right to appear and be heard on the issues to be considered at that hearing. The issues which will be considered are as follows: PPoNTEO ON FECY= PAPER NOTICE OF HEARING Page 2 The issues which will be considered are as follows: 1. Whether or not the public interest and necessity require the Project; 2. Whether or not the Projects is planned or located in the manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury; 3. Whether or not the Property sought to be acquired is necessary.for the Project; and 4. Whether or not the offer required by Government Code Section 7267.2 has been made to the owner or owners of record. If you wish to be heard at this hearing,you MUST FILE A WRITTEN REQUEST indicating your intent to appear and be heard, within fifteen (15) days of the mailing of this notice by filing or deliver that written request to the City Clerk, City of Santa Clarita, at 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 300, Santa Clarita, California 91355. You may use the enclosure for the purpose of notifying the City of your intent and desire to be heard. Your £ail ure to timely file a written mqueat to appear and be heard may result in a waiver ofyour right tom. For further information, contact Bonnie Joseph at City Hall at (805) 286-4139. a0`17u Anthony J.1)ii iVz Director of ' g & Engineering Services Date: February 24, 1997 NOTICE OF HEARING Page 3 REQUEST TO BE HEARD ON RESOLUTION OF NECESSITY FOR THE ACQUISITION OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY Name Telephone Address Date Signature en<de1195-0851 pubhr{ Lbq EXHIBIT A 2831-7-28 THOSE PORTIONS OF LOTS 11 AND 12 OF BLOCK 16 OF THE TOWN OF NEWHALL IN THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON A MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 53, PAGES 21 AND 22 OF MISCELLANEOUS RECORDS IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: A SPANDREL SHAPED PARCEL OF LAND BOUNDED NORTHEASTERLY BY THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID BLOCK, BOUNDED SOUTHEASTERLY BY THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID BLOCK, AND BOUNDED WESTERLY BY THE ARC OF A CURVE CONCAVE WESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 29.00 FEET, BEING TANGENT TO SAID NORTHEASTERLY AND SOUTHEASTERLY LINES. OF BLOCK 16. AREA = 181 SQ. FT. MORE OR LESS EXHIBLY B SANTA CLARITA - RAILROAD AVENUE APN 2831-7-28 AREA = 181 SQUARE FEET MORE OR LESS SCALE 1" = 10' PROPOSED � RAILROAD AVE. 115.812 _ _EXISTING ( RAILROAD AVE. �� S 32.14'54' E •N EXISTING R/W 29.01f = R -29.00'90'00'00' R L =45.57' 16 5 101Z. 11 5 23920 Valencia Blvd. Phone Suite 300 (805) 259-2489 Santa Clanta Fax California 91355-2196 (805) 259-8125 City of NOTICE OF HEARING Santa Clarita ITO NOTICE OF HEARING REGARDING THE INTENTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, A GENERAL LAW CITY, TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION OF NECESSITY FOR THE ACQUISITION OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA. Mr. Archibald Higman, Trustee Mr. Glen R. Phillips P.O. Box 801569 Santa Clarita, CA 91380 APN NO. 2831-010-038 - Corner Cut at Railroad Avenue and 9th Street YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 1230.010 et. Seq., that the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita intends to consider the adoption of a Resolution of Necessity for acquisition by eminent domain of certain real property ("Property"), which is described and depicted on Exhibits A and B, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference for public street purposes and all uses appurtenant thereto, Railroad Avenue Improvement Project No. 95-065 ("Project"). The hearing will be held on March 11, 1997 at 6:30 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the City Council can hear said matter, at the City of Santa Clarita Council Chambers, located at 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita, California 91355. You as a person claiming or having an interest in and to the Property are hereby notified that you have the right to appear and be heard on the. issues to be considered at that hearing. The issues which will be.considered are as follows: PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER NOTICE OF HEARING Page 2 The issues which will be considered are as follows: Whether or not the public interest and necessity require the Project; 2. Whether or not the Projects is planned or located in the manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury; 3. Whether or not the Property sought to be acquired is necessary for the Project; and 4. Whether or not the offer required by Government Code Section 7267.2 has been made to the owner or owners of record. If you wish to be heard at this hearing, you MUST FILE A WRITTEN REQUEST indicating your intent to appear and be heard, within fifteen (15) days of the mailing of this notice by filing or deliver that written request to the City Clerk, City of Santa Clarita, at 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 300, Santa Clarita, California 91355. You may use the enclosure for the purpose of notifying the City of your intent and desire to be heard. Your fedi +ra to timely file a written mquest to anne r and be heard may result in a waiver of yQur right to be begird. For further information, contact Bonnie Joseph at City Hall at (805) 286-4139. Anthony J. l�i i Director of g & Engineering Services Date: February 24, 1997 NOTICE OF HEARING Page 3 REQUEST TO BE HEARD ON RESOLUTION OF NECESSITY FOR THE ACQUISITION OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY Name Telephone Signature Borg^ 1 q5 -m 1 pubbrent.b4 EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION APN No. 2831-010-038 THAT PORTION OF LOT I OF BLOCK 18 OF THE TOWN OF NEWHALL, LY THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON A MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 53, PAGES 21 AND 22 OF MISCELLANEOUS RECORDS IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE EAST CORNER OF SAID LOT; THENCE N 32° 14'54" W 15.00 FEET ALONG THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID BLOCK TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING, SAID POINT BEING THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 14,00 FEET; THENCE WESTERLY 11.14 FEET ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 45°34'40" TO A POINT ON THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID BLOCK, TO WHICH POINT A RADIAL LINE BEARS N 12°10'26" E; THENCE N 57°44'07" E 4.20 FEET ALONG SAID LINE TO THE NORTH CORNER OF SAIDBLOCK; THENCE S 32014'54"E 10.00 FEET ALONG THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID BLOCK TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. AREA -13 SQ. FT. MORE OR LESS EXHIBIT B APN No. 2831-010-038 SANTA CLARITA - RAILROAD AVENUE AREA = 113 SQUARE FEET SCALE i" = 10' PROPOSED C/L RAILROAD AVE I S 32'14'54" E EXISTING CA RAILROAD AVE C� I ~ Lil wl S32'14'54E 10.00' 4.20' cn I w W O 18 Z zI EXISTING 20POSED RAI =45'34'40' 14.00' =11.14' 0 M A City of Santa Clarita TO: 23920 Valencia Blvd. Suite 300 Santa Clarita Califomia 91355-2196 Phone (805)259-2489 Fax (805) 259-8125 NOTICE OF HEARING NOTICE OF HEARING REGARDING THE INTENTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, A GENERAL LAW CITY, TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION OF NECESSITY FOR THE ACQUISITION OF -CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA. Thomas E. Patrick, Trustee 17552 Index Street Granada Hills, CA 91344 APN NO. 2831-010-011- Comer Cut at 8th Street and Railroad Avenue YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 1230.010 et. Seq., that the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita intends to consider the adoption of a Resolution of Necessity for acquisition by eminent domain of certain real property ("Property"), which is described and depicted on Exhibits A and B, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference for public street purposes and all uses appurtenant thereto, Railroad Avenue Improvement Project No. 95-065 ("Project"). The hearing will be held on March 11, 1997 at 6:30 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the City Council can hear said matter, at the City of Santa Clarita Council Chambers, located at 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita, California 91355. You as a person claiming or having an interest in and to the Property are hereby notified that you have the right to appear and be heard on the issues to be considered at that hearing. The issues which will be considered are as follows: PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER NOTICE OF HEARING Page 2 The issues which will be considered are as follows: 1. Whether or not the public interest and necessity require the Project; 2. Whether or not the Projects is planned or located in the manner that will be most compatible with.the greatest public good and the least private injury; 3. Whether or not the Property sought to be acquired is necessary for the Project; and 4. Whether or not the offer required by Government Code Section 7267.2 has been made to the owner or owners of record. If you wish to be heard at this hearing, you MUST FILE A WRITTEN REQUEST indicating your intent to appear and be heard, within fifteen (15) days of the mailing of this notice by filing or deliver that written request to the City Clerk, City of Santa Clarita, at 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 300, Santa Clarita, California 91355. You may use the enclosure for the purpose of notifying the City of your intent and desire to be heard. Your failure m iv file a written mquest to appear and be heard may result in a waiver of your right to be he:ard,. For further information, contact Bonnie Joseph at City Hall at (805) 286.4139. l ru Anthony J.Ii i OZ Director of '1 ' g & Engineering Services Date: February 24, 1997 NOTICE OF HEARING Page 3 REQUEST TO BE HEARD ON RESOLUTION OF NECESSITY FOR THE ACQUISITION OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY Date Signature eHcvi%96-W \pubhxintiq Telephone EXHIBIT A 2831-10-11 THOSE PORTIONS OF LOTS 11 AND 12 OF BLOCK 18 OF THE TOWN OF NEWHALL, IN THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS.SHOWN ON A MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 53, PAGES 21 AND '22 OF MISCELLANEOUS RECORDS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY; DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE EASTERLY CORNER OF SAID BLOCK 18; THENCE N 32014'54" W 10.00 FEET ALONG THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE.OF SAID BLOCK 18 TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE, CONTINUING N 32°14'54" W ALONG SAID NORTHEASTERLY LINE, 40.00 FEET TO THE NORTHERLY CORNER OF SAID LOT; THENCE S 57043'47" W 2.85 FEET ALONG THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 11, TO THE BEGINNING OF A° NON -TANGENT CURVE, CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 435.73 FEET, THROUGH WHICH POINT A RADIAL LINE BEARS N 64019'09"E; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY 26.35 FEET ALONG SAID CURVE TO THE BEGINNING OF A COMPOUND CURVE, CONCAVE WESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 29.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY 40.45 FEET ALONG SAID CURVE TO THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF LOT 12; THENCE N 57043'47" E 29.20 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE, CONCAVE WESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS'OF 10.00 FEET; THENCE NORTHERLY 15.72 FEET ALONG SAID CURVE TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. AREA = 428 SQ. FT. MORE OR LESS EXHIBIT B SANTA CLARITA - RAILROAD AVENUE APN 2831-10-11 AREA = 428 SQUARE FEET MORE OR LESS PROPOSED q RAILROAD AVE. 0 EXISTING C RAILROAD AVE. IS 3274'54" E "o M EXISTING R/W,,Zau +o.ar Q AI Q �' Q�J N CL Pq 4KJ 7 8 -9 10 11 1? SCALE 1" = 10' S 3215'46' E City of Santa Clarita TO: 23920 Valencia Blvd, Suite 300 Santa Clanta Califomia 91355-2196 Phone (805)259-2489 Fax (805) 259-8125 NOTICE OF HEARING NOTICE OF HEARING REGARDING THE INTENTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, A GENERAL LAW CITY, TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION OF NECESSITY FOR THE ACQUISITION OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA. Frank Maga P.O. Box 6805 Pine Mountain Club, CA 93222 APN NO. 2831.014-005 - Corner Cut at Market Street and Railroad Avenue YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 1230.010 et. Seq., that the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita intends to consider the adoption of a Resolution of Necessity for acquisition by eminent domain. of certain real property ("Property"), which is described and depicted on Exhibits A and B, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference for public street purposes and all uses appurtenant thereto, Railroad Avenue Improvement Project No. 95-065 ("Project"). The hearing will be held on March 11, 1997 at 6:30 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the City Council can hear said matter, at the City of Santa Clarita Council Chambers, located at 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita, California 91355. You as a person claiming or having an interest in and to the Property are hereby notified that you have the right to appear and be heard on the issues to be considered at that hearing. The issues which will be considered are as follows: r_� NOTICE OF HEARING Page 2 The issues which will be considered are as follows: 1. Whether or not the public interest and necessity require the Project; 2. Whether or not the Projects is planned or located in the manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury; 3. Whether or not the Property sought to be acquired is necessary -for the Project; and 4. Whether or not the offer required by Government Code Section 7267.2 has been made to the owner or owners of record. If you wish to be heard at this hearing, you MUST FILE A WRITTENREQUEST indicating your intent to appear and be heard, within fifteen (15) days of the mailing of this notice by filing or deliver that written request to the City Clerk, City of Santa Clarita, at 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 300, Santa Clarita, California 91355. You may use the enclosure for the purpose of notifying the City of your intent and desire to be heard. Your failure to timely file a written request alloar and be heard may result in a waiver of yg ,r right to bal2emrd. For further information, contact Bonnie Joseph at City Hall at (805) 2864139. ` 2 I� Anthony J. Ijfi i P 9z Director of g & Engineering Services Date:- February 24, 1997 NOTICE OF HEARING Page 3 REQUEST TO BE HEARD ON RESOLUTION OF NECESSITY FOR THE ACQUISITION OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY Date Signature engawt eV M%pubbr ne.bo Telephone EXHIBIT A APN 2831-014-005 THAT PORTION OF BLOCK 31 OF THE TOWN OF NEWHALL IN THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON A MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 53, PAGES 21 AND 22, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: A SPANDREL SHAPED PARCEL OF LAND BOUNDED NORTHWESTERLY BY THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID BLOCK, BOUNDED NORTHEASTERLY BY THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID BLOCK, AND BOUNDED SOUTHERLY BY THE ARC OF A CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 29.00 FEET BEING TANGENT TO THE NORTHWESTERLY AND NORTHEASTERLY LINES OF SAID BLOCK. AREA = 181 SQ. FT. MORE OR LESS EXHIBIT B SANTA CLARITA - RA[LROAO AVENUE ARN 2831-014-005 AREA = 181 SQUARE FEET MORE OR LESS SCALE 1" = 101 PROPOSED � RAILROAD AVE. L _ _ S 32.15'46• E RAILROAD A EXISTING RAILROAD AVE. EXISTING R/W--%,, M MI PROPOED R r�1 .nlr •I♦ Lt1 III M t1 Ii �. .r .r1l •1I 23920 Valencia Blvd. Phone Suite 300 (805) 259-2489 Santa Clarita fax Califomia 91355-2196 (805) 259.8125 City ofI NOTICE OF HEARING Santa Clarita TO: NOTICE OF HEARING REGARDING THE INTENTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, A GENERAL LAW CITY, TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION OF NECESSITY FOR THE ACQUISITION OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA. Don Guglielmino, Trustee P.O. Boa 220849 Newhall, CA 91322 APN NO. 2831-018-009 - Corner Cut at 6th Street and Railroad Avenue YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 1230.010 et. Seq., that the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita intends to consider the adoption of a Resolution of Necessity for acquisition by eminent domain of certain real property ("Property"), which is described and depicted on Exhibits A and B, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference for public street purposes and all uses appurtenant thereto, Railroad Avenue Improvement Project No. 95-065 ("Project"). The hearing will be held on March 11, 1997 at 6:30 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the City Council can hear said matter, at the City of Santa Clarita Council Chambers, located at 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita, California 91355. You as a person claiming or having an interest in and to the Property are hereby notified that you have the right to appear and be heard on the issues to be considered at that hearing. The issues which will be considered are as follows: PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER NOTICE OF HEARING Page 2 The issues which will be considered are as follows: 1. Whether or not the public interest and necessity require the Project; 2. Whether or not the Projects is planned or located in the manner that will be most compatible with' the greatest public good and the least private injury; 3. Whether or not the Property sought to be acquired is necessary for the Project; and 4. Whether or not the offer required by Government Code Section 7267.2 has been made to the owner or owners of record. If you wish to be heard at this hearing, you MUST FILE A WRITTEN REQUEST indicating your intent to appear and be heard, within fifteen (15) days of the mailing of this notice by filing or deliver that written request to the City Clerk, City of Santa Clarita, at 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 300, Santa Clarita, California 91355. You may use the enclosure for the purpose of notifying the City of your intent and desire to be heard. Your failure to timely file a written request o appear and be heard may result in a waiver ofyour right to he beard. For further information, contact Bonnie Joseph at City Hall at (805) 286-4139. 1q494tkJ , j/, Anthony J. Ii i Vz Director of g & Engineering Services Date: February 24, 1997 NOTICE OF HEARING Page 3 REQUEST TO BE HEARD ON RESOLUTION OF NECESSITY FOR THE ACQUISITION OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY Name Telephone Date Signature en`�vikM-M1pubhr`ulbq EXHIBIT A 2831-18-9 THOSE PORTIONS OF LOTS 1, 2, 3 AND 4 OF BLOCK 35 OF THE TOWN OF NEWHALL IN THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON A MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 53, PAGES 21 AND 22, OF MISCELLANEOUS RECORDS IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHERLY CORNER OF SAID LOT 1; THENCE S 32015'53" E 100.00 FEET ALONG THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID BLOCK TO THE EASTERLY CORNER OF SAID LOT 4, SAID POINT BEING THE BEGINNING OF A NON -TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 435.73 FEET, THROUGH WHICH POINT A RADIAL LINE BEARS N 57043105" E; THENCE NORTHERLY 76.44 FEET ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 10003'11" TO THE BEGINNING OF A COMPOUND CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 29.00 FEET; THENCE NORTHERLY AND WESTERLY 40.45 FEET ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 79056'49" TO A POINT ON THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 1, SAID POINT BEING LOCATED SOUTHWESTERLY 35.27 FEET FROM THE NORTHERLY CORNER OF.SAID LOT 1; THENCE N 57043'05" E 35.27 FEET ALONG THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 1 TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. EXHIBIT B SANTA CLARITA - RAILROAD AVENUE APN 2831-18-9 AREA = 500 SQUARE FEET MORE OR LESS = 16' �sl SCALE 1" S/ o.�o\ can AL off: 2 3 5 m on 35 City of Santa Clarita TO: 23920 Valencia Blvd. Suite 300 Santa Clarita Califomia 91355-2196 Phone (805)259-2489 Fax (805) 259-8125 NOTICE OF HEARING NOTICE OF HEARING REGARDING THE INTENTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, A GENERAL LAW CITY, TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION OF NECESSITY FOR THE ACQUISITION OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA. - Newhall Buildings, Inc. P.O. Box 800 Newhall, CA 91322 APN NO. 2831-018-014,015 - Corner Cut at 5th Street and Railroad Avenue YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 1230.010 et. Seq., that the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita intends to consider the adoption of a Resolution of Necessity for acquisition by eminent domain of certain real property ("Property"),, which is described and depicted on Exhibits A and B, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference for public street purposes and all uses appurtenant thereto, Railroad Avenue Improvement Project No. 95-065 ("Project"). The hearing will be held on March 11, 1997 at 6:30 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the City Council can hear said matter, at the City of Santa Clarita Council Chambers, located at 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita, California 91355. You as a person claiming or having an interest in and to the Property are hereby notified that you have the right to appear and be heard on the issues to be considered at that hearing. The issues which will be considered are as follows: PRINTED ON RECYOIED PAPER NOTICE OF HEARING Page 2 The issues which will be considered are as follows: 1. Whether or not the public interest and necessity require the Project; 2. Whether or not the Projects is planned or located. in the manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury; 3. Whether or not the Property sought to be acquired is necessary for the Project; and 4. Whether or not the offer required by Government Code Section 7267.2 has been made to the owner or owners of record. If you wish to be heard at this hearing, you MUST FILE A WRITTEN REQUEST indicating your intent to appear and be heard, within fifteen (15) days of the mailing of this notice by filing or deliver that written request to the City Clerk, City of Santa Clarita, at 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 300, Santa Clarita, California 91355. You may use the enclosure for the purpose of notifying the City of your intent and desire to be heard. Your failure to timely file a written r!Muest to appear and be heard may result in a waiver of your right nt tbeb h argil. For further information, contact Bonnie Joseph at City Hall at (805) 286-4139. Anthony J.1Ni i Director of g &-Engineering Services Date: February 24, 1997 NOTICE OF HEARING Page 3 REQUEST TO BE HEARD ON RESOLUTION OF NECESSITY FOR THE ACQUISITION OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY N Address Date Signature 4o -d�M-M%pubbrPO4 Telephone EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION 2831-18-14/IS THAT PORTION OF LOTS i I AND 12 OF BLOCK 35 OF THE TOWN OF NEWIIALL, IN THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON A MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 53, PAGES 21 AND 22 OF MISCELLANEOUS RECORDS IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: A SPANDREL SHAPED PARCEL OF LAND BOUNDED NORTHEASTERLY BY THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID BLOCK, BOUNDED SOUTHEASTERLY BY THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID BLOCK AND BOUNDED WESTERLY BY THE ARC OF A CURVE CONCAVE WESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 29.00 FEET, BEING TANGENT TO SAID NORTHEASTERLY AND SOUTHEASTERLY LINES OF SAID BLOCK. AREA - 181 SQ. FT. MORE OR LESS q EXHIBIT 3 PROPOSED RAILROAD AVENUE CENTERLINE EXISTING RAILROAD AVENUE CENTERLINE l W 29.00' SANTA CLARITA - RAILROAD AVENUE APN 283118-14/15 ARCA - f181 SOUARE FEET SCALC 1' - 10' _ b I N 32'15'53' w 12 EXISTING R/W RAILROAD AVE 35 30_ 23920 Valencia Blvd. Phone Suite 300 (805) 259.2489 Santa Clarita Fax California 91355-2196 (805) 259.8125 City of I NOTICE OF HEARING . Santa Clarita TO: NOTICE OF HEARING REGARDING THE INTENTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, A GENERAL LAW CITY, TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION OF NECESSITY FOR THE ACQUISITION OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA. Don F. Guglielmino, Trustee P.O. Box 220849 Newhall, CA 91322 APN NO. 2831-019-021 - Corner Cut at 5th Street and Railroad Avenue YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant toCodeof Civil Procedure Section 1230.010 et. Seq., that the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita intends to consider the adoption of a Resolution of Necessity for acquisition by eminent domain of certain real property ("Property"), which is described and depicted on Exhibits A and B, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference for public street purposes and all uses appurtenant thereto, Railroad Avenue Improvement Project No. 95-065 ("Project"). The hearing will be held on March 11, 1997 at 6:30 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the City Council can hear said matter, at the City of Santa Clarita Council Chambers, located at 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita, California 91355. You as a person claiming or having an interest in and to the Property are hereby notified that you have the right to appear and be heard on the issues to be considered at that hearing. The issues which will be considered are as follows: PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER NOTICE OF HEARING Page 2 The issues which will be considered are as follows: 1. Whether or not the public interest and necessity require the Project; 2. Whether or not the Projects is planned or located in the manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury; 3. Whether or not the Property sought to be acquired is necessary for the Project; and 4. Whether or not the offer required by Government Code Section 7267.2 has been made to the owner or owners of record. If you wish to be heard at this hearing, you MUST FILE A WRITTEN REQUEST indicating your intent to appear and be heard, within fifteen (15) days of the mailing of this notice by filing or deliver that written request to the City Clerk, City of Santa Clarita, at 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 300, Santa Clarita, California 91355. You may use the enclosure for the purpose of notifying the City of your intent and desire to be heard. Your failure to timely file a written request to appear and be heard may For further information, contact Bonnie Joseph at City Hall at (805) 286-4139. Anthony J. li i oz Director of ' g & Engineering Services Date: February 24, 1997 NOTICE OF HEARING Page 3 REQUEST TO BE HEARD ON RESOLUTION OF NECESSITY FOR THE ACQUISITION OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY Name Telephone Date Signature EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION 2331-19-21 THAT PORTION OF LOTS 1 AND 2 OF BLOCK 42 OF THE TOWN OF NEWHALL, IN THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON A MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 53, PAGES 21 AND 22 OF INIISCELLANEOUS RECORDS IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: A SPANDREL SHAPED PARCEL OF LAND BOUNDED NORTHEASTERLY BY TIME NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID BLOCK, BOUNDED NORTHWESTERLY BY THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID BLOCK AND BOUNDED SOUTHERLY BY THE ARC OF A CURVECONCAVE SOUTHERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 29.00 FELT, BEING TANGENT TO SAID NORTHEASTERLY AND NORTHWESTERLY LINES OF SAID BLOCK AREA = 13 1 SQ. FT. MORE OR LESS EXHIBIT B SANTA CLARITA - RAILROAD AVENUE APN 2831-19-21 AREA = ±181 SQUARE FEET SCALE 1' = 10' PROPOSED RAILROAD AVENUE CENTERLINE 30' b -I La.a F- F— Ln = I Ln 7-1 EXISTING RAILROAD AVENUE EXISTING R/W RAILROAD AVE N 3215'53" W 29.00' A 2 0 23920 Valencia Blvd. Phone Suite 300 (805) 259-2489 Santa Clanta Fax Calif0mia 91355-2196 (805) 259-8125 City ofI NOTICE OF HEARING Santa Clarita 1K03 NOTICE OF HEARING REGARDING THE INTENTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL` OF THE CITY .OF SANTA CLARITA, A GENERAL LAW CITY, TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION OF NECESSITY FOR THE ACQUISITION OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA. Don F. Guglielmino Flora N. Guglielmino 24322 San Fernando Road Newhall, CA 91321 APN NO. 2831-026-001 n"WTA YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 1230.010 et. Seq., that the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita intends to consider the adoption of a Resolution of Necessity for acquisition by eminent domain of certain real property ("Property"), which is described and depicted on Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference for public street purposes and all uses appurtenant thereto, Railroad Avenue Improvement Project No. 95-065 and Newhall Metrolink Station ("Project"). The hearing will be held on March 11, 1997 at 6:30 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the City Council can hear said matter, at the City of Santa Clarita Council Chambers, located at 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita, California 91355. You as a person claiming or having an interest in and to the Property are hereby notified that you have the right to appear and be heard on the issues to be considered at that hearing. The issues which will be considered are as follows: PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER NOTICE OF HEARING Page 2 The issues which will be considered are as follows: 1. Whether or not the public interest and necessity require the Project; Whether or not the Projects is planned or located in the manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury; 3. Whether or not the Property sought to be acquired is necessary for the Project; and 4. Whether or not the offer required by Government Code Section 7267.2 has been made to the owner or owners of record. If you wish to be heard at this hearing, you MUST FILE A WRITTEN REQUEST indicating your intent to appear and be heard, within fifteen (15) days of the mailing of this notice by filing or deliver that written request to the City Clerk, City of Santa Clarita, at 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 300, Santa Clarita, California 91355. You may use the enclosure for the purpose of notifying the City of your intent and desire to be heard. Your fail +r . to timely file a written request appear and be heard may result in a waiver of your right to be heard. For further information, contact Bonnie Joseph at City Hall at (805) 286-4139. G• ^Yu Anthony J. li i Director of Im g & Engineering Services Date: February 24, 1997 NOTICE OF HEARING Page 3 REQUEST TO BE HEARD ON RESOLUTION OF NECESSITY FOR THE ACQUISITION OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY Date Signature .�ri�esaes�we�av Telephone EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION THE LAND REFERRED TO HEREIN IS SITUATED IN THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: THAT PORTION OF RANCHO SAN FRANCISCO, IN THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, AS SHOWN ON MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 1 PAGES 521 AND 522 OF PATENTS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, AS DESCRIBED IN THE DEED TO SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD, RECORDED ON MARCH 29, 1879, IN BOOK 67 PAGE 321 OF DEEDS, IN THE OFFICE OF SAID RECORDER EXCEPTING THEREFROM ALL MINERALS AND MINERAL RIGHTS INTERESTS, AND ROYALTIES, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITING, THE GENERALITY HEREOF, OIL, GAS AND OTHER HYDROCARBON SUBSTANCES, AS WELL AS METALLIC OR OTHER SOLID MINERALS, IN AND UNDER THE PROPERTY; HOWEVER, GRANTOR OR ITS SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS, SHALL NOT HAVE THE RIGHT FOR ANY PURPOSE WHATSOEVER TO ENTER UPON, INTO OR THROUGH THE SURFACE OF THE PROPERTY IN CONNECTION THEREWITH, AS RESERVED IN THE DEED RECORDED AUGUST 15, 1991 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 91-1294556, OFFICIAL RECORDS. 23920 Valencia Blvd. Phone Suite 300 (805) 259-2489 Santa Clanta Fax Califomia 91355.2196 (805) 259-8125 City ofI NOTICE OF HEARING Santa Clarita TO: NOTICE OF HEARING REGARDING THE INTENTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, A GENERAL LAW CITY, TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION OF NECESSITY FOR THE ACQUISITION OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA. Hart Family Trust Richard T. Hart 17827 Ridgeway Road Granada Hills, CA 91344 APN NO. 2831-010=043 YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 1230.010 et. Seq., that the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita intends to consider the adoption of a Resolution of Necessity for acquisition by eminent domain of certain real property ("Property"), which is described and depicted on Exhibits A and. B, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference for public street purposes and all uses appurtenant thereto, Railroad Avenue Improvement Project No. 95-065 ("Project"). The hearing will.be held on March 11, 1997 at 6:30 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the City Council can hear said matter, at the City of Santa Clarita Council Chambers, located at 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita, California 91355. You as a person claiming or having an interest in and to the Property are hereby notified that you have the right to appear and be heard on the issues to be considered at that hearing. The issues which will be considered are as follows: PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER NOTICE OF HEARING Page 2 The issues which will be considered are as follows: Whether or not the public interest and necessity require the Project; 2. Whether or not the Projects is planned or located in the manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury; 3. Whether or not the Property sought to be acquired is necessary for the Project; and 4. Whether or not the offer required by Government Code Section 7267.2 has been made to the owner or owners of record. If you wish to be heard at this hearing, you MUST FILE A WRITTEN REQUEST indicating your intent to appear and be heard, within fifteen (15) days of the mailing of this notice by filing or deliver that written request to the City Clerk, City of Santa Clarita, at 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 300, Santa Clarita, California 91355. You may use the enclosure for the purpose of notifying the City of your intent and desire to be heard. Your failure to timely file a written request o appear and be heard may result in a waiver ofo�right to be hard. For further information, contact Bonnie Joseph at City Hall at (805) 286-4139. Anthony J.li i Director of g & Engineering Services Date: February 24, 1997 NOTICE OF HEARING Page 3 REQUEST TO BE HEARD ON RESOLUTION OF NECESSITY FOR THE ACQUISITION OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY Name Telephone Address Date Signature engtivi\96-0%1 pWArgmLbdj EXHIBIT A 2831-10-43 THOSE PORTIONS OF LOTS 9 AND 10 OF BLOCK 18 OF THE TOWN OF NEWHALL, IN THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON A MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 53, PAGES 21 AND 22 OF MISCELLANEOUS RECORDS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE EASTERLY CORNER OF SAID LOT 10; THENCE S 57°43'47" W 2.85 FEET ALONG THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 10, TO THE BEGINNING OF A NON -TANGENT CURVE, CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 435.73 FEET, THROUGH WHICH POINT A RADIAL LINE BEARS N 64019109"E; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY 49.80 FEET ALONG SAID CURVE TO THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID BLOCK 18; THENCE S 32°14'54" E 49.69 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; AREA = 48 SQ. FT. MORE OR LESS EXHIBIT B SANTA CLARITA - RAILROAD AvENUE APN 2831-10-43 AREA =-48 SQUARE FEET MORE OR LESS PROPOSED � RAILROAD AVE. a EXISTING C RAILROAD AVECD zt4sa°�� a EXISTING R/Wti 1%7 SCALE i" = 10' a-rzrso• R �4�5_7f L -49. I 3 ri O\ 0 Q. SCALE i" = 10' City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Blvd. Suite 300 Santa Clarita California 91355-2196 April 4; 1997 Phone (805) 259-2489 Fax (805) 259-8125 Mr. Ray Hinton, P.E. Chief of Permits Branch Caltrans District 7 120 South Spring Street Los Angeles, CA 90012-- Attention: 0012_. Attention: Mr. Zack Kerfan Subject: Railroad Avenue/San Fernando Road (State Route Dear Mr. Hinton: i _t 1 tri 126) Improvements This letter is in response to Caltrans' letter of March 26, 1997, regarding the referenced project. This letter also addresses the issues we discussed with you and your staff in our meeting of March 26. Mr. Doug Failing, Bob Wallin, and Abdollah Ansari of Caltrans; George Caravalho, Bahman Janka, and Bonnie Joseph of the City of Santa Clarita; and Chris Bretall of HDR Engineering also attended this meeting. We appreciate your meeting with us to address Caltrans' concerns regarding our previously submitted plans. Mr. Walter Okitsu, the consultant preparing the signal design at this intersection, has prepared a detailed technical report which address all of Caltrans' concerns and is enclosed with this letter. In response to your. concerns, we have revised the intersection plan at the south end of the project and offer the following points to address the issues in your letter: 1, LARGE AREA OF CONFLICT: As explained in Item 3 below, the crosswalk across San Fernando Road has been eliminated, thereby reducing the size of the intersection. Although the intersection is skewed, the area of conflict is much smaller than those at other State Route 126 intersections within the City, such as the State Route 126/McBean Parkway or State Route 126/Bouquet Canyon Road intersections. Request and justification for "Exception From Advisory Standards" is documented in the enclosed draft copy of the Fact Sheet. 2 RAILROAD PREEMPTION ISSUE: This issue is discussed in length in the ' 'enclosed traffic report. As the report indicates, even if the signal is installed at 4th Street, it is__likely that the queue of northbound vehicles on San Fernando Road will reach the railroad tracks, thereby requiring a signal preemption to ensure clearing of vehicles over the tracks. This probability will increase as traffic volumes increase over the next several years. As documented in the report, we believe the City's proposal is a'superior alternative, as its proximity to the tracks makes it much easier and safer to clear the tracks during train crossing times. PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Mr. Ray Hinton, P.E. April -4,;1997_ Page 2 3. CROSSWALK ACROSS SAN FERNANDO ROAD; This crosswalk has been eliminated in our revised proposal, eliminating the concerns about vehicular/pedestrian conflicts during the preemption phase. This action also has helped reduce the area of conflict at the intersection, thereby reducing the required length of signal yellow intervals. The following respond to the three suggestions in your letter: 1. NO LEFT TURNS FROM RAILROAD AVENUE TO SAN FERNANDO ROAD: The prohibition of left turns will shift all such movements to the 4th Street intersection. As discussed in our meetings, the concept in the downtown revitalization plan is to eventually shiftalltruck traffic to Railroad Avenue. We have tested the alternative suggested by Caltrans and have concluded that such proposal will have severe operational and safety problems at the 4th Street intersection for truck traffic. As the enclosed sketch in the traffic report indicates, large trucks will have extreme difficulty making a sharp right turn from Railroad Avenue to 4th Street; and then another sharp left turn to San Fernando Road. This alternative will also pose a safety concern, as it will increase the potential for sideswipe accidents when a truck and another vehicle attempt simultaneous -left turns at the intersection. Without encroaching extensively on existing businesses and private property, the existing right-of- way does not provide . for a safe and efficient traffic operation at the intersection.— These movements are easily accommodated at the Railroad Avenue/San Fernando Road intersection as proposed by the City. 2. NO LEFT TURNS -FROM SAN FERNANDO ROAD TO 4TH STREET: The prohibition of this movement will cause undue hardship for access point to the businesses located at the northeast corner of San`Fernando RoadAth Street. Since southbound left turns from San Fernando Road ,to 5th Street are also prohibited, traffic destined for this property will have to use 6th Street or Market Street and Railroad Avenue to access this property, or proceed southbound beyond Railroad Avenue and the tracks and make U-turns at other intersections. These circuitous mavgm®nts will be detrimental to the livelihood of the businesses and will cause negative traffic operations on the surrounding streets. - 3." SI .N LI7.ATION OF SAN FERNANDO ROAD/41H STREET: The .,,.,,,,.,disadvantages of this proposal are fully documented in the enclosed traffic "report. ` It is likely that the northbound queue of vehicles at 4th Street will reach Beyond the railroad tracks in the future, requiring a railroad preemption. The trucks will have difficulty making tu6lg bit this intersection as explained above. Finally, due to the roadway curvature at Railroad Avenue/4th Street, minimum requirements for the :visibility of signal head indications for southbound Railroad Avenue will not be met, requiring additional signal hardware and signing along Railroad Avenue to warn motorists of the existence. of a signal. Mr. Ray Hinton, P.E. April 4, 1997 Pago 3— Enclosed with this letter are eight sets of the revised traffic signal and striping plans for the San Fernando Road/Railroad Avenue intersection, a detailed traffic report responding to Caltrans' concerns, and a draft copy of the Fact Sheet for this project. We believe the revised plans address all of Caltrans' concerns and have the following advantages as compared to a signal at 4th Street: 1. Truck movements will be easily accommodated at the proposed intersection. 2. During railroad preemption, vehicles can easily be cleared out of the track area. 3. The proposed signal at Railroad Avenue will result in a longer and more uniform signal spacing from Railroad Avenue to Market Street and thereby improve the signal coordination along this corridor. 4. The longer distance from Railroad Avenue to Newhall Avenue will improve the traffic operations, as it will provide increased distance to accommodate the queue of northbound vehicles at Newhall Avenue. The enclosed traffic report indicates that if 4th Street were to be signalized, it is likely that the queue of northbound left turning vehicles at Newhall Avenue would back into the traffic signal at 4th Street. 5. Since the traffic signal at Railroad Avenue will operate only with two phases, a 70 -second cycle may be maintained and coordinated with other traffic signals along this roadway. I would like to thank you and your staff for cooperating with the City to resolve the various issues related to this project. Please feel free to contact me at (805) 255-4963 if you have further questions. Sncerely, ?-thonyJ.Nis c City Engineer/. Director of Building & Engineering Services ,�Y�..T (]ill_' AJN.BJ'.1.1.kI .. _ . Enclosures cc: George A. Caravalho, City Manager Bahman Janka, City Traffic Engineer s., as`=ie.ep Project Engineer IgoFg altrans Chris Bretall, HDR Engineering, Inc. Walter Okitsu, Katz, Okitsu & Associates 04/03/97 16:01 X213 260 4706 Ratzohit.U-M--coc 001 -L Katz, Okitsu & Associates 1200 Corporate Center Drive, Suite 140 Monterey Park. CA 91754 (213)2604703 Fax: (213) 260.4701 PesWV brand faxtranwittaf mamn7f,71 Ieatpeen e MEMORAt ep( �t)52 2P5 TO: Belau= Janka, P.E IsOrJrQv Ist City Traffic Engineer City of Santa Clarita Building and Engineering Services Vepartment FROM Walter Oldtsu, P.E. DATE: April 3, 1997 RF.: Railroad Avenue Project J96186 Response to Caltrans Comments on the Siiptalized intersection on San Fernando Rand South of 4th Street We have preparcd this memorandum to respond to comments received fiom Caltrans in their letter wrhtm by Abdollah Ansari dated March 26, 1997. The letter disuusscd Caltrans' rcvicw of the traffic engineering drawings prepared for the San Fernando 3tosd/Railmad Avenue intersection south of 4th Street as part of the Railroad Avenue improvement project: CALTRANS:ASSERTIONS Caltrans expressed concerns about the layout of the proposed signalized intersection on San Fernando Road wrdh of 4th Street Caltrans propoud an alternative design to wluch southbound Railroad Avenue traffic would Intersect San Fernando Rudd by way urexisting 4th Street. Caluans asaccls the following points regarding our aubmittod doaign: 1. Our design has Railroad Avenue intersecting San Fernando Road ul a larhe augle, 1;0 dcgrcxs, which Caltrans asserts will cmitto a large area of conflict and could have safety implications compared to a standard intersection. 2. Both the Cahrans District Engineer and Ute Caltrans Headquarter Traffic Engineer reel that our signalized Intersection is too cicre to the railmad grsdr crossing, which requires preemption of the traftia signal. They expressed concern about the long distance between the railroad duos and die stop ling measured at 190 feet. and the difficulty in clearing this distance during preemption. J. (:sit= expressed concern rc:!&ding the proposod pedestrian crosswalk across San Fernando Road, because of its impacts on normal traffic signal timing, and hocause of the exposure of pedestrians to traffic clearing the railroad arnanine during preemption. Their letter states that itis: abrne difficulttcs with the inursxtion can he avoided by relocating the signali2ad intersection to the north at 4th Street with all sanhluntnd Railroad Avemre traffic being sent through this intersection. 04/03/97 16:02 '213 260 4705 . KatzOkitsu&Assoc 2 002 K(Katz, Okitsu & Associates OUR RESPONSES J We have the following responses to these comments/ Railmad3seemntion Relocating the signalized intersection to the north would act eliminate potential conflicts at the railroad crossirhg. 1f the trattic signal were installed at 4th Street, the northbound stop line would be located 415 feet from the crossing which is about 16 car lengths, assuming 25 feet per -vehicle. Existing evening peak hour volumes for northbound San Fernando Road are recorded at 1,722 vehicles per lhour Assuming a 70 -second cycle length and the existing travel panems, thio mraes that rrnfi;c queues could stretch across the railroad crossing 20 times per peak hour. This calculation is based on the rollowing: Assume 70 -second sibmal cycle, with northbound San Fernando Road receiving 35 seconds of red light per cycle. (Unlike the signalized intersection designed by the City, a signal at 4th Street and San Fernando Road would have multiple phases and a long crosswalk across San Fernando Road.) Assuming cars arrive at the intersection randomly, a rcd light duration of 35 seconds, and a saturation flow of 1800 vphpl, the average back of queue would extend 16 car lengths. Assuming a random Poisson arrival function, the queue would exceed 16 car lengths, i.e., extend across tlhe tracks, fur 40 percent or the cycles, us 20 thr:es per yedk hour. . Appendix A provides further explanation of this calculation. Metrolink trains are scheduled to cross at this site four times per hour (three northbound, ono southbuund). The possibility of a coaflictat this crossing therefore becomes extremely likely if the traffic queue were to extend across the track 20 times per hour. Preventing the conflict with standard railroad preemption of the traffic signal is extremely difficult when the trai'iio signal is mono than 400 feet away. The railroad gates would be located 520 feet from the stop line, or 21 car lengths. Clearing such a'distance would.requile extremely long railroad track circuit detection in orderto-move the 21st car out orthe crossing. In contra"sfe, our design provides for the stop line to be 70 feet from the crossing and 190 feet from the railroad gates, which are typical distances which can be easily cleared with standard railroad preemption. ' When Railroad Avenue is im rov traffic volumes on northbound San Fernando Road north of 4th Street P �. mill dimini.th Ixx.anse. twiween 35 percent and 80 percent of through traffic will divert to Railroad Avenue, where " Ibrotto' traffic rcr= W traffic headed north on San Fernando Road beyond I Ith Street This will rcducc the number of times that queues will extend across the railroad tracks, but will not eliminate the possibility. Queue length calculations have also been made for other configurations, as shown in Table 1. Traffic volumes for existing and Year ;:OVO were obtained from the report, "traffic and Varkiug Impact Analysis, Proposed Railroad Avenue improvement Project" by Katz, Okitsu & Associates, dated February 4, 1997. Year2010 volumes were'obtained by applying a growth factor of 26.8% for the period between 1996 and 2020, and 20% for the period between 2006 and 2020 . These growth factors are derived by comparing the City of Santa Clarita's traffic model daily volumes on San Fernando Road south of Ah Street for the years 2005 and 2020, shown to be 40,000 and 48,000 respectively, agamst counts taken in 1996 showing 37,840 vehicles per day. Obviously forecasts of future traffic queues aro- estimates only. Daily and seasonal fluctuations, and even fluctuations from cycle to cycle in traffc will result in variations orqucuc lengths. 04/03/97 16:03 V213 260 4705 KdtzOkitsuAASBge 12003 �� IKatz, Okitsu & Associates TABLE 1. rrvbubilitieb vi Nurdlbuuuki SR -126 Queues Extending from 4th Street Beyond Rall Crossing Condition Nnnhhound Average back Percent of Numbereftimes through volume of queue (car cycles with that queues on San Pcmando lengths, queues extend across rail Rd., evening 25ft/car) extending crossing peak across rail crossing Existing volumes, no 1'1'1'2 vph 16 4lN/o 2U per hour diversion of northbound baiflc to Railroad Ave Existing volumes, 35% 1119 vph 8 0.3% About every 4th diversion, to 2 -lane peak hour Railroad Avenue Year 2020 volumes, 35% 1419 vph 11.4 7% 4 per hour diversion to 2-laue Railrozd Avenue Year 2006 volumes. 80% 696 vph (569 8 03% About every 4th diversion to 4 -lane vph in the left peak hour Railroad Avenue lane) Year 2020 vclumes, 80% 835 vph (682 10.7 4% 2 per hour diversion to 4-taae vph in the left Railroad Avenue lane) The last two rows assume shat northbound San Fernando Road north of Newhall Avenue will have a single lane. Most of the northbound traffic traveling through the Ah Street intersection will tum left onto Newhall Avenue, thus the queue I_ngih calculations asstune that most of the traffic will stay in the left-most lane The intersection gecmctry problems cited by Caltratis in our design can be mitigated by removing the crosswalk across SaaFernando Rcad north of its intersection with Railroad Avenue. Doing so will reduce the duration of all -red clearances for each signal phase, and will reduce the likelihood of conflicts between pedestrians and motorists during railroad preemption. Figure 1 is a scale diagram chowing measurements of clearance distance fora standard passenger vehicle. The distance along northbound San 17,a7nando Road between the railroad gate and the stop line (Distancu A to B) is 208 Rx:4 _which Is about 9 car Iortgthh. The muuuut of time w4Uhed w clew d iia wony cars is about 20 seconds, assuming 2 -second start-up delay and 2 seconds per vehicle. The latest time this movement could start is atter southbound Rattroad Avenue completes its yellow and all -red clearance irtervala, which is assumed to be 4.0 seconds and 2.0 seconds, respectively, for a total of 6.0 seconds. This means that northbound San Fernando Road crape will be clear about 26 seconds alter tic start of preemption. Railroad track circuits, which arc now under design, wil i need to be tong enough to provide these 26 seconds advance notice of an arriving train. The ncrrnal yellow clearance for northbound and southbound San Fernando Road should last between 4.0 CLEARANCE DISTANCES San Fernando Road and Railroad Avenue Intersection, south of 4th Street g sr (i I _ 1 r 1.'S oa M N + 300 mm WHITE --- -:-. -- -- ---- P: N k U 6S r�3 X7../6 1/ " R26(S10 " D 01 0. it. x r/ s .� \ 63 r., 209' ft c�-+►Q37►..J Jaofr 17.4 ya"''Q 3zti ,o' Fit>v�tr I s 04/03/9: 16:04 '8213 260'4705 KatzOkitsuaAssoc Q005 KI Katz, 4kitsu & Associates and 4.5 seconds. The duration of this interval would be the same whether the signal is located adjacent to the railroad crossing or at 4th Street. The yellow interval for southbound Railroad Avecue should be about 4.0 seconds. The all -red clearance intervals are based on distances between stop line and conflict points, also shown on Figura 1. Fur uurthbuund Situ Fcruaudu Road, drat disuunce is 120 Ceti (Disuince C to D), which could be covered by a 35 -mph vehicle in 2.4 seconds. The potential conflict for this move is the southbound left tum from Railroad Avenue, which could reach the conflict point of 54 feet (Distance E to F) in 1.8 seconds assuming that a motorist anticipates the start of green and rolls into the intersection at a 20 -mph speed. The all -red Clearance interval fur San Fernando Road should be the difference between these times, or 0.6 seconds. Southbound San Fernando Rnad has no need for an all -red clearance interval, %ince a motorist cantering the inti/suction at the end of its yellow light will be clear before'a southbound Railroad Avenue motorist could reach the conflict point. Sincc southbound San Fernando Road will have eoncurrert yellow and all -red clearances with northbound San Fernando Road, the all -red clearance for southbound San Fer undo Raid will also be 0.6 seconds. For southbound Railroad Avenue, the disranoe to the conflict point with southbound San Fernando Road is 204 feet (Distance E to G), which can becoveredhy a 35 -mph vehicle in 4.0 see.-mds. A southbound San Fernando Road motorist needs to travel 104 feet (Distance H to 1), which can be covered by a 20 -mph vehicle in 3.6 seconds, lite all -red clearance for Railroad Avenue should therefore be the difference of 0.4= seconds. The 20 -mph speed is used because the average speed for a motorist who anticipates the start of green light by watching the cross street yellow light and rolls through pant the limit line without stoppiug- is probably well below the speed limit. Furthermore, a motorist who does such a maneuver and collides with - a motorist who legally turned fell Irum Railroad Avenue would be in violation ofthe Calfi'umia Vehicle Code. As a result, the 0.4 -second all -red clearance is conservatively high. The all -red clearance%of 0.6 seconds and 0.4 seconds are probably lover than that used by Caltrans for most other intersections along Sdn Fernando Road. The reason is that we arc recommending the removal of a crosswalk across San Fernando Road from our plans, so there are no crrinswalks on the far side of the intersection. As a result, clearance distances are actually shorter than ,fix normal intersections. Siena] Coordination Coordination of a signal adjacent to the railroad right-of-way with the neatest signalized intersecticn at Newhall Avenue and 5th Street is relatively simple, since the Railroad Avenue/San Fernando Read signal will only have two phases. The yellow and all -red clearances are not particularly long, and in face will ha shorter than for other intersections along San Fernando Road. The Railroad Avenue/ San Fernando Road will easily operate within the 70 -second cycle 1c» gth used along this corridor. If the alternative location for a traffic sigma] sugbn-sted by Caltrans is used, staying within a 70 -second cycle is more dilteult because of the need to provide opposed -approach signal phasing, which is sometimes known as "split" phasing: The 4th Street approach would have to operate on a separate phase from the William S. Hart Park driveway approach. However, this intersection could operate within ire 70 -second cycle used along this corridor, albeit not as easily as with the signal as designed by the City. One other coordination issue involves traffic qucucs for the northbound left turn movement from San. Feruarrtlu Ruad tutu Newhall Avenues Cui tcnt dcweud for this movement during the evening peak hour is 467 vph. Assuming a 70 -second signal cycle length. the estimated queue will be 9 car -lengths, or 225 feet. The Newhall Avenue stop line is located 375 feet north of the 4th.5treet intersection, or 15 car -lengths. The 04/03/97 16:05 0213 260 4705 Katz0kitsui;Assoc ®006 KZ Katz, Okitsu & Associates probability of lett turn queues extending into the 4th Street intersection is about 3°h, or 1.5 occurrences per evening peak hour. By tine year 2020, with a 26.8% growth in demand for this movement, the probability of queues blocking the 4th Street intersection increases to about 20%. or about 10 times per peak hour. This could impact operations at the 4th Street/ San Fernando Road intersection, with traffic turning left from 4th Street being blocked by the Newhall Avenue left tum queues. . In comparison, with the design as submitted by the City, the probability of thib queue extending into the Railroad Avenucf San Fernando Road intersection is negligible. Tgminr Nfovemcnts Moving the signalized intersection to Ah Street will provide. tighter tuming radii for trucks. A sketch is Provided in pignm 7 Motorists traveling on southbound Railroad Avenuc must makes right fitrn onto 4th Street, followed by a left tum onto San Fernando Road. A single WB -15 (metric, formerly W13-50) vehicle could make this move, at a.spced Icsr than 9 mph (15 kph)_ Two large: uucka would not be able to make the move simultaneously side-by-side. Tltis poses a traffic safety risk, because it increases the potential for side- swipe accidents when any vehicle is in the adjacent lane alongside a truck. In com=a two WB- l S vehicles could make the move side-by-side at a much higher speed for the intersection designed by the City. Because of the broad angles of the intersection as designed, turning movements for large trucks are easily accommodated. Providing traffic signals visible to southbound Railroad Avenue traffic will be difficult with the reverse, curves proposed by Caltrans. A nearside traffic signal head would need to be installed facing 4th Street on the wuihcast uuntcr elate 4th Su=t/ San Fcmatdu Rudd ihierstttiutt. 771ia signal wuuld be visible ftvur a distance of about 160 feet. According to the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices, this distance is undesirable even for an approach speed of 20 mph. A warning sign will be needed to wam drivers of the signal ahead. Tho propowd Cukrunp dcuio i will hamper accom to acme existing buainesnen by forcing traffic on 4th Street to flow one-way westbound. The most notable impacts will occur o the businesses on the north side of 41h Street, occupied by a veterinarian, and to the car dealer on the triantle-shaped parcel bounded by 4th Sweet, Railroad Avenue, and -San Fernando Road. Access to the veterinarian from the north on San Fernando Road would have to be by way of 6th Street to Railroad Avenue to 4th Street. Access to the car dealer would be the sane, unless a new driveway were provided to the lot on San Fernando Road, and a left tum lane were installed on San Femando Road to serve the site. On the other hand, our design maintains 4th Street as a two- way street, so that access to and from these businesses will be as good as it is today RECOihIIti MNAATiONS Onc modification to our originally submitted design tray resolve many of Caltrans' concerns, and that Is to eliminate the proposed crosswalk across San Fernando Road on the north side of the intersection. There is currently no sidewalk along the west side of the intersection so nnnoval of this crosswalk will have minimal impact on pedestrians. Elimination of this crosswalk simplifies the railroad preemption sequence and eliminates the conflict between motorists and pedestrians in L%is crosswalk as the preemption sequence begins. Pedestrians who wish to cross San Fernando Road would ckhcT cross at die unsignalized intersection at 4th Street, or use the crosswalk at the signal izcd intersection at 5th StreeUNewhall Avenue. 04/0'1, 16:06 M 213 260 4705 KatzQkit.sdAssoc U., 00• 4L c r4 . • � ` � fir: �, �.LJ -r`FrIp a 116 r { cr-fe £•L91 1 ! — \ '•N If- Go N to oe- 11 1' t m i 04/03/97 16:07 U213 260 4705 ilatzOkitsu&Assoc @008 RZ Katz, Okitsu & Associates APPENDIX A: TRAFFIC QUEUE CALCULATIONS Trak queue ralenlaticmic were prepared fnr ruirthhniiM San rermandn Riwtl at the signal rmpncrd fnr the 4th Street intersection. The per -lane capacity for this queue it approximately 16 car lengths per lane. The 17th ear in flet lane wovid be queuing on the railroad grado coning, The first step in the calculation is to dcleI w1 c the av=agc nilutbta of VChidtl 4l1'IV illy, tlUfillg it LVpieal red Iigllt lulerval. TiliJ iI:(C1Stei U11 W UU:d probably operate on a 70 -second cycle, with the red light typically lasting about 35 seconds. The estimated peak hour volume for this move in the year 2020 is 1419 vph, or 710 vph in each of the two latus. After 5 seconds of red light•, the expected number of cars in the queue would be 6.9 vehicles at the surf of green. However, the queue docs not clear aut immediately when the signal turns green. Asstuning a saturation flow rate of one car every two seconds (equivalent to 1800 vph per lane), it would take at bast 13.8 seconds to clear this queue. The actual Limo it would take is longer than thu1, b"mum additional uu-i would join the back of due queue during this tin a. The faumula to calculatu the uumbu of vehicles by duo time the queue finally cleats is given by: where: X - sqr !;s•y) s — saturation flow rate q - arrival rate r—duration o£cliactivercd interval - in the above example, s — 1800 vphpl, q — 7l0 vphpl, and u —35 sxuuda ut 0.00972 hours, so the average back of queue Is X-11.4 car lento. To account for random fluctuations, the Pois Wn probabilitics ant applied using slardard statistical methods. A nomograph is shown in Figure A-1. To use the nomograph, first calculate the expected number of cars in the queue, in this case 11.4 caro Draw a vertical line where the x-axis equals 11.4 upward until it intersects the N curve o£ concern. In this cue, N is equal to 16 because that is the number of cars that can be stared in the queue without havinit. can Stop on the milroad tracks. Then draw norma to the left where the line 'Intersects the y-axis, in this example, the probability, of queues being less than 16 is about 93%. Therefore, the probabiiity that queues exceed 16 vehicles, Le., extends across the railroad crossing, is 79A. With a 70 -second cycle, them are about .11 cycles per hour, so 'PYo of the cycles corresponds to four occurrences per hour. Fax Sheet Date: 4!3197 Number of Pages: 6 (includes cover page) FROM Name: Chris Bretall Firm: HDR Engineering, Inc. Phone: (714) 756-6800 Fdo; 98384-002-042 faq Job Number. 112 Name: Bahman Janka Firm: City of Santa Clarita Fax No.: (805) 254-3538 Revised Drart Fact Sheet for Railroad Avenue with Exhibit A. HDR Engineering, Inc. 2600 Mchelson Dr. Suite 1600 Irvine, CA 92612-1507 Phone: (714) 756.6800 Fax: (714) 756-6895 IO'd I BuE-ABOui.Bu3 HCH d£Z=£O LG-£o-"dv State of California 07 -LA -126 Department of Transportation PM 10.4/PM11.3 CALTRANS DISTRICT 7 EXCEPTION FROM ADVISORY STANDARDS Submitted by: Chris Bretall Recommended for Approval by: Approved by Date Date ZO'd i But.-AOSUu 6u3 UGH d£Z=EO L6-£O-Ady— J. PROPOSED PROJECT DESCRIPTION Tl:is project proposes to widen Railroad Avenue in the City of Santa Clarita from just south of 4th Street to 11th Street. In doing so. two new intersections with SR126 (San Fernando Road) will be created at each end of the project. These intersections will be signalized and are located at P.M. 10.4 near 11th Street and P.M,. 11.3 south of 4th Street. Aaother intersection (Market Street/Railroad Avenue) will be signalized and interconnected with the existing signal at SRI26/Market Street. The intersection at the south end of the project is located just north of an existing single track at -grade railroad crossing of SR126. Because of this, the new traffic' signal will require railroad preemption (Exhibit A). The Railroad Avenue Improvement Project is the first step in the revitalization. of Downtown Newhall. When completed, the project will encourage through trick traffic to use Railroad Avenue and bypass the dov.atowa core section of Newhall along SR126. 2. APPLICABLE ADVISORY STANDARDS Highway Design Manual (HDM), Section 403.3, Angle of Intersection, Paragraph (I) 3. NONSTANDARD FEATURE Vw- A_ In Section 403.3, the HDM advises that an intersection angle with a State Highway should be greater than 60 degrees. However, the alignment of the existing right-of-way that is being utilized for the southerly portion of Railroad Avenue requires that the intersection with SR126 be at a skew angle of approximately 30 degrees. £O'd i 6u�-AOOU!_6u3 "MCH d£Z=£O Z6-£0--Adt1 4. RATIONALE FOR EXCEPTION The intersection as proposed serves the public's best interest in terms of accommodating truck movements, utilizing existing rights-of-way and being compatible with businesses in the area. Truck .Vovements Since one of the goals of the project is to encourage truck use on Railroad Avenue, a significant amount of truck traffic is expected in both the north and southbound directions. As designed, with the 30 -degree. skew angle, the intersection accommodates a simple movement for southbound trucks turning left onto SR126. An alternative to this design that was studied required southbound traffic to utilize a 90 -degree angle intersection with 4th Street to gain access to SR126. This configuration results in a series of tight 90 -degree turns that cannot be negotiated by large trucks without causing significant queuing and delays on Railroad Avenue. To improve this situation, acquisition of additional right-of-way would be required. Sight Distance and Visibility Although the proposed angle of the intersection is less than 60 degrees, there would:be.very little visibility concern at the intersection. This is due to the fact that.the southbound right -tum traffic from Railroad Avenue to San Fernando Road is predominantly accommodated via 4th Street, and other preceding streets {5th, 6th, Market, etc.}, thereby minimizing the movement at the SRI26/Railroad intersection. All other movement at the Railroad/SR126 intersection will only proceed with signal indications when there are no visibility concerns. VO*d - I 6uE-Aaau�6u3 UCH dVZ=£O ZG-£O--tdv Right -of -Way As previously mentioned, an alternative 90 -degree intersection design would require additional right-of-way. Due to the '`tight" conditions that currently exist in the area, any additional right-of-way acquisition could result in business deplacement. The skewed intersection design does not require right-of-way acquisition from businesses in this area. Compatibility with Local Businesses For the reasons previously mentioned regarding right-of-way, the proposed intersection designed is favorable to local businesses. Furthermore, an alternative 90 -degree intcrsection design would convert 4th Street to a one-way street and, thereby eliminate left twits for southbound traffic on 5R126 to 4th Street and parking on 4th Street. This would result in a significant hardship for the businesses along 4th Street - 5. REVIEW DISCUSSION During March and April 1997, several meetings and conversations took place between City and Caltrans staffs"management and the City's design consultant. Upon review of the alternatives studied, Caltrans staff concurred that the advisory design exception be rccommended for approval. 6. CONCLUSION AND DECISION HDM, Section 403.3, Paragraph (1) - Due to the constraints of the project area and the detrimental effects a 90-degrec intersection could have on the area, we recommend approval of intersection angle of less than 60 degrees. x.\093&4002kt"hwoFW.5( MC3vr.dw 90'd T 6u�.Aeaut.6u3 UCH dbZ=£O Z6-£o-adti 4TH ST o a ado z z h W n 0 m D 90'd i 6uLaaau46u3 a0H d9Z=£O L6-£O-"dH STATE OF CALIFORNIA--6USINM AND TRANSPORTATION AGENCY PETE MALSON. Go W M DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT T, 120 SO. SPRING ST. LOS ANGELES, CA 90012-3606 RECEIVED APR 0 4 1997 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CITY OF SANTA CLARITA Mr. Glenn Adamick City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Blvd. Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Dear Mr. Adamick: April 2, 1997 IGR/CEQA cs/970319 NEG DEC City of Santa Clarita Railroad Ave. Street Improvement and Construction of Newhall MetroLink Station Vic. LA -126-(1(.68-11,_23) SCH# 94031018 m LID Thank you for including Caltrans in the environmental review process for the above-mentioned project. Base on the information received, we have the following comments: Both Caltrans Los Angeles District 7 and Caltrans Sacramento traffic engineers are concerned about safety issues within the public right-of-way regarding the proposed intersection at San Fernando Road and Railroad Avenue east of 4th Street. These concerns and Caltrans recommendations are outlined in the attached letter from our Office of Permits to your city engineer, Mr. Anthony Nisich, dated March 26, 1996. The Railroad Avenue street improvement project will need a Caltrans Encroachment Permitatits intersections with San Fernando Road. Six sets of engineering plans will be needed for Caltrans review and approval. If you have any questions regarding our comments, refer to Caltrans IGR/CEQA Record# cs/970319, and please do not. hesitate to contact me at:(213)'897-4429. Sincerely, STEPHEN-BUSWELL IGR/CEQA Program Manager Enclosure cc: Mr. Chris Belsky, State Clearinghouse 7 STATE OP CAL710ANIA - BUSINESS AND TRANSPORTATION AGENCY PETE WILSON, Go DEPARTMENT OF TRMSPORTATION DISTRICT 7, 120 SG. SPRING $T. LOS ANGELES, CA 9WIZ - Tab (213) 397-4663 March 26, 1997 City of Santa Clanta 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 300 Santa Clarita, Ca. 91355 Attn.: Mr. Anthony Nisich, City Engineer Dear Mr. Nisich: CERTIFIED MAIL 797 -NMC -0183 797 -LA -126-10.4/11.3 We have completed our review of the above -referenced application for a permit to connect Railroad Avenue to San Fernando Road (Route 126) at two locations in the city of Santa Clarita. As verbally discussed with your staff and HDR Engineering Consultants on previous occasions and per our meeting on March 13, 1997 in Caltrans district office, City's proposal to open Railroad Avenue is approved by Caltrans in concept. However, the following is an outline of Caltrans concerns relative to the.proposed intersection of Railroad Avenue with the State highway, east of 4th Street: 1. Since Railroad Avenue will intersect with Route 126 at a large angle, it will create a large area of conflict with potential for a higher number of accidents within the intersection compared to a standard intersection. 2. Since the railroad crossing is within 100 feet of the proposed intersection, railroad preemption phase --will be required to clear out traffic on northbound (westbound) San Fernando Road. Due to a relatively long distance between the railroad gates and the proposed intersection(200 feet) some vehicles may not be able to clear and may remain on railroad tracks. This matter was also discussed with Caltrans Headquarters Traffic Engineer representative who supported the District Engineers' disapproval of the intersection with a railroad preemption. 3. Proposed pedestrian crosswalk across San Fernando Road will be approximately 100 feet long. Required safe pedestrian walk time will take green time away from San Fernando Road which could result in extensive traffic back up leading topotemtal rear end accidents within the State right-of-way. Additionally, pedestrians using this crosswalk will be unsafety and unnecessarily exposed to. traffic when the railroad preemption kicks in due to no pedestrian clear time. Based on the above concerns it is the opinion of Caltrans that proposed design by the City must be revised to: 1. Allow free right -tum movement from westbound San Fernando Road to northbound Railroad Avenue and prohibit traffic movement(s) from Railroad Avenue to San Fernando Road at this intersection. 2 Allow traffic on southbound Railroad Avenue to enter San Fernando Road via 4th Street and modify 4th Street to allow for one right tum lane, one left/through lane and one left tum lane to San Fernando Road with no traffic entering 4th Street from Sad Fernando Road. 3. Provide fully signalized intersection at 4th Street/San Fernando Road. By implementing the above?alternative design, City will achieve their goal for enhancement of the business district and will assure maximum safety, within public right-of-way. If you would like to present any other alternative to the above proposal, please submit 8 sets of plans (folded 8-1/2" X I1") and all applicable supporting data within 45 days from receipt of this letter for further review. Additional comments may apply depending on the information provided in future submittal. Inactive applications will be cancelled upon expiration of the 45 day period. If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Bob Wallin at (213)897-3625. Sinc ABDOLLAH ANSARI Permit Engineer (continued) REZNIK & REZNIK A LAW CORPOi AIION 13456 VENTURA BOULEVARD. FIFTH FLOOR SHERMAN OA83. CALDMANIA 91403-MOZ (813) WI -9M (211) 8TLM TELECOPY TRANSMITTAL NOTICE From FAX Number: (818) 907-8465 12ate- April 7, 1997 Time. TO: Ms. Bonnie J se h Bldg. &Engineering Services War To FHe Number 1925.01 FROM Karin M. Kemper NUNMR OF PAGES TRANSMTI-IEDG ciudingy this Notice): CLIEDPi7�ern NAM& Railroad Avenue Improve ant Protect PAGES MISSING. PLEASE CALL: (818) 907-98M -or- (213) M2900 CONTAC,Trr. Denise . UMM(Sl FAXED: Letter to City Council. Comments on revised negative declaration for Railroad Avenue project and metrolink station, Project No. 95-065. TRENDED AECIPIENT� O�fi 4AE EMPLOYEE OR AGENT MPOWIBLE FN OELIYEAINO .TM9 WSWE TO THE 17RL = NWPUNT, YOU ME HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISSEMIMTICN, DISTRIBUTION OR COPYING OF THIS CONMICATION Is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS X 11 ICATION IN ERROR, .PLEASE NOTIFY UM I1MEDIATELY BY TELEPHONE, AND RETURN THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE TO US AT THE ABOVE ADDRESS VIA THE U.B. POSTAL SERVICE. THANK YUU. NE71104aUt1Uf FXOt6LOtiR 1E9 -;Of 80/10'd 049-1 999106818+ NINZ3d 9 NINZR:1UOJd 1901 18 -1C -W JOHN M BDwMAN ALBERT M, COHEN _ KENNE-N A. N-MRLICH ~ FRED N aA.NCS 1AN IC .7A`ASN- ALOMON JAMES KAM CNELERCSNtK ROBE.911. M U. KCCLEn •GAIN J. KMCMFCR A•-AN J. KNEEL RICHARD A. MCOON ALO NO JEFFREFJE B. R BENJAM1 QEZNM M. R62III WII.L:AM M. $A MCB K4 SECCA ATH-VM-9>TROM ANO-Ge . *MOMRBON MONICAw I ACOCL MON�wi*- RCBERT M. HCATZBCR0 OF COUN3EL 13 HAND -DELIVERY AEzNix & RmzN28 A 4W GOR.OMTICN i5455 VENTURA BOULEVARD, FIFTH FLOOR SHERMAN OAKS,. CALIFORNIA 91AO3-3026 W81 607-9890 (213) 672-2900 the Honorable City Council. City of Santa Clarita. 23920 Valencia Blvd Santa Clarita, CA 91355 April 7, 1997 Re: Ra Road Avenue Improvement Prolect Project No. 95.065 .Hmring Date: April S, 1997:. Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council: FACSIMILE (816).907-5405 INTERNeT WWW'.RE2NIK.COM ReFee To ►ILC NUMBCR: 1925/1926.001 This law firm represents Auto Service Plus, located at 24522 San Fernando Road, and Mountain Motors. located at 2.4116 San Fernando Road, both in the City of Santa Clarita. On behalf of both, wesubmit the following comments to the City's proposed Railroad Avenue Improvement Project and Newhall Metrolink Station. Before the Council are a number of recommendations for approval with respect to this project. These recommendations include: 1. City Council approval of the Newhall Metrolink station site; 2. Adoption of a Negative Declaration for the project; 3. Adoption of a Resolution of Necessity for immediate possession of the property required for the Metrolink station; 4. Adoption of a Resolution of Necessity for immediate possession of property required for the widening and reconstruction of Railroad Avenue. For the reasons explained in detail below, City Council approval of the proposed recommendations would stand in violation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code §§21000 et seq. On this basis, we urge the City Council to table the actions proposed by staff and direct staff to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (P,IA) to address the full ettvironmental impact of the proposed project. [U -Pr 80/60 d Hk-1 9a4ala0alsr NIQU I N1NZ2d:M1)l1 19:01 16-10-UY The Honorable City Council April 7, 1997 Page 2 Legal Standards Governing the Preparation of an LIR. Presently before the City Council for approval is a Revised Negative Declaration for the Railroad Avenue Improvement Project. Under CEQA, a Negative Declaration can only be prepared when, after completing an Initial Study, the City determines that a project "would not have a significant effect on the etMronment " Public Resources Code 921080(c). Such a determination can only be made if there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the City that such an impact may occur. Public Resources Code $21080(c)(1).' An EIRis required, in contrast, whenever substantial evidence in the record supports a "fair wgumem" that significant impacts may occur. Even if other evidence. supports the opposite conclusion, the City must nevertheless prepare an HIR. See e.g. Quail Botanical Gardens Foundation. Inc. y. City of F-neinitaa. 29 Cal.App.4th 1597 (1994). The "fair argument" standard creates a low threshold for requiring preparation of an EIR. The standard Is rounded on the principle that, because issuing a Negative Declaration has a "terminal effect on the environmental review process, an EIR is necessary to resolve "uncertainty created by conflicting assertions" and to "substitute some degree of factual certainty for tentative opinion and speculation." No 011. Inc. v. City of Los Angeles 13 Cal.3d 68 (1975). Rather -than support the position that the project "would not have a significant environmental impact," the Initial Study and traffic analysis prepared to date more than substantiate a "fair argument" that the project will result an environmcntal Impacts as yet unexamined, unaddressed, and unmitigated The Environmental Impacts Resulting From the Project are Evident From the Record and Cannot be Addressed Through the Adoption of a Negative Declaration. The impacts from the proposed project are manifold and in many instances are identified in the documents relied upon by staff in preparing the Draft Negative Dedaration for approval. As these impacts have not been heretofore addressed, approval of a Negative Declaration will not satisfy the quantum of environmental review required by CF -QA for a project of this scale and magnitude. By adopting a Negative Declaration. the City Is certifying that the project could not have a significant effect on the environment. As the Metrolink.station and associated road improvements , such a finding cannot be supported. ' Under CEQA, "substantlal evidence" is defused as "enough relevant information and reasonable Inferences from this information that a fair argument can be made to support a conclusion, even though other conclusions might be reached" CEOA Guidelines. § 13384(a). wntrvaroMcwxc.inac ies-qor swo'd np-i 96YBL0661t+ AINZ38 Z AINZM:Wold 9:01 26-.0-SdV The Honorable City Council April 7,1997 Page 3 Though limited in their comprehensiveness, the Initial Study and traffic survey prepared to date indicates the probability of increased traffic congestion in the area and other associated impacts resulting from the construction and operation of the Metrolink station and the Railroad Avenue re- alignment. The Initial Study states that the "[i]mprovement of Railroad Avenue provides the opportunity to downplay the role of San Fernando Road in carrying regional through -traffic." Id. at page 1. Moreover, the traffic study at page 31 concludes that Railroad Avenue will be designated as a truck route. The Negative Declaration does not address the impacts that this increased traffic down Railroad Avenue will bring to the arca, and on that basis it is an inadequate means of environmental re irw. The traffic analysis coni udes that construction and operation of the Metrolink Station at Railroad Avenue and Market Street might impact intersections along San Fernando Road, and in a worst-case scenario, traffic would reach LOS M." Presently, this stretch of San Fernando Road operates at LOS "C." The impacts on Railroad Avenue are far greater. Railroad Avenue currently operates at LOS "A." With the Metrolink station, traffic drops to LOS "$" at times, a change which Is identified as significant in the traffic analysis itself.' The Initial Study identifies the loss of 121 parking spaces from the roadway improvement, and states that sufficient on -street parking will be provided to meet observed demand. This conclusion is defective in a number of respects. First, the observed demand is a reflection of the existing baseline need for parking. Upon the completion of a Metrolink station, which will serve commuters who will need to leave their automobiles In the area during business hours. the demand for parking will surge far beyond the existing level. At the February 25th hearing, staff claimed that the additional parking lou constructed in conjunction with the Metrolink station would provide additional parking on evenings and weekends to serve local businesses now utilizing the available parking on Railroad Avenue. However, the businesses on Railroad Avenue are primarily open during business hours and requiring available parking daring the same hours as the Metrolink lots would be full. Finally, the Negative Declaration does not provide any assurances that the loss of available parking will be mitigated in the future. Another important general principle is that Negative Declarations cannot. be based upon the presumed success of mitigation measures that have not been formulated at the time of project approval. Sandstrom v. County of Mendocino. = Cal.App.3d 296 (1988).. Where, as here, measures to mitigate the loss of parking have not been identified, much less made a condition of project approval, the City has no basis upon which to claim that the impacts from the loss of parking are insignificant. Additionally, the Negative Declaration falls to address the impacts from increased traffic on Railroad Avenue to children residing in the two large apartment complexes located across the railroad tracks from the proposed Metrolink station, who cross Railroad Avenue on the way to school. 169 -Pr 80/90 d 099-1 9998206818+ MINi34 7 NINiUMO.-d 89:01 16-10-vdY The Honorable City Council April 7, 1997 Page 4 Other impacts which have not been addressed to date include increased air pollution, both from locomotives stopping at the Metrolink station and starting from a standstill, as well as .from the Increased auto traffic which the station will bring. The construction of the project will create additional noise pollution and traffic congestion in the area. none of which has been studied or mitigated. The Revised Negative Declaration Prepared For This Project is Not a hlltigated Negative Declaration Under Public Resources Code ¢ 21064.30 and Moreover, Drastically Understates the Impacts o[ the Project. The proposed finding for the Revised Negative Declaration states that "the project as proposed or revised will have no significant effect on the environment, and that a Mitigated Negative Declaration shall be adopted." While the Revised Negative Declaration represents a minimal improvement over the original document with respect to CEQA compliance, it does not meet the statutory requirements for at Nfitigated Negative Deciaration and thus cannot be adopted as such. Public Resources Code §21064.5 provides that: 'Mtigated Negative Declaration' means a Negative Declaration prepared for a project when the Initial Study has identified potentially significant effects on the enviromnent. but (1) revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by, the applicant before the proposed Vegative Declaration and Initial Study are released for public review would avoid or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur, and (2) there Is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the public agency that the project, as revised, may have a significant effect on -the environment." The Negative Declaration is flawed in a number of significant respects. Because a Negative Declaration is based entirely upon the analysis of the Initial Study, it is critical under CEQA that an Initial Study be properly prepared. Sundstrom v. CouiLty of Mendocino. 202 Cal.App.3d 2K 305 (1988). In this case, the Initial Study is a pro fomra exercise involving no real investigation, and which by design fails to disclose impacts which would trigger the need for an EIR. In reviewing whether agency procedures comply with CEQA, the test to be applied is "whether an objective, good faith effort to so comply Is demonstrated." Mount Sutro Defense Committee v. Re eg �ts_of University of California. 71 Cal.App.3d20.37 (1978). The completion of a proper Initial Study is relevant to whether an agency made such a "good faith effort." The Initial Study in this instance displays only a token observance of regulatory requirements. It conies of a checklist of questions which parallel Appendix I of the CEQA Guideline s..and a brief section of explanatory analysis. This is not enough. The Initial Study is flawed inasmuch as it: tGMuvz.wuou302Cr_rob: [U -Pr SOM'd 059-1 5999106e1e+ NINZU I AINZWWOJd 69:01 16-10-UY The lienorable City Council April 7, 1997 Page 5 1. Fails to note the source or the content of the data relied upon fcr its conclusions, citizens Assn for Sensible Development v. County of imo.172 Cai.App.3d 151,17"2, CEQA Guidelines § 15063(c)(5); 2. Fails to explain the proposed mitigation measures implied by.the checking the boa labeled -"potentially significant impact unless mitigation incorporated," C Guidelines § 15063(d)(4); and 3. Fails to record consultation with other agencies, including but not limited to Caltrans with respect to the safety and feasibility of the new Intersections created by the proposed projeet,.Publie Resources Code 1210803. Given thcsc inadequacies, the present Initial Study cannot properly support any finding that the project will not have any significant environmental impacts or form the basis of a Negative Declaration. While the document is being treated as a Mitigated Negative Declaration, no mitigation measures are incorporated into the document for public review. CEQA requires the project to be revised to include mitigation measures before the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration is released for public review. CEQA Guidelines 15070(b)(1). Thus, any necessary mitigation measures must be specifically set forth at the time of publication of the Mitigated Negative Declaration in advance of the City's adoption of it. Public Resources Code 121092, CEQA Guidelines §15073(a). The City Cannot Adopt a Valid Resolution of Necessity In lite Absence of Full and Proper Environmental Review. in addition to the proposed adoption of the Negative Declaration, staff has further proposed that the City Council adopt Resolutions of Necessity to acquire the site for the Metrolink station and the private property ncccsmry to complete the Railroad Avenue widening and re-allgament. In the absence of full and proper cnvironmental review, adoption of these resolutions is premature. Under CEQA, EIR& and Negative Declarations should be prepared as early as feasible in the planning process to enable environmental considerations to influence project design. Specifically, with public projects, "at the earliest feasible time, project sponsors shall incorporate environmental considerations into project conceptualization, design and planning. CEQA compliance should be compkted prior to aequiartion of a site fora pub&ptgeot." CEOA Guidelines 115004(b)(1) (emphasis added). Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §1745.220, the City cannot commence an eminent domain action until it has adopted a Resolution of Necessity. Public necessity embraces three elements that must be established before the power of eminent domain can be exercised rs"rnra,vncoaccMdx tEO-Or OOM'd 09i -i SOMOSSIP AIQU 7 AINZU301i 09:01 28-10-W The Honorable City Council April 7,1997 page 6 1. The public interest and necessity require the project; 2. The project is planned or located In the manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and the Ieast private injury; and 3. The prnperty sought to be acquired Is necessary for the project. .. u_. '.cam• r r r Unless a reasoned analysis of project alternatives is undertaken, both as to the design of the project and Its proposed location, the, required findings for the Resolution of Necessity cannot be legitimately supported. As detailed above, the City is required by CEQA to prepare an MR for the proposed project, and among the required elements of an EM is an evaluation of project alternatives. Public Resou s Code §21100(b)(4). The'alternatives' analysis is crucial to complying with CEQA's substantive mandate that avoidable environmental damage be substantially lessened. or avoided where feasible. Public Resources Code § 21002. The required alternatives analysis must be of sufficient detail "to serve the informational purpose of the report to the governmental body which will act and the public which will respond to the action through the political process.' Stand Tall on Pring pies v. Shasta Union High School District. 235 Cal.App.3d 772 (1991). In the absence of the required environmental review for this project, the public has not been presented with enough information to comment on alternatives to the project, and the City has not explored a range of alternatives necessary to draw a conclusion as to any of the three required findings. For this reason, CEQA requires the analysis to occur prior to the adoption of a Resolution of Necessity. A condemnation resolution of necessity may be challenged on the ground that the condemning body has not adequately considered the proposed project's environmental impact (City of San Jose v. Greet Oaks Water Co. 192 Cal.App.3d 1005 (1987)), or where the Negative Declaration adopted by the agency was for a project substantially different than the one which was the basis of the Resolution of Necessity. Burbank_ agrt Authority v. Hensler. 233 Cal.App.3d 557 (1991). As both these grounds to set aside a Resolution of Necessity for condemnation of private property exist with respect to this project, the City Council should not adopt the proposed Resolutions In the absence of the required environmental review. "M192S o,w+csoWC-Imc 1t940t WIO'd 059-1 9898106818+ AINZ:B T AINZ?d:aord . 19:01 16 -10 -acv Zhe Honorable City Council April 7, 1997 Page 7 Conclusion For the reasons expressed above, Auto Service Plus and Mountain Motors respectfWly request the City Council to table the proposed actions regarding the Railroad Avenue Improvement Project and Metrolink station and direct staff to prepare an MR for the project as the law requires. Respectfully submitted, REZNIK & REZNIK A Law Corporation ca Bonnie Joseph. City of Santa Clarita Jay Thompson, Auto Service Plus Mike Laser, Mountain Motor tE9-qoi 80/80 d 099-1 9998106818+ MINZHB 7 NINZWWO.11 1V0t 16 -10 -Uy _ Southern California Regional Rail Authority 1100 JIMETROLINK a" �!7 700 South Flower Street, 266 Floor Los Angeles, California 900174606 17 March 21, 1997 Mr. Fred Erbe, Senior Transportation Engineer Caltrans District 7 - Traffic Operations Branch 120 South Spring Street Los Angeles Dear Mr. Erbe: CA 90012 ltti�-�.Yt,t:�a'hS RECEIVED MAR I b 1997 Building & Engfsfeeting 9awiaa Cdy of Santa Cfmft STATE HIGHWAY 126 GRADE CROSSING PROPOSED ADJACENT INTERSECTION WITH RAILROAD AVENUE This confirms our conversation yesterday regarding the San Fernando Road (State Route 126) grade crossing over Metrolink's Valley subdivision main line (Crossing No. VY - 29.61) in Newhall, and the proposed adjacent "Y" intersection of SR 126 with an extension of Railroad Avenue. The City of Santa Clarita, its consultants, and SCRRA staff have had several meetings about the proposed "Y" intersection. Through the diagnostic team process we have sought a good traffic design that will minimize risks to the public, SCRRA passengers, and SCRRA employees; with an emphasis on reducing the risks of train - vehicle and train - pedestrian collisions. In two meetings last year we raised the Railroad- Avenue/Fourth Street alternative you and I discussed yesterday. We agree with you that signalizing the intersection at Fourth Street and San Fernando Road, and not signalizing the "Y", has the advantage of opening up an additional 360 feet of northbound vehicle storage between the downstream traffic signal and the track. If Railroad Avenue succeeds as a bypass, and takes the bulk of through SR 126 traffic out of downtown Newhall, then the free move at the unsignalized "Y" for all northbound traffic over the track appears to be the best alternative for reducing risk. With SR 126 being a successful bypass we assume that the PUC, Caltrans andthe city would all determine that there is sufficient northbound storage between the Fourth Street/SR 126 intersection and our trick, that this intersection would not queue traffic back into the crossing, and that traffic.signal preemption would not be necessary. This alternative would save the city the costs of a Railroad Avenue/SR 126 traffic signal preemption. The city's response was that a Fourth Street intersection of the bypass, resulting in a 90 -degree right turn followed by a 135 -degree left turn for southbound traffic passing through the Fourth Street/Railroad Avenue and Fourth Street/SR 126 intersections, was not a viable alternative for the bypass function of Railroad Avenue. I believe there may also have been property and policy considerations in their decision. The city's traffic engineering consultant submitted the drawings you Mr. Fred Erbe Crossing No. VY - 29.61 March 21, 1997 Page 2 have of the signalized "Y" with railroad preemption, including a "green arrow" free move at all times for northbound right turns on to Railroad Avenue. The city's consultant has also stated that the warning time currently provided by train detection equipment at Crossing No. VY - 29.61 is more than adequate to clear the tracks of northbound traffic on San Fernando Road. SCRRA is currently reviewing these plans. In evaluating the merits of either proposal, the diagnostic team has to factor in the success of Railroad Avenue as a bypass alternative to San Fernando Road through downtown Newhall. Making the bypass work is primarily the joint responsibility of the state and city; but SCRRA staff want to help you reach your goal.. If the bypass will successfully attract traffic with the signal at Fourth Street and San Fernando Road we prefer this alternative; but we will work with the highway design deemed best for Newhall and the public by the agencies having responsibility for streets and roads in this area. Please contact me at 213 452-0217 if you have any questions or comments. Since yours, LOU CLUSTER Public Projects Engineer cc: Mr. Peter Lai,. Transportation Engineer Rail Safety and Carriers Division Public Utilities Commission 107 South Broadway Room 5109 Los Angeles <- CA 90012 Mr. Chris Bretall; Project Engineer HDR Engineering, Inc. 2600 Michelson Drive Suite 1600 Irvine CA. 92715-1507 Greg Angelo - MTA Real Estate Mike McGinley - SCRRA Ron Mathieu - SCRRA Jack Shah - SCRRA Dan Guerrero - SCRRA Ms. Bonnie Joseph, Engineering Technician City of Santa Clarita Public Works Dept. 23920 Valencia Boulevard Suite 300 Santa Clarita CA 91355-2196 Mr. Walter Okitsu, Principal Katz, Okitsu and Associates 1200 Corporate Center Drive 1° Floor Monterey Park CA 91754-7605 HYK—JG-177 ( 11 64 -., P.02 71 ASARO, KEAGY, FREELAND S MCKINLEY - AT CIRNE s AT LPW FRANK L. ASARO FOURTH FLOOR ROSCOE 0 wZAOV- 3170 FOURTH AVENUE RiG..AwO +. I-CCLnNO - STCVCN A. Ncm Nuc T• SAN DIEGO. CALIFORNIA 92103 TELEPHONE 16191 00T 300 *ALSO ApNltiCp IN NEVAOA FACSIHILE WISI 299-A269 o April 8, 1997 The Honorable Hamilton C. Smyth, Mayor and Members of the City Council 23920 Valencia Boulevard Suite 300 Santa Clarita 91355 Re: Proposed Resolution of Necessity to Condemn APN 2831-026-001; 2831-018-009; 2831-018-014; 2831-018=015; 2831-019-021 for the Railroad Avenue Improvement Project/Metrolink Station Ladies and Gentlemen: This firm represents Mr. Don F. Guglielmino, the owner of the above -referenced parcels. This letter is being written to express Mr. Guglielmino's opposition to the proposed resolution of necessity under consideration by the Council relating to the acquisition of Mr. Guglielmino's property. It is requested that this letter be made a part of the administrative record at the public hearing when this resolution is being considered. Mr. Guglielmino objects to the adoption of the proposed resolution for the following reasons: 1. Adoption of the proposed resolution would violate the California Environmental Quality Act. An environmental impact report is required ratherthan a negative declaration due to the fact that the project clearly will have a significant effect on the environment. Traffic and air quality considerations, among others, created by the proposed project, will negatively_ affect the environment mandating the requirement for an environmental impact report. 2. There is no.reasonable probability that the property sought will be devoted to the stated purpose within seven years. CC " Y CLERK Re: Proposed Resolution of Necessity to Condemn APN 2831-026-001; 2831-018-009; 2831-018-014; 2831-018=015; 2831-019-021 for the Railroad Avenue Improvement Project/Metrolink Station Ladies and Gentlemen: This firm represents Mr. Don F. Guglielmino, the owner of the above -referenced parcels. This letter is being written to express Mr. Guglielmino's opposition to the proposed resolution of necessity under consideration by the Council relating to the acquisition of Mr. Guglielmino's property. It is requested that this letter be made a part of the administrative record at the public hearing when this resolution is being considered. Mr. Guglielmino objects to the adoption of the proposed resolution for the following reasons: 1. Adoption of the proposed resolution would violate the California Environmental Quality Act. An environmental impact report is required ratherthan a negative declaration due to the fact that the project clearly will have a significant effect on the environment. Traffic and air quality considerations, among others, created by the proposed project, will negatively_ affect the environment mandating the requirement for an environmental impact report. 2. There is no.reasonable probability that the property sought will be devoted to the stated purpose within seven years. FPR -06-1997 12:29 Page 2 April 8, 1997 3. The project is not planned or located in the manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury. For all the above reasons it is submitted that the adoption of the proposed resolution would be contrary to the law and subject the City to payment of litigation expenses upon defeat of the right to take in any subsequent condemnation action. It is therefore requested that the proposed resolution not be adopted until such time as the City complies with all the legal requirements relating to the proposed Metrolink project. Very truly yours, ASARO, KEAGY, FREELAND & WKINLEY P,Q,--Q P. FSO Richard R. Freeland RRF/mad cc Mr. Douglas. F. Wubbena TnTQI 0 ni JOHN M BOWMAN ALBERT M. COHEN KENNETH A. EHRLICH FRED N GAINES PENNY GROSZ-SALOMON JANICE KAMENIR-REZNIK ROBERT S. KEELER KEVIN M. KEMPER ALAN J KHEEL RICHARD A. MCDONALD DIANA NG JEFFREY S. RASKIN BENJAMIN M. REZNIK WILLIAM M. SAMOSKA L. ELIZABETH STRAHLSTPOM REBECCA A. THOMPSON ANDREW M. VOGEL MONICA WITT ROBERT M. HERTZBERG OF COUNSEL BY HAND -DELIVERY REZNIK & REZNIK A UW CO.W .ON IS4S6 VENTURA BOULEVARD, FIFTH FLOOR SHERMAN OAKS, CALIFORNIA 91403-3026 (818) 907-9898 (213) 872-2900 The Honorable City Council City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Blvd. Santa Clarita, CA 91355 April 7, 1997 Re: Railroad Avenue Improvement Proiect Project No. 954065 Hearing Date: April 8, 1997 Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council: FACSIMILE 18187 907-846S INTERNET WWW.REZNIK.COM REFER TO FILE NUMBER: 1925/1926.001 Ci I Y I'0ANAGER, DATE: `f/ % This law firm represents Auto Service Plus, located at 24522 San Fernando Road, and Mountain Motors, located at 24116 San Fernando Road, both in the City of Santa Clarita. On behalf of both, we submit the following comments to the City's proposed Railroad Avenue Improvement Project and Newhall Metrolink Station. Before the Council are a number of recommendations for approval with respect to this project. These recommendations include: 1. City Council approval of the Newhall Metrolink station site; 2. Adoption of a Negative Declaration for the project; 3. Adoption of a Resolution of Necessity for immediate possession of the property required for the Metrolink station; 4. Adoption of a Resolution of Necessity for immediate possession of property required for the widening and reconstruction of Railroad Avenue. For the reasons explained in detail below, City Council approval of the proposed recommendations would stand in violation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code §§21000 et. seq. On this basis, we urge the City Council to table the actions proposed by staff and direct staff to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to address the full environmental impact of the proposed project. NFA19ZYAA01C5020C,R113C The Honorable City Council April 7, 1997 Page 2 Legal Standards Governing the Preparation of an EIR. Presently before the City Council for approval is a Revised Negative Declaration for the Railroad Avenue Improvement Project. Under CEQA, a Negative Declaration can only be prepared when, after completing an Initial Study, the City determines that a project "would not have a significant effect on the environment." Public Resources Code §21080(c). Such a determination can only be made if there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the City that such an impact may occur. Public Resources Code §21080(c)(1).i An EIR is required, in contrast, whenever substantial evidence in the record supports a "fair argument" that significant impacts may occur. Even if other evidence supports the opposite conclusion, the City must nevertheless prepare an EIR. See e.g. Quail Botanical Gardens Foundation. Inc. v. City of Encinitas. 29 Cal.AppAth 1597 (1994). The "fair argument" standard creates a low threshold for requiring preparation of an EIR. The standard is founded on the principle that, because issuing a Negative Declaration has a "terminal effect on the environmental review process, an EIR is necessary to resolve "uncertainty created by conflicting assertions" and to "substitute some degree of factual certainty for tentative opinion and speculation." No Oil. Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 13 Cal.3d 68 (1975). Rather than support the position that the project "would not have a significant environmental impact," the Initial Study and traffic analysis prepared to date more than substantiate a "fair argument" that the project will result an environmental impacts as yet unexamined, unaddressed, and unmitigated The Environmental Impacts Resulting From the Project are Evident From the Record and Cannot be Addressed Through the Adoption of a Negative Declaration. The impacts from the proposed project are manifold and in many instances are identified in the documents relied upon by staff in preparing the Draft Negative Declaration for approval. As these impacts have not been heretofore addressed, approval of a Negative Declaration will not satisfy the quantum of environmental review required by CEQA for a project of this scale and magnitude. By adopting a Negative Declaration, the City is certifying that the project could not have a significant effect on the environment. As the Metrolink station and associated road improvements , such a finding cannot be supported 2 Under CEQA, "substantial evidence" is defined as "enough relevant information and reasonable inferences from this information that a fair argument can be made to support a conclusion, even though other conclusions might be reached." CEQA Guidelines. § 15384(a). rWu9rso1w1cs02cciaoc The Honorable City Council April 7, 1997 Page 3 Though limited in their comprehensiveness, the Initial Study and traffic survey prepared to date indicates the probability of increased traffic congestion in the area and other associated impacts resulting from the construction and operation of -the Metrolink station and the Railroad Avenue re- alignment. The Initial Study states that the "[ijmprovement of Railroad Avenue provides the opportunity to downplay the role of San Fernando Road in carrying regional through-traffic.7 Id. at page 1. Moreover, the traffic study at page 31 concludes that Railroad Avenue will be designated as a truck route. The Negative Declaration does not address the impacts that this increased traffic down Railroad Avenue will bring to the area, and on that basis it is an inadequate means of environmental review. The traffic analysis concludes that construction and operation of the Metrolink Station at Railroad Avenue and Market Street might impact intersections along San Fernando Road, and in a worst-case scenario, traffic would reach LOS M." Presently, this stretch of San Fernando Road operates at LOS "C." The impacts on Railroad Avenue are far greater. Railroad Avenue currently operates at LOS "A." With the Metrolink station, traffic drops to LOS "13" at times, a change which is identified as significant in the traffic analysis itself. The Initial Study identifies the loss of 121 parking spaces from the roadway improvement, and states that sufficient on -street parking will be provided to meet observed demand. This conclusion is defective in a number of respects. First, the observed demand is a reflection of the existing baseline need for parking. Upon the completion of a Metrolink station, which will serve commuters who will need to leave their automobiles in the area during business hours, the demand for parking will surge far beyond the existing level. At the February 25th hearing, staff claimed that the additional parking lots constructed in conjunction with the Metrolink station would provide additional parking on evenings and weekends to serve local businesses now utilizing the available parking on Railroad Avenue. However, the businesses on Railroad Avenue are primarily open during business hours and requiring available parking during the same hours as the Metrolink lots would be full. Finally, the Negative Declaration does not provide any assurances that the loss of available parking will be mitigated in the future. Another important general principle is that Negative Declarations cannot be based upon the presumed success of mitigation measures that have not been formulated at the time of project approval. Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino. 202 Cal.App3d 296 (1988). Where, as here, measures to mitigate the loss of parking have not been identified, much less made a condition of project approval, the City has no basis upon which to claim that the impacts from the loss of parking are insignificant. Additionally, the Negative Declaration fails to address the impacts from increased traffic on Railroad Avenue to children residing in the two large apartment complexes located across the railroad tracks from the proposed Metrolink station, who cross Railroad Avenue on the way to school. r=IMMICS02MMM The Honorable City Council April 7, 1997 Page 4 Other impacts which have not been addressed to date include increased air pollution, both front locomotives stopping at the Metrolink station and starting from a standstill, as well as from the increased auto traffic which the station will bring. The construction of the project will create additional noise pollution and traffic congestion in the area, none of which has been studied or mitigated. The Revised Negative Declaration Prepared For This Project is Not a Mitigated Negative Declaration Under Public Resources Code § 21064.5, and Moreover, Drastically Understates the Impacts of the Project. The proposed finding for the Revised Negative Declaration states that "the project as proposed or revised will have no significant effect on the environment, and that a Mitigated Negative Declaration shall be adopted." While the Revised Negative Declaration represents a minimal improvement over the original document with respect to CEQA compliance, it does not meet the statutory requirements for a Mitigated Negative Declaration and thus cannot be adopted as such. Public Resources Code §210645 provides that: "'Mitigated Negative Declaration' means a Negative Declaration prepared for a project when the Initial Study has identified potentially significant effects on the environment, but (1) revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by, the applicant before the proposed Negative Declaration and Initial Study are released for public review would avoid or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur, and (2) there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the public agency that the project, as revised, may have a significant effect on the environment." The Negative Declaration is flawed in a number of significant respects. Because a Negative Declaration is based entirely upon the analysis of the Initial Study, it is critical under CEQA that an Initial Study be properly prepared. Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino. 202 Cal.App3d296,305 (1988). In this case, the Initial Study is a pro forma exercise involving no real investigation, and which by design fails to disclose impacts which would trigger the need for an EIR. In reviewing whether agency procedures comply with CEQA, the test to be applied is "whether an objective; good faith effort to so comply is demonstrated." Mount Sutro Defense Committee v. Regents of University of California. 77 Cal.App3d 20, 37 (1978). The completion of a proper Initial Study is relevant to whether an agency made such a "good faith effort." The Initial Study in this instance displays only a token observance of regulatory requirements. It consists of a checklist of questions which parallel Appendix I of the CEOA Guidelines, and a brief section of explanatory analysis. This is not enough. The Initial Study is flawed inasmuch as it: riM9rno1w1cs02CCX" The Honorable City Council April 7, 1997 Page 5 1. Fails to note the source or the content of the data relied upon for its conclusions, Citizens Ass'n for Sensible Development v. County of Ingo 172 Ca1.App.3d 151,172, CEOA Guidelines § 15063(c)(5); 2. Fails to explain the proposed mitigation measures implied by the checking the boa labeled "potentially significant impact unless mitigation incorporated," CEOA Guidelines § 15063(d)(4); and 3. Fails to record consultation with other agencies, including but not limited to Caltrans with respect to the safety and feasibility of the new intersections created by the proposed project, Public Resources Code § 21080.3. Given these inadequacies, the present Initial Study cannot properly support any finding that the project will not have any significant environmental impacts or form the basis of a Negative Declaration. While the document is being treated as a Mitigated Negative Declaration, no mitigation measures are incorporated into the document for public review. CEQA requires the project to be revised to include mitigation measures before the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration is released for public review. CEOA Guidelines 15070(b)(1). Thus, any necessary mitigation measures must be specifically set forth at the time of publication of the Mitigated Negative Declaration in advance of the City's adoption of it. Public Resources Code § 21092, CEOA Guidelines §15072(a). The City Cannot Adopt a Valid Resolution of Necessity in the Absence of Full and Proper Environmental Review. In addition to the proposed adoption of the Negative Declaration, staff has further proposed that the City Council adopt Resolutions of Necessity to acquire the site for the Metrolink station and the private property necessary to complete the Railroad Avenue widening and re -alignment. In the absence of full and proper environmental review, adoption of these resolutions is premature. Under CEQA, E1Rs and Negative Declarations should be prepared as early as feasible in the planning process to enable environmental considerations to influence project design. Specifically, with public projects, "at the earliest feasible time, project sponsors shall incorporate environmental considerations into project conceptualization, design and planning. CEQA compliance should be completed prior to acquisd n of a sire fora public project." CEOA Guidelines §15004(b)(1) (emphasis added). _ Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §1245.220, the City cannot commence an eminent domain action until it has adopted a Resolution of Necessity. Public necessity embraces three elements that must be established before the power of eminent domain can be exercised: MM192M\O1CS02ccMdK The Honorable City Council April 7, 1997 Page 6 1. The public interest and necessity require the project; 2. The project is planned or located in the manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury; and 3. The property sought to be acquired is necessary for the project. Code of Civil Procedure §1240.030 Unless a reasoned analysis of project alternatives is undertaken, both as to the design of the project and its proposed location, the required findings for the Resolution of Necessity cannot be legitimately supported. As detailed above, the City is required by CEQA to prepare an EM for the proposed project, and among the required elements of an EIR is an evaluation of project alternatives. Public Resources Code §21100(b)(4). The'alternatives' analysis is crucial to complying with CEQA's substantive mandate that avoidable environmental damage be substantially lessened or avoided where feasible. Public Resources Code § 21002. The required alternatives analysis must be of sufficient detail "to serve the informational purpose of the report to the governmental body which will act and the public which will respond to the action through the political process." Stand Tall on Principles v. Shasta Union High School District. 235 Ca1.App3d 772 (1991). In the absence of the required environmental review for this project, the public has not been presented with enough information to comment on alternatives to the project, and the City has not explored a range of alternatives necessary to draw a conclusion as to any of the three required findings. For this reason, CEQA requires the analysis to occur prior to the adoption of a Resolution of Necessity. A condemnation resolution of necessity may be challenged on the ground that the condemning body has not adequately considered the proposed project's environmental impact (City of San Jose v. Great Oaks Water Co. 192 Cal.App.3d 1005 (1987)), or where the Negative Declaration adopted by the agency was for a project substantially different than the one which was the basis of the Resolution of Necessity. Burbank Airport Authority v. Hensler. 233 Cal.App.3d 557 (1991). As both these grounds to set aside a Resolution of Necessity for condemnation of private property exist with respect to this project, the City Council should not adopt the proposed Resolutions in the absence of the required environmental review. NEr%I925 I\OICSO2CC.KMK The Honorable City Council April 7, 1997 Page 7 Conclusion For the reasons expressed above, Auto Service Plus and Mountain Motors respectfully request the City Council to table the proposed actions regarding the Railroad Avenue Improvement Project and Metrolink station and direct staff to prepare an EIR for the project as the law requires. Respectfully submitted, REZNIK & REZNIK A Law Corporation 4`'J 1 cct Bonnie Joseph, City of Santa Clarita Jay Thompson, Auto Service Plus Mike Laser, Mountain Motors tWurnw \O1CS02CCMo1L s REZM K & REZNiK A LAW CORPORATION 13476 VM4URA BOULEVARD, FE1?M PI.00R. sHERbEAN OAKS; CAIIPORNIA 91403-3002 (818) 9D7.9M (!13) MM RaW To File Number 1925.01 TELECOPY TRANSMITTAL NOTICE From FAX Number: (818) 907.8465 Date: April 7, 1997 11mc: 'mn: Ms. Bonnie Jose h FAXNQ: (806) 264-3638 Bidg. & Engineering services FRoM: Kevin M. Kemper i SER OF PAND (including Nod" ): CLmENT/CA3E NAME: Rallrood Avenue ImRroveMent Project IF PAGES MISgNG. PLEASE CALL: (818) 907-9898 -or- (213) 872.2900 CONTACT: Denise Letter to City Council. MESSAGERT RECIPIENT: Comments on revised negative declaration for Railroad Avenue project and metrolink station, Project No. 95-065. IN ED RECIPIENT, OR THE EMPLOYEE OR AGENT RESPONSIBLE FOR unrmRINa THE MESMOE TO THE SNTENED RECIPIENT, YOU ASE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION OR COPYING OF THIS COMMUNICATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY TELEPHONE, AND RETURN THE ORIGINAL ME39AOE TO US AT THE ABOVE ADDRESS VIA THE U.B. POSTAL SERVICE. THANK YOU. NE71t DpEUI� Vtt Puot Bd.DRN lEs-Pr 80/l0'd 099-1 9996!06618+ HINZ38 Z NINZ3a Woad t9 Ol !6-l0-adY JOHN M BOWMAN ALBZRT M. COHEN KENNE-M A. CMbLICH FRED N GAINCS PINNY OR0Sz.SALOMON JANICE KAMENIP.Oe=N:K ROBERT q. KEELER K=YIN M. KEMPER A--AN J. KNEEL AICHAPD A� MCDONALO DICNA NO JCFIREY S. RASA.- BENJAMIN M. CE$NIK WILL:AM M. SAMOSKA BECCA A. "OMOV 9TROM REBECCA . OGEL BON ANDREW M, vOOEL MONICA WIT- RCBEAT M. Ht OT=BERO OF COUN--E4 $Y HAND -DELIVERY REzNix & Rnzxix w LAW CObYD1 m 15455 VENTURA MOULEVARO. FIFTH FLOOR 5HCRMA-4 OAKS. CALIFORNIA 91403-3026 (6161 907-9696 (2131 672-2900 The honorable City Council City of Santa Ciarita 23920 Valencia Blvd. Santa ClariM CA 91355 April 7,1997 Re: Railroad Avenue Improvement Predect Project No. 95.061 Hearing Date: April Sp 1997 Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council: FACSIM14C (918) 907-3466 INTERNCT WWW.Rk2NIK.COM RCPCR TO PILE NUMBER: 192511926.001 This law firm represents Auto Service Plus, located at 24522 San Fernando Road, and Mountain Motors, located at 24116 San Fernando Road, both in the City of Santa Clarita. On behalf of both, we submit the following comments to the City's proposed Railroad Avenue Improvement Project and Newhall Metrolink Station. Before the Council are a number of recommendations .for approval with respect to this project. These recommendations include: 1. City Council approval of the Newhall Metrolink station site; 2. Adoption of a Negative Declaration for the project; 3. Adoption of a Resolution of Necessity for immediate possession of the property required for the Metrolink station; 4. Adoption of a Resolution of Necessity for immediate possession of property required for the widening and reconstruction of Railroad Avenue. For the reasons explained in detail below, City Council approval of the proposed recommendations would stand in violation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code §§21000 et. seq. On this basis, we urge the City Council to table the actions proposed by staff and direct scarf to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIA) to address the full environmental impact of the proposed project. :snirsc:�iavzxxwc (E.140? 8C/20 d OSP-1 ;s0ile0819t AMU I X1NZU:M011 IV:01 16-1NO The Honorable City Council April 7,1997 Page 2 Legal Standgrds Governing the Preparation of an EM Presently before the City Council for approval is a Revised Negative Declaration for the Railroad Avenue Improvement Project. Under CEQA, a Negative Declaration can only be prepared when, after completing an Initial Study, the City determines that a project 'would not have a significant effect on the environment.* Public Resources Code §21080(c). Such a determination can only be made if there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the City that such an impact may occur. Public Resources .Code §21080(c)(1).' An EIR is required, in contrast, whenever substantial evidence in the record supports a "fair argument" that significant impacts may occur. Even if other evidence supports the opposite conclusion, the City must nevertheless prepare an EIR. See e.g. Quail Botanical Gardens Foundation, Inc v. City of Fneinitas. 29 Cal.AppAth 1597 (1994). The "fair argument" standard creates a low threshold for requiring preparation of an EIR. The standard is rounded on the principle that, because issuing a Negative Declaration has a "terminal effect on the environmental review process, an EIR is necessary to resolve "uncertainty created by conflicting assertions" and to "substitute some degree of factual certainty for tentative opinion and speculation." No OIL Inc. y. City of Los Angeles. 13 Cal.3d 68 (1975). Rather than support the position that the project "would not have a significant environmental impact," the Initial Study and traffic analysis prepared to date more than substantiate a "fair argutncnt" that the projectwill result an environmental impacts as yet uncxamined, unaddressed, and unmitigated. The Environmental Impacts Resulting From the Project are Evident From the Record and Cannot be Addressed Through the Adoption of a Negative Declaration. The impacts from the proposed project are manifold and in many instances are identified in the documents relied upon by staff in preparing the Draft Negative Declaration for approval. As these impacts have not been heretofore addressed, approval of a Negative Declaration will not satisfy the quantum of environmental review required by CEQA for a project of this scale and ma$nitude. By adopting a Negative Declaration, the City is certifying that the project could nor have a significant effect on the environment. As the Metrolink station and associated road improvements , such a finding cannot be supported. ' Under CEOX "substantial evidence" is defined as "enough relevant information and reasonable inferences from this information that a fair argument can be made to support a conclusion, even though other conclusions might be reached" CBOA gWdelirtes. § 15384(a). :+et�ttaarat 1t9-5uf 9C/60'd C5Y-1 99i6l06916+ MINM ! MIN't3'MOJ0 D:OI 26-20-aO The Honorable City Council April 7, 1997 Page 3 Though limited in their comprehensiveness, the Initial Study and traffic survey prepared to date indicates the probability of increased traffic congestion in the area and other associated impacts resulting from the construction and operation of the Metrolink station and the Railroad Avenue re- alignment. The initial Study states that the "[i]mprovement of Railroad Avenue provides the opportunity to downplay the role of San Fernando Road in carrying regional through -traffic." Id. at page 1. Moreover, the traffic study at page 31 concludes that Railroad Avenue will be designated as a truck route. The Negative Declaration does not address the impacts that this increased traffic down Railroad Avenue will bring to the arca, .and on that basis it Is an inadequate means of environmental review. The traffic analysis concludes that construction and operation of the Metrolink Station at Railroad Avenue and Market Street might impact intersections along San Fernando Road, and in a worst-case scenario, traffic would reach LOS M." Presently, this stretch of San Fernando Road operates at LOS "C." The impacts on Railroad Avenue are far greater. Railroad Avenue currently operates at LOS "A." With the Metrolink station, traffic drops to LOS "S" at times, a change which is identified as significant in the traffic analysis Itself.' The Initial Study identifies the loss of 121 parking spaces from the roadway improvement, and states that sufficient on -street parking will be provided to meet observed demand. This conclusion is defective in a number of respects. First, the observed demand is a reflection of the existing baseline need for parking. Upon the completion of a Metrolink station, which will serve commuters who will need to leave their automobiles in the area during business hours, the demand for parking will surge far beyond the existing level. At the February 25th hearing, staff claimed that the additional parking lots constructed in conjunction with the Metrolink station would provide additional parking on evenings and weekends to serve local businesses now utilizing the available parldng on Railroad Avenue. However, the businesses on Railroad Avenue are primarily open during business hours and requiring available parking during the same hours as the Metrolink lots would be full. Finally, the Negative Declaration does not provide any assurances that the loss of available parldng will be mitigated in the future. Another important general principle is that Negative Declarations cannot. be based upon the presumed success of mitigation measures that have not been formulated at the time of project approval. Sandstrom v. County of Mendocino. 202 Cal.A.pp.3d 296 (1988). Where, as here, measures to mitigate the loss of parking have not been identified, much less made a condition of project approval, the City has no basis upon which to claim that the impacts from the loss of parking are insignificant. Additionally, the Negative Declaration falls to address the Impacts from increased traffic oil. Railroad Avenue to children residing In the two large apartment complexes located across the railroad tracks from the proposed Metrolink station, who cross Railroad Avenue on the way to school. IES-qtt 80/90 d 05f-1 989S10SS18+ NINiU'8 X1NZU:WO-'d 8901 18-10-W The Honorable City Council April 7, 1997 Page 4 Other impacts which have not been addressed to date include increased air pollution, both from locomotives stopping at the Metrolink station and starting from a standstill, as well as from the Increased auto traffic which the station will bring. The construction of the project will create additional noise pollution and traffic congestion in the arm none of which has been studied or mitigated. The Revised Negative Declaration Prepared For This Project is Not a Mitigated Negative Declaration Under Public Resources Code 121064.3, and Moreover, Drastically Understates the Impacts of the Project. The proposed finding for the Revised Negative Declaration states that "the project as proposed or revised willhave no significant effect on the environment, and that a Mitigated Negative Declaration shall be adopted." While the Revised Negative Declaration represents a minimal improvement over the original document with respect to CEQA compliance, it does not meet the statutory rcquircments for a Mitigated Negative Declaration and thus cannot be adopted as such. Public Resources Code §21054.5 provides that: "'MltigatedNegative Declaration' means a Negative Declaration prepared for a project when the Initial Study has identiffed potentially significant effects on the environment, but (1) revisions in the project pians or proposals made by, or agreed to by, the applicant before the proposed Negative Declaration and Initial Study are released for public review would avoid or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur, and (2) there Is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the public agency that the project, as revised, may have a significant effect on -the environment." The Negative Declaration Is flawed in a number of significant respects. Because a Negative Declaration is based entirely upon the analysis of the Initial Study, it is critical under CEQA that an Initial Study be properly prepared. Sundstrom v. County ofMandocino, 2W Cai.App.3d296, 305 (1988). In this case, the Initial Study is a pro forma exercise involving no real investigation, and which by design fails to disclose impacts which would trigger the need for an EIR. In reviewing whether agency procedures comply with CEQA, the test to be applied is "whether an objective, good faith effort to so comply is demonstrated." Mount Sutro Defense Committee Y. Regents of UniversitXof Californla 77 Cai.App.3d 20, 37 (1978). The completion of a proper Initial Study is relevant to whether an agency made such a "good faith effort.* The Initial Study in this instance displays only a token observance of regulatory requirements. It consists of a checklist of questions which parallel Appendix I of the CEOA Guidelines ..and abrief section of explanatory analysis. This is not enough. The Initial Study is flawed inasmuch as it: ?=292-%02W cnaX=Jan: lt9-qof 80%y0'd C39-1 99Y8108818+ YINZU I YINU UOId 6901 18-10-8d'd The Honorable City Council April 7, 1997 Page 5 1. Fails to note the source or the content of the data relied upon for its Conclusions, Citizens As -3'n for Sens le Development v County!ff Tny_o,172 Ca1.App.3d 151,172, CEQA Guidelines § 15063(c)(5); 2. Fails to explain the proposed mitigation measures implied by the checking the box Iabeled "potentially significant impact unless mitigation incorporated," CEQA Guidelines § 15063(d)(4); and 3. Fails to record consultation with other agencies, including but not limited to Caltrans with respect to the safety and feasibility of the new intersections created by the proposed project, Public Resources Code 1121080.3. - Given these inadequacies, the prescnt Initial Study cannot properly support any finding that the project will not have any significant environmental impacts or form the basis of a Negative Declaration. While the document is being treated as a Mitigated Negative Declaration, no mitigation measures are incorporated into the document for public review. CEQA requires tate project to be revised to include mitigation measures before the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration is released for public review. CEQA Guidelines 15070(b)(1). Thus, any necessary mitigation measures must be specifically set forth at the time of publication of the Mitigated Negative Declaration in advance of the City's adoption of it. Public Resources Code 121092. CEQA Guidelines §15072(x). The City Cannot Adopt a Valid Resolution of Necessity In tate Absence of Full and Proper Environmental Review. In addition to the proposed adoption of the Negative Declaration, staff has further proposed that the City Council adopt Resolutions of Necessity to acquire the site for the Metrolink station and the private property ncocasary to complete the Railroad Avenue widening and re -alignment. In the absence of full and proper environmental review, adoption of these resolutions is premature. Under CEQA, EIRs and Negative Declarations should be prepared as early as feasible in the planning process to enable environmental considerations to influence project design. Specifically, with public projects, "at the earliest feasible time, project sponsors shall incorporate environmental considerations into project conceptualization, design and planning. CEQA compliance should be compktrdpriortoaequishlonofasiteforapublicpnry'sct." AGuide&nes¢15004(b)(1)(emphasis added). Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §1245.220, the City cannot commence an eminent domain action until it has adopted a Resolution of Necessity. Public necessity embraces three elements that must be established before the power of eminent domain can be exercised: rn M&92Mwu'm<.r.,O.. tS9-qOr 80/90'd OP -1 S9ti8 M18+ NIQU I NINMflucii 09:01 18-10-8dtl The Honorable City Council April 7, 1997 Page 6 1. The public interest and necessity require the project; 2. The project is planned or located in the manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury; and 3. The property sought to be acquircd is necessary for the project. Code of Civil Procedure §1240.030 Unless a reasoned analysis of project alternatives is undertaken, both as to the design of the project and its proposed location, the required findings for the Resolution of Necessity cannot be legitimately supported. As detailed above, the City is required by CF -QA to prepare an EIR for the proposed project, and among the required elements of an EIR is an evaluation of project alternatives. Public Resou cez s Code §21100(b)(4). The 'alternatives' analysis is crucial to complying with C$QA's substantive mandate that avoidable environmental damagc.be substantially lessened or avoided where feasible. Public Resourced § 21002. The required alternatives analysis must be of sufficient detail "to serve the informational purpose of the report to the governmental body which will act and the public which will respond to the action through the political process." Stand Tall on Principles v Shasta Union Hiatt School District. 235 Cal.App.3d 772 (1991). In the absence of the required environmental review for this project, the public has not been presented with enough information to comment on alternatives to the project, and the City has not explored a range of alternatives necessary to draw a conclusion as to any of the three required findings. For this reason, CEQA requires the analysis to occur prior to the adoption of a Resolution of Necessity. A condemnation resolution of necessity maybe challenged on the ground that the condemning body has not adequately considered the proposed project's environmental impact (City of San Jose V. Great Oaks Water Co. 192 Cal.App.3d 1005 (1967)), or where the Negative Declaration adopted by the agency was for a project substantially different than the one which was the basis of the Resolution of Necessity. Burbank Aimort Authority v. Hensler, 233 Cal.App.3d 557 (1991). As both these grounds to set aside a Resolution of Necessity for condemnation of private property exist with respect to this project, the City Council should not adopt the proposed Resolutions in the absence of the required environmental review. rTT\191Sn1w1cMCCM« 169-qsf 66/16'd 659-1 5948106616+ NINM 8 SIINZ3d:sOJi 19:61 16 -INV The Honorable City Council April 7, 1997 Page 7 Conclusion For the reasons expressed above, Auto Service plus and Mountain Motors respectfully request the City Council to table the proposed actions regarding the Railroad Avenue Improvement Project and Metrolink station and direct staff to prepare an $IR for the project as the law requires. Respectfully submitted, Bonnie Joseph. City of Santa Clarita Jay Thompson, Auto Service plus Mite Laser, Mountain Motors t89-qO1 80/80'd 09Y-1 998106818+ NINZU 9 X10d:W01d t5:0! 16-10-8dV �iTv nrr nTa T! F�iT� Ifco)I/METROLINK,;; c t, t,c ,,'9! March 21, 1997 Mr. Fred Erbe, Senior Transportation Engineer Caltrans District 7 - Traffic Operations Branch 120 South Spring Street Los Angeles Dear Mr. Erbe: CA 90012 Southern California Regional Rail Authority 700 South Flower Street, 26"' Floor Los Angeles, California 900174606 File: S0000469 RECEIVED MAR 15 1997 Building & Engineering Uvicaa City of Santa Cirft STATE HIGHWAY 126 GRADE CROSSING PROPOSED ADJACENT INTERSECTION WITH RAILROAD AVENUE This confirms our conversation yesterday regarding the San Fernando Road (State Route 126) grade crossing over Metrolink's Valley subdivision main line (Crossing No. VY - 29.61) in Newhall, and the proposed adjacent "Y" intersection of SR 126 with an extension of Railroad Avenue. The City of Santa Clarita, its consultants, and SCRRA staff have had several meetings about the proposed "Y" intersection. Through the diagnostic team process we have sought a good traffic design that will minimize risks to the public; SCRRA passengers, and SCRRA employees; with an emphasis on reducing the risks of train - vehicle and train - pedestrian collisions. In two meetings last year we raised the Railroad Avenue/Fourth Street alternative you and I discussed yesterday. We agree with you that signalizing the intersection at Fourth Street and San Fernando Road, and not signalizing the "Y", has the advantage of opening up an additional 360 feet of northbound vehicle storage between the downstream traffic signal and the track. If Railroad Avenue succeeds as a bypass, and takes the bulk of through SR 126 traffic out of downtown Newhall, then the free move at the unsignalized "Y" for all northbound traffic over the track appears to be the best alternative for reducing risk. With SR 126 being a successful bypass we assume that the PUC, Caltrans and the city would all determine that there is sufficient northbound storage between the Fourth Street/SR 126 intersection and our track, that this intersection would not queue traffic back into the crossing, and that traffic signal preemption would not be necessary. This alternative would save the city the costs of a Railroad Avenue/SR 126 traffic signal preemption. The city's response was that a Fourth Street intersection of the bypass, resulting in a 90 -degree right turn followed by a 135 -degree left turn for southbound traffic passing through the Fourth Street/Railroad Avenue and Fourth Street/SR 126 intersections, was not a viable alternative for the bypass function of Railroad Avenue. I believe there may also have been property and policy considerations in their decision. The city's traffic engineering consultant submitted the drawings you e Mr. Fred Erbe March 21, 1997 Crossing No. VY - 29.61 Page 2 have of the signalized "Y" with railroad preemption, including a "green arrow" free move at all times for northbound right turns on to Railroad Avenue. The city's consultant has also stated that the warning time currently provided by train detection equipment at Crossing No. VY - 29.61 is more than adequate to clear the tracks of northbound traffic on San Fernando Road. SCRRA is currently reviewing these plans. In evaluating the merits of either proposal, the diagnostic team has to factor in the success of Railroad Avenue as a bypass alternative to San Fernando Road through downtown Newhall. Making the bypass work is. primarily the joint responsibility of the state and city; but SCRRA staff want to help you reach your goal. If the bypass will successfully attract traffic with the signal at Fourth Street and San Fernando Road we prefer this alternative; but we will work with the highway design deemed best for Newhall and the public by the agencies having responsibility for streets and roads in this area. Please contact me at 213 452-0217 if you have any questions or comments. Sincer yours, LOU CLUSTER Public Projects Engineer cc: Mr. Peter Lai, Transportation Engineer Ms. Bonnie Joseph, Engineering Technician Rail Safety and Carriers Division City of Santa Clarita Public Works Dept. Public Utilities Commission 23920 Valencia Boulevard 107 South Broadway Room 5109 Los Angeles CA 90012 Mr. Chris Bretall, Project Engineer HDR Engineering, Inc. 2600 Michelson Drive Suite 1600 Irvine CA 92715-1507 Greg Angelo - MTA Real Estate Mike McGinley - SCRRA Ron Mathieu - SCRRA Jack Shah - SCRRA Dan Guerrero - SCRRA Suite 300 Santa Clarita CA 91355-2196 Mr. Walter Okitsu, Principal Katz, Okitsu and Associates 1200 Corporate Center Drive I` Floor Monterey Park CA 91754-7605 City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Blvd. Suite 300 Santa Clarita California 91355-2196 April 4, 1997 Phone (805) 259-2489 Fax (805)259-8125 Mr. Ray Hinton, P.E. Chief of Permits Branch Caltrans District 7 120 South Spring Street Los Angeles, CA 90012 Attention: Mr. Zack Kerfan Subject: Railroad Avenue/San Fernando Road (State Route 126) Improvements Dear Mr. Hinton: This letter is in response to Caltrans' letter of March 26, 1997, regarding the referenced project. This letter also addresses the issues we discussed with you and your staff in our meeting of March 26. Mr. Doug Failing, Bob Wallin, and Abdollah Ansari of Caltrans; George Caravalho, Bahman Janka, and Bonnie Joseph of the City of Santa Clarita; and Chris Bretall of HDR Engineering also attended this meeting. We appreciate your meeting with us to address Caltrans' concerns regarding our previously submitted plans. Mr. Walter Okitsu, the consultant preparing the signal design at this intersection, has prepared a detailed technical report which address all of Caltrans' concerns and is enclosed with this letter. In response to your concerns, we have revised the intersection plan at the south end of the project and offer the following points to address the issues in your letter: 1.. LARGE AREA OF CONFLICT: As explained in Item 3 below, the crosswalk across San Fernando Road has been eliminated, thereby reducing the size of the intersection. Although the intersection is skewed, the area of conflict is much smaller than those at other State Route 126 intersections within the City, such as the State Route 126/McBean Parkway or State Route 126/Bouquet Canyon Road intersections. Request and justification for "Exception From Advisory Standards" is documented in the enclosed draft copy of the Fact Sheet. RAILROAD PREEMPTION ISSUE: This issue is discussed in length in the enclosed traffic report. As the report indicates, even if the signal is installed at 4th Street, it is likely that the queue of northbound vehicles on San Fernando Road will reach the railroad tracks, thereby requiring a signal preemption to ensure clearing of vehicles over the tracks. This probability will increase as traffic volumes increase over the next several years. As documented in the report, we believe the City's proposal is a superior alternative, as its proximity to the tracks makes it much easier and safer to clear the tracks during train crossing times. PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Mr. Ray Hinton, P.E. April 4, 1997 Page 2 3.. CROSSWALK ACROSS SAN FERNANDO ROAD: This crosswalk has been eliminated in our revised proposal, eliminating the concerns about vehicular/pedestrian conflicts during the preemption phase. This action also has helped reduce the area of conflict at the intersection, thereby reducing the required length of signal yellow intervals. The following respond to the three suggestions in your letter: 1. NO LEFT TURNS FROM RAILROAD AVENUE TO SAN FERNANDO ROAD: The prohibition of left turns will shift all such movements to the 4th Street intersection. As discussed in our meetings; the concept in the.downtown revitalization plan is to eventually shift all truck traffic to Railroad Avenue. We have tested the alternative suggested by Caltrans and have concluded that such proposal will have severe operational and safety problems at the 4th Street intersection for truck traffic. As the enclosed sketch in the traffic report indicates, large trucks will have extreme difficulty making a sharp right turn from Railroad Avenue to 4th Street, and then another sharp left turn to San Fernando Road. This alternative will also pose a safety concern, as it will increase the potential for sideswipe accidents when a truck and another vehicle attempt simultaneous left turns at the intersection. Without encroaching extensively on existing businesses and private property, the existing right-of- way does not provide for a safe and efficient traffic operation at the intersection. These movements are easily accommodated at the Railroad Avenue/San Fernando Road intersection as proposed by the City. 2. NO LEFT TUNS FROM SAN FERNANDO ROAD TO 4TH STREET: The prohibition of this movement will cause undue hardship for access point to the businesses located at the northeast corner of San Fernando Road/4tli Street. Since southbound left turns from San Fernando Road to 5th Street are also prohibited, traffic destined for this property will have to use 6th Street or Market Street and Railroad Avenue to access this property, or proceed southbound beyond Railroad Avenue and the tracks and make U-turns at .other intersections. These circuitous movements will be detrimental tothelivelihood of the businesses and will cause negative traffic operations on the surrounding streets. 3. SICNAIIZATION OF SAN FERNANDO ROADATH STREET: The disadvantages of this proposal are fully documented in the enclosed traffic report. It is likely that the northbound queue of vehicles at 4th Street will reach beyond the railroad tracks in the future, requiring a railroad preemption. The trucks will have difficulty making turns at this intersection as explained above. Finally, due to the roadway curvature at Railroad Avenue/4th Street, minimum requirements for the visibility of signal head indications for southbound Railroad Avenue will not be met, requiring additional signal hardware and signing along Railroad Avenue to warn motorists of the existence of a signal. Mr. Ray Hinton, P.E. April 4, 1997 Page 3 Enclosed with this letter are eight sets of the revised traffic signal and striping plans for the San Fernando Road/Railroad Avenue intersection, a detailed traffic report responding to Caltrans' concerns, and a draft copy of the Fact Sheet for this project. We believe the revised plans address all of Caltrans' concerns and have the following advantages as compared to a signal at 4th Street: 1. Truck movements will be easily accommodated at the proposed intersection. 2. During railroad preemption, vehicles can easily be cleared out of the track area. 3. The. proposed signal at Railroad Avenue will result in a longer and more uniform signal spacing from Railroad Avenue to Market Street and thereby improve the signal coordination along this corridor. 4. The longer distance from Railroad Avenue to Newhall Avenue will improve the traffic operations, as it will provide increased distance to accommodate the queue of northbound vehicles at Newhall Avenue. The enclosed traffic report indicates that if 4th Street were to be signalized, it is likely that the queue of northbound left turning vehicles at Newhall Avenue would back into the traffic signal at 4th Street. 5. Since the traffic signal at Railroad Avenue will operate only with two phases, a 70 -second cycle may be maintained and coordinated with other traffic signals along this roadway. I would like to thank you and your staff for cooperating with the City to resolve the various issues . related to this project. Please feel free to contact me at (805) 255-4963 if you have further questions. Sincerely, Anthony J. Nis'c City Engineer/ Director of Building & Engineering Services AJN:BJ:lkl aafec\lu. a..bj Enclosures cc: George A. Caravalho, City.Manager Bahman Janka, City Traffic Engineer Bonnie Josephs Project Engineer Doug Failing, Caltrans Chris Bretall, HDR Engineering, Inc. Walter Okitsu, Katz, Okitsu & Associates 04/03.,97 Mal &213 260 4706 Rat7oltltnuA.A=oc V041 ZZOkitsu & Associates 1200 Corporate Center Drive, Suite 140 Monterey Park, CA 91754 (213):60-1703 Fax: (313)260-1705 MEMORA! Post-lt" brand tax transmittal mmmn 7971 I# of "on r Z 6 b Y'h TO: 19al:ntatt Junka, P.E. 1" Y`Stt9) -i-st )53X City Traffic Engineer City of Santa Clarita Building and Engineering Services !hpartment FROMr Walter Okitcu, P.E. DATE: April 3, 1997 R&i Railroad .Avenue Project J961 s6 Response to Caltrans Comments on the Signalized Intersection on San Fernando Road South of 4th Street We have prepared this memorandum to respond to comments received from Caltrans in their letter Nwitten by Abdollah Ansari dated March 26, 1997. The letter diseusscd Caltrans' review of tha traffic engineering drawings prepared for the San Fernando Road/Railroad Avenue iaterseetion south of 4th Street as pan of the Railroad Avenue improvement project. CALTRANS ASSERTIONS Caltrans expressed concerns about the layout of the proposed signalized intersection on San Fernando Road south of 4th Street_ Caltrans proposed an alternative, de;tgr in which southbound Kailrtad Avenue traffic would intersect San Furifandu Road by way urexisting 4th Street. Ckslunns a.scets the following points regarding our submitted design: 1. Our design has iiallroad Avenue intersecting San Fcmando Road ut u large angla, 1:0 dcgrecs, which Caltrans asserts will create a large area of conflict and could have safety implications rcmpared to a standard intersection. 2. Doth the Caltrans District Engineer and the Caltrans Headquarters Traffic Engineer fi:el that our signalized intersection is too clew.. to ibe railroad grade rmssine., which requires preemption of the traffic signal. They expressed concern alN)ut the long distance between the railroad gales and die stop line, measured at 190 feet, and the difficulty in clearing this distance during preemption. Caltrans expressed concern rearding the proposed pedestrian crosswalk across San Fernando Road, because of its impacts on normal traffic signal timing, and beeauso of the exposure of pedestrians to traffic clearing the railroad nrnasing during preemption. Tiicir letter states that the above difficulties with the intcrsxtion can ho avoided by relocating the tignalized intersection to the north at 4th Street with all smiihh rand Railrand Avenue traffic being sent through this intersection. 04/03/97 16:02 %2213 260.4705 Katz0kitsuMssoc fz002 RZKatz, Okitsu & Associates OUR RESPONSES We have the following responses t0 these comments: Relocating the signalized intersection to the north would not eliminate potential conflicts at the railroad crossing. if the traffic signal were installed at 4tb. Street, the northbound stop line trould be located 415 feet from the crossing, which is about 16 car lengths, assuming 25 feet per vehicle. Existing evening peak hour volumes for northbound San Fernando Road are recorded at 1,722 vehicles per hour. Assuming a 70 -second cycle length and the existing travel patrems, thiq tnean4 that traffic queues could stretch across the railroad crossing 20 times per peak hour. This calculation is based. on the following: Assume 70 -second sibnal cycle, with northbound San Fernando Road receiving ? 5 seconds of red light per cycle. (Unlike the signalized intersection designed by the City, a si`ttal at 4th Street and San Fernando Road would have multiple phases and a long crosswalk across San Fernando Road.) Assuming cars arrive at the intersection randomly, a red light duration of 35 seconds, and a saturation flow of 1800 vphpl, the average back of queue would extend 16 car lengths. Assuming a random Poisson arrival function, the queue would exceed 16 car lengths, i.e., extend across the tracks, for 40 percent or div cycles, vi 20 Imes per peak hour. Appendix A provides further explanation ot'this calculation Metrolink trains are scheduled to cross at this site four times per hour (th= northbound, one southbound). Tbo possibility of a conflict at this crossing therefore becomes extremely likely if the traffic queue were to extend across the track 20 times per hour, Preventing the conflict with standard railroad preemption of the traffic signal is extremely difficult when the traffic signal is more than 400 root away The railroad gates would be located 520 feet from the stop line, or 21 car lengtts. Clearing such a distance would require extremely Iarg railroad track circuit detection in order to move the 21st car out of the crossing. in contrast, our design provides for the stop line m be 70 feet from the crossing and 190 feet from the railroad gates, which arc typical distances which can be easily cleared with standard railroad preemption. When Railroad Avenue is improved, traffic volumes on northbound San Fernando Road north of 4th Street will diminizh h&c.w.w lx,tween 35 percent and 80 percent of through traffic will divert to Raitroad Avenue, where `through" traffic rufcrs to traffic headed north on San Fernando Road beyond 1 Ith Street. This will reduce the number of times that queues will extend across the railroad tracks, but will not eliminate the possibility. Queue Iength calculations have also been made for other configurations, as shown in Table 1. Traffic volumes for existing and Year 2000 were obtained from the report, "traffic and Farkirg Impact Analysis, proposed Railroad Avenue improvement Project" by Kwz, Okitsu & Associates, dated February 4, 1997. Year 2020 volumes were obtained by applying a growth factor of 26.8% for the period between 1996 and 2020, and 20% for the period between 2006 and 2020 . These growth factors are derived by comparing the City of Santa Clarita's traffic model daily volumes on San Fernando Road south of 41h Street for the years 2005 and 2020, shown Lo be 40,000 and .18,000 rospactive!y, against counts taken in 1996 showing 37,840 vehicles per day. Obviously forecasts of future traffic queues are estimates only. Daily and seasonal fluctuations, and even fluctuations frorn cycle to cycle in traffic will result in variations of queue lengths. 04/03/97 16:03 M13 260 4705 KatzOkitsu&Assoc Zi 003 K(Katz, Okitsu & Associates TABLE 1. Pivbubilkieb vi Nurthbuuud SR -126 Queues Extending from 4th Street Beyond Rall Crossing Condition Nnnh6nnnd Average back Percent of Numbereftimes through volume of queue (car cycles with that queues on San Fernando lengths, queues extend across rail Rd., evening 23t/car) extending crossing PCA across rail crossing Existing volumes, no 1122 vph 16 40% 20 per hour diversion of northbound traffic to Railroad Ave Existing volumes; 35% 1119 vph 8 0.3% About every 4th diversior. to 24arlo peak hour Railroad Avenue Year 2020 vohunes, 35% 1419 vph 11.4 7% 4 per hour diversion to 2 -lane Railroad Avenue Year 2006 volumes. 80% 696 vph (569 8 0.3% About every 4th diversion to 4 -lane vph in the left peak hour Railroad Avenue lane) Year 2020 volumes, SMJ5 835 vph (682 10.7 4% 2 per hour diversion to 1 -lane vph in the left Railroad Avenue lame) The last two rows assume that northbound San Fernando Road north of Newhali Avenue will have a single lane. Most of the northbourld traffic traveling through the 4th Street intersection will Win left onto Newhall Avenue, thus the queue fengdl calculations assume that most of the traffic will stay in the left-most lane Lmrsution Clearanu the intersection gtemetry problems cited by Caltrans in our design can be mitigated by removing the crosswalk across San Fernando Road north of its intersection with Railroad Avenue. Doing so will reduce the duration of all -red clearances for each signal phase, and will reduce the likelihood of rxlnflicts between pedestrians and motorists during railroad preemption. Figure 1 is a scale diagram showing measurements of clearance distance for a standard passenger vehicle. The distance along northbulmd San rcrrando Road between the railroad gate and the stop line (Ditancu A to B) is 208 fust, which la abUUL 9 ear Ieflgtlib. Tile, alluilut or tllllc 1equiled LU deal d4.a wa+ly cars is about 20 seconds, assuming 2 -second start-up delay and 2 seconds per vehicle. The latest time rills movement could start is after southbound Railroad Avenue completes its yel low and all -red clearance intervals, which is assumed to be 4.0 seconds and 2.0 seconds, respectively, fora total of 6.0 seconds. This means that northbound Sari Femando Road traffic will be clear about 26 seconds tiller the start of preemption. Railroad track circuits, which are now under design, will need to be long evoueh to provide these 26 seconds advance notice of an arriving train. The normal yellow clearance for northbound and wuthbound San Fernando Road should last between 4.0 CLEARANCE DISTANCES San Fernando Road and Railroad Avenue Intersection, south of 4th Street W CD s t p r r :0 to N Cm -- rn --. ---300 mm WHITE + a -fc .yb `Q MiJDAp A05 R26(S)X 6`Sl' f x \p N IX),tp n F 49 0 k `-. N� ,< 6► �?} �j�,�►�� \gyp -*(D00 Sir 32.sr lOtk Fr 0 04/03/97 16:04 V213 260 4705 Katz0kitsu@Assoc @005 RZKatz, Qlcitsu & Associates and.4,5 seconds. The duration of this interval would be the same whether the signal is located adjacent to the railroad crossing or at 4th Street. The yellow interval for southbound Raihs.)ad Avecue should be about 4.0 seconds. The all -red clearance intervals are based on distances between stop line and conflict points, also shown on Figure 1. Fur uurthWund Salt Fernando Ruad, that dislance is 120 fecl (Distance C to D), whiuh cuuld be covered by a 35 -mph vehicle in 2.4 seconds. The potential conflict for this move is the southbound left tum from Railroad Avenue, which could reach the conflict point of 54 feet (Distance E to F) in 1.8 seconds assuming that a motorist anticipates the start of green and rolls into the intersection at a 20 -mph speed. The all -red clearance interval for San Fernando Road should be the difference between these times, or 0.6 seconds. Southhound San Fernando Road has no need for an all -red clearance interval, since a motorist entering the intersection at the end of its yellow light will be clear before a southbound Railroad Avenue motorist could reach the conflict point. Spice southbound San Fernando Road will have concurratt yellow and all -red clearances with northbound Sail Fernando Road, the all -red clearance for southbound San Fernando Road will also be 0.6 seconds, For southbound Railroad Avcnuc, the distance to the conflict point with southbound San Yu-mundo Road is 204 feet (Distance E to G), which can be covered by a .15 -mph vehicle in 4.0 second,. A southbound San Fernando Road motorist needs to travel 104 feet (Distance H to T), which can be covered by a 20 -mph vehicle in 3.6 seconds. The all -red clearance for Railroad Avenue should therefore be the difference of 0.4 seconds. The 20 -mph speed is used because the average speed for a motorist who anticipates the start of green light by watching the cross street yellow light and rolls through past the limit line without stopping is probably well below the speed Iimit. Furthermore, a motorist who does such a maneuver and collides with a motorist who legally turned Iclt I}um Railroad Avenue would be. in violation of the California Vehicle Code, As a result, the 0.4 -second all -red clearance is conservatively high. The all -red clearances of 0.6 seconds and 0.4 seconds are probably knverthan that used by Caltrans for most other intersections along San Fernando Road. The reason is that we arc recommending the removal of a crosswalk across .San Fernando Road from our plans, so there are no crosswalks on the far aide of the intersection. As a result, clearance distances arc actually shorter than for normal intersections. Signal Coordination Coordination of a signal adjacent to the railroad right-of-way with the nearest signalized intersection at Newhall Avenue and Silt Street is relatively simple, since the Railroad Avenue/San Fernando Road signal will only have two phases. The yellow and all -red clearances are not particularly long, and in fa.a will hn shorter than for other intersections along San Fernando Road. The Railroad Avenue! San Fernando Road will easily operate within the 70 -second cycle length used along this corridor. if the alternative location for atraffic signal suggested by Caltrans is used, staying within a 70 -second cycle is more difficult baeause of the need to provide opposed -approach signal phasing, which is sometimes known as "split' phasing. The 4th Street approach would have to operate on a se7;arate phase from the William S. Hart Park driveway approach. However, this intersection could operate within tine 70 -second cycle used along this corridor, albeit not as easily as with the signal as designed by the City_ One other coordination issue involves traffic queues for the northbound left turn movement from San Feruaudu Ruad uutu Newhall Avenue. Cw,eut danaud rot this nhovenhcnt during the evening peak hour is 467 vph. Assuming a 70 -second signal cycle length. tite estimated queue will be 9 car-lengt}ta, or 225 feet. 'the Newhall Avenue stop Lne is located 37S feet north of the 4th street intersection, or 15 car -lengths. The 04/03/97 16:05 V213 260 4705 Katz0kltsu&Assoc 2006 Katz, Okitsu &. Associates probability of left turn queues extending into the 4th Street intersection is about 3%, or 1.5 occurrences per evening peak hour. By the year 2020, with a 26.8% growth in demand for this movement, the probability of queues blocking the 4th Street intersection increases to about 20%, or about 10 tines per peak hour. Ibis could impact operations at the 4th Street' San Fernando Road intersection, with traffic turning left from 4th Street being blocked by the Newhall Avenue left turn queues. In comparison, with the dcdgri as submitted by the City, the probability of this queue extending into the Railroad Avenue! San Fcrnando Road intersection is negltgible. M iib Moving the si6nalizud intersection to 4th Struc will provide tighter turning radii for trucks. A sketch is provided in Fignre 2 Nfotorisls rravelin6 on sawhbound RailmAd Avenue must mAkc A ri6hf turn onto 4th Street, followed by a left tum imto San F(;rrtando Road. A single WB -15 (metric, formerly WB -50) vehicle could make this move, at a speed Icss than 9 mph (15 kph). Two large trucks would not be able to make the move simultaneously side-by-side. This poses a traffic safety risk, because it increases the potential for side- swipe accidents when any vehicle is In the adjacent lane alongside a truck. In contrast, two WB -15 vehicles could make the move side-by-side at a much higher speed for the intersection designed by the City. Because of the broad angles of the intersection as designed, turning movements for large trucks are easily accommodated. Providing traffic signals visible to southbound Railroad Avenue traffic will be difficult with the reverse curves proposed by Caltrans. A nearside traffic signal head would need to be installed facing 4th Street an lie wudlea a t;umi:r of tl/e 4th Su,=L/ Sall FCr11W1dV Rudd illter MOUtl. Thi: nigllal Weald be vialblo fl Vm a distance of about 160 feet. According to the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices, this distance is undesirable even for an approach speed of 20 mph. A wanting sign will be needed to warn drivers of -the signal ahead. rr, s Tho propowd Cultnm!I dauign will hamper neeos:h to name existing businesses by forcing traffic on 4th Street to flow one-way westbound. The most notable impacts will occur to the businesses on the north side of 4th Street, occupied ty it veterinarian, and to the car dcakr on the Irian; o -shaped parcel bounded by 4th Street, Railroad Avenuo, and San Fernando Road. Access to the veterinarian from the north on San Fernando Road would have to be by way of 6th Street to Railroad Avenue to 4th Street. Access to the car dealer would be the same, unless a new driveway were provided to the lot on San Fernando Road, and a left tum lane were installed on San Fernando Road to serve the site. On the other Hand, our design maintains 4th Street as a two- way street, so that access to and from these businesses will be as good ss it is today RECOMN(ENAATIONS One modification to our originally submitted design may resolve many of Caltrans' concerns, and that is to eliminate the proposed crosswalk across San Femando !load on the north side of Ute intersection. There is currently no sidewalk along the west side of the intersection so rmnoval of this crosswalk will hava minimal impact on pedestrians. Elimination of this crosswalk simplifies the railroad preemption scqucnce and eliminates the conflict between motorists and pedestrians in Chis crosswalk as the preemption sequence begins. Pedestrians wife hvish to cross San Fernando Road would cither cross at die unsignalized intersection at Ott Street, or use the crosswalk at the signalized intersection at 5th Street/Newball Avenue. R28(S)(Rt') S Lo 10B(L )(MOD.) 4e izojt tis W40 IL -------- f ---.R ' _ - - -_-_ �._-_ _. --_: � -- --` l- •. �, ��; -' � .��,� ,: �� { CYC` � _ �; MtKT ASP!' / '•, ti F) (yvRE 2- 04/03/97 16:07 V213 260 4705 KatzOkltsuaAssoc@008 Katz, Okitsu & Associates APPENDIX A: TRAFFIC QUEUE CALCULATIONS Traffic queue calculatinns were prepared fnr m-wflihnuM Can T"omando Rand at the cigslaI prnpnced fnr the 4th Street intersection. The per -lane capacity for this queue is approximately 16 car lengths per lane. The I Ni car in the lane would be queuing on the railroad grade crossing. The first step in the calculation is to detetmiuc lire uvetaga uwttbet of vchie les uriv lug during a ty pical rcxl light interval. This it:lcrsMLi Iu wvulu probably operate on a 70 -second cycle, with the red light typically lasting about 35 seconds. The estimated peak hour volume for this move in the year 2020 is 1419 vph, or 710 vph in each of the tNo lanes. After 35 seconds of red lig t, the expected number of cars in the queue would be 6.9 vehicles at the start of green. However, the queue does not clear autimmediately when the signal film- green. Ascrrnhigasaturntionfitnv rate ofone car every two seconds (equivalent to 1800 vph per lane), it would take at least 13.8 seconds to clear this queue. The actual Limo it would take Ss lon6mr than thut, bwausc additional ours would join the back of the queue during this tithe. The founula to calculate lbu nuntbct of vehicles by tho time the queue finally clears is given by: where: X - sqr /(s -q) s — saturation now rale q — arrival r:ue r-durAon ofafi¢ctivetcd interval Tn the; above example, s — 1800 vpbpl, q — 710 vpbpl, and r — 35 scevttds ut 0.00972 hour., so tilt average back of queue Is X=11.4 car lengths. To account for random fluctuations, the POisson probabilities are applied using standard statistical methods. A nomograph is shown in Figure A-1. To I= the nomograph, ON calculate the expected number of cars in the queue, in this cane 11.4 cars. Draw a vertical line where the x-axis equals 11.4 upward until it intersects the N curve of concern. In this case, N is equal to 16 because that is the number of cars that can be stored in the queue without havinu, cunj ,top on the railroad tracks. T1rcn draw acrora to the left where the Lille intersects the y-axis. III this example, the probability of queues being less than 16 is about 93%. Therefore, the probability that queues exceed 16 vehicles, Le., extends across the railroad crossing, is 70/9. W itb a 70 -second cycie, there are about S 1 cycles per hour, so 'No of the cycles corresponds to four occurrences per hour. A-1 Fax Sheet Date: 413197 Number of Pages: 6 (includes cover page) FROM Name: Chris Bretall Firm: HDR Engineering, Inc. Phone: (714) 756-6800 File: 98384-002042 tuq Job Number: 112 Name: Bahman Janka Firm: City of Santa Clarity Fax No.: (805) 254-3538 Revised Draft Fact Sheet for Railroad avenue with Exhibit A. HDR Engineering, Inc. 2600 Michelson Dr. Suite 1600 Irvine, CA 92612-1507 Phone: (714) 756-6800 Fax: (714) 756-6895 TO'd t Gulm-AaaUlBU13 NOH d£Z=£O L6-£O--4dy State of California 07 -LA -126 Department of Transportation PM 10.4/PMi 1.3 CALTRANS DISTRICT 7 EXCEPTION FROM ADVISORY STANDARDS Submitted by: Chris Bretall Recommended for Approval by: Approved by: Date Date ZO'd t 5ut a00ULBU3 MUH d£Z=SO LG-EO--ac1 1. PROPOSED PROJECT DESCRIPTION This project proposcs to widen Railroad Avenue in the City of Santa Clarita from just south of 4th Street to 11th Street. In doing so. two new intersections with SR126 (San Fernando Road) will be created at each end of the project. These intersections will be signalized and are located at P.M. 10.4 near i Ith Street and P.M. 11.3 south of 4th Street. Another intersection (Market Street/Railroad Avenue) will be signalized and interconnected with the existing signal at SRI26/.Market Street. The intersection at the south end of the project is located just north of an existing single track at -grade railroad crossing of SR126, Because of this, the new traffic' signal wiil require railroad preemption (Exhibit A). The Railroad Avenue Improvement Project is the first step in the revitalization. of Downtown Newhall. When completed, the project will encourage through tack traffic to use Railroad Avenue and bypass the downtown care section of Newhall along SRI26. 2. APPLICABLE ADVISORY STANDARDS Highway DesignManual(HDM), Section 403.3, Angle of Intersection, Paragraph M. 3. NON-STANDARD FEATURE In Section 403.3, the HDM advises that an interscetion angle with a State Highway should be greater than 60 degrees. However, the alignment of the existing right-of-way that is being utilized for the southerly portion of Railroad Avenue requires that the intersection with SR126 be at a skew angle of approximately 30 degrees. £O'd I But-AO&U�Bu3 UGH d£Z=£O L6-£O-„idy 4. RATIONALE FOR EXCEPTION The intersection as proposed serves the public's best interest in terms of accommodating truck movements, utilizing existing rights-of-way and being compatible with businesses in the area. Tnick Movements Since one of the goals of the project is to encourage truck use on Railroad Avenue, a significant areount of truck traffic is expected in both the north and southbound directions. As designed, with the 30 -degree skew angle, the intersection accommodates a simple movement for southbound trucks turning left onto SR126. An alternative to this design that was studied required southbound traffic to utilize a 90 -degree angle intersection with 4th Street to gain access to SR126. This configuration results in a series of tight 90 -degree turns that cannot be negotiated by large trucks without causing significant queuing and delays on Railroad Avcnuc. To improve this situation, acquisition of additional right-of-way would be required. Sight Distance and Visibility Although the proposed angle of the intersection is less than 60 degrees, there would be very little visibility concern at the intersection. This is due to the fact that the southbound right -tum traffic from Railroad Avenue to San Fernando Road is predominantly accommodated via 4th Street, and other preceding streets (5th, 6th, ;Market, etc.), thereby minimizing the movement at the SR126/Railroad intersection. All other movement at the Railroad/SR126 intersection will only proceed with signal indications when there are no visibility concerns. 170' d t 6u �.,taau i 6u3 UGH dbZ s £O Z6-£O-"dv Right -of -Way As previously mentioned, an alternative 90 -degree intersection design would require additional right-of-way. Due to the "tight" conditions that currently exist in the area, any additional right-of-way acquisition could result in business deplacement. The skewed intersection design does not require right-of-way acquisition from businesses in this area. Compatibility with Local Businesses For the reasons previously mentioned regarding right-of-way, the proposed intersection designed is favorable to local businesses. Furthermore, an alternative 90 -degree intersection design would convert 4th Street to a one-Nvay street and; therebv eliminate left turns for southbound traffic on SR126 to 4th Street and parking on 4th Street. This would result in a significant hardship for the businesses along 4th Street. 5. REVIEW DISCUSSION During March and April 1997, several meetings and conversations took place between City and Caltrans staff/management and the City's design consultant. Upon review of the alternatives studied, Caltrans staff concurred that the advisory design exception be recommended for approval. 6. CONCLUSION AND DECISION HDM, Section 403.3, Paragraph (1; - Due to the constraints of the project area and the detrimental effects a 90 -degree intersection could have on the area, we recommend approval of intersection angle of less than 60 degrees. z 10838400?t techwork`S:N9iCBw.d W. GO'd 1 6uL-ta0u�BU3 UGH dV3:S0 L6-c0-.AdH PINE STREET 30° RAILROAD AVENUE E" H NTS EXHIBIT A STATE OF CALIFORNIA—BUSINESS AND TRANSPORTATION AGENCY PETE WKSON. Gowmer DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 49 DISTRICT 7, 140 SO. SPRING ST. LOS ANGELES, CA 90014.9606 RECEIVED APR p 4 1997 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CITY OF SANTA CLARITA Mr. Glenn Adamick City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Blvd. Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Dear Mr. Adamick: April 2, 1997 IGR/CEQA cs/970319 NEG DEC City of Santa Clarita Railroad Ave. Street Improvement and Construction of Newhall MetroLink Station Vic. LA -12_6-(10.68-1123) SCH# 94031018 = T. T.o v Thank you for including Caltrans -in the environmental review process for the above-mentioned project. Base on the information received, we have the following comments: Both Caltrans Los Angeles District 7 and Caltrans Sacramento traffic engineers are concerned about safety issues within the public right-of-way regarding the proposed intersection at San Fernando Road and Railroad Avenue east of 4th Street. These concerns and Caltrans- recommendations are outlined in the attached letter from our Office of Permits to your city engineer, Mr. Anthony Nisich, dated March 26, 1996. The Railroad Avenue street improvement project will need a Caltrans Encroachment Permit at its. intersections with San Fernando Road. Six sets of engineering plans will be needed for Caltrans review and approval. If you have any questions regarding our comments, refer to Caltrans IGR/CEQA Record# cs/970319, and please do not hesitate to contact me.at (213) 897-4429. Sincerely, STEPHEN BUSWELL IGR/CEQA Program Manager Enclosure cc: Mr. Chris Belsky, State Clearinghouse W S!1'vy� A • t PETE IVILSON, 60M ' STATE Of. CALIrIRM'A - BUSINESS AND TRANSPORTATION AGENCY DEPARTMENT OF -TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT 7, 120 SO. SPRING Sr. LOS ANCELES,' CA 90012 Td. (213) 997-4668 March 26, 1997 City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 300 Santa Clarita, Ca. 91355 Attn.: Mr. Anthony Nisich, City Engineer Dear Mr. Nisich: CERTIFIED MAIL 797 -NMC -0183 797-LA-126-10.4/II.3 We have completed our review of the above -referenced application for a permit to connect Railroad Avenue to San Fernando Road (Route 126) at two locations in the city of Santa Clarita. As verbally discussed with your staff and HDR Engineering Consultants on previous occasions and per our meeting on March 13, 1997 in Caltrans district office, City's proposal to open Railroad Avenue is approved by Caltrans in concept. However, the following is an outline of Caltrans concerns relative to the proposed intersection of Railroad Avenue with the State highway, east of 4th Street: 1. Since Railroad Avenue will intersect with Route 126 at a large angle, it will create a large area of conflict with potential for a higher number of accidents within the intersection compared to a standard intersection. 2. Since the railroad crossing is within 100 feet of the proposed intersection, railroad preemption phase will be required to clear out traffic on northbound (westbound) San Fernando Road. Due to a relatively long distance between the railroad gates and theproposed intersection (200 feet) some vehicles may not be able to clear and may remain on railroad tracks. Thus matter was also discussed with Caltrans Headquarters Traffic Engineer representative who supported the District Engineers' disapproval of the intersection with a railroad preemption. 3. Proposed pedestrian crosswalk across San Fernando Road will be approximately 100 feet long. Required safe pedestrian walk time will take green time away from San Fernando Road which could result in extensive traffic back up leading to poteirtial rear end accidents within the State right-of-way. Additionally, pedestrians using this crosswalk will be unsafely and unnecessarily exposed to trafc when the railroad preemption kicks in due to no pedestrian clear time. Based on the above concerns it is the opinion of Caltrans that proposed design by the City must be revised to: 1. Allow free right -tum movement from westbound San Fernando Road to northbound Railroad Avenue and prohibit traffic movement(s) from Railroad Avenue to San Fernando Road at this intersection. 2 Allow traffic on southbound Railroad Avenue to enter San Fernando Road via 4th Street and modify 4th Street to allow for one right tum lane, one left/through lane and one left turn lane to San Fernando )load with no traffic entering 4th Street from San Fernando Road. 3. Provide fully signalized intersection at 4th Street/San Fernando Road. By implementing the above. alternative design, City will achieve their goal for enhancement of the business district and will assure maximum safety within public right-of-wayy. If you would like to present any other alternative to the above proposal, pplease submit 8 sets of plans (folded 8-1/2" X I I") and all applicable supporting data within 45 days from receipt of -this letter for further review. Additional comments may apply depending on the information provided in future submetal. Inactive applications will be cancelled upon expiration of the 45 day period. If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Bob Wallin at (213)897-3625. Sinc ABDOLLAH ANSARI Permit Engineer (continued) RAILROAD AVENUE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT/ - NEWHALL METROLINK STATION RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON REVISED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Questions have arisen related to the four scenarios described in the comprehensive traffic study prepared in conjunction with the project. The project before the Council tonight represents one scenario (Scenario 2). The other three scenarios analyzed in the study were included in the report to address community input regarding the ability of the improved Railroad Avenue to accommodate traffic generated by the Newhall Metrolink Station, future growth unrelated to the Station, and a potential reduction in lanes on San Fernando Road if the Freedman Plan is implemented. These three scenarios, while not part of the project, do illustrate that the improvement of Railroad Avenue will accommodate traffic generated from the station, future growth, and the reduction in lanes on San Fernando Road. Mitigation identified in the three scenarios is not needed to accommodate the Newhall Metrolink Station or the reconstruction of Railroad Avenue. 1) The Mitigated Negative Declaration does not address the impacts that the increased regional through -traffic on Railroad Avenue will have on the area. Response: As described in the Traffic Study under Scenario 2, the improvement of Railroad Avenue and the construction and operation of the Metrolink Station are not expected to result in a significant increase in through -traffic on Railroad Avenue. Instead, the project will result in the redistribution of traffic in the area. 2) The Mitiggted Negative Declaration does not address the impacts that the designation of Railroad Avenue as a truck route will have on the area. Response: For clarification purposes, designation of Railroad Avenues as a truck route is not proposed with this project. Scenario 3 in the Traffic Study, which included reducing the number of travel lanes in San Fernando Road from four to two, would include shifting truck traffic from San Fernando Road to Railroad Avenue. Such a reduction in travel lanes is not a part of this project. 3) The traffic analysis concludes that the Metrolink Station might impact intersections along San Fernando Road, and in worst-case scenarios, could reach LOS (Level of Service) "D." Response: The traffic study, in fact concludes that the Railroad Avenue project provides all of the necessary roadway facilities for adequate Metrolink Station access. One intersection, San Fernando Road and Newhall Ave, would be at a LOS "D" in the PM peak hour. However, this intersection is presently at a LOS "D" in the PM peak, and the project will not better or worsen this condition: Table 2 within the Traffic Study clearly shows that improvements to Railroad N Avenue result in improved volume -to -capacity ratios at all of the intersections along Sin Fernando.Road and, in most cases, improves the LOS as well. With the addition of the Metrolink Station, all of the intersections along San Fernando Road continue to operate at improved volume -to -capacity ratios compared to existing conditions. 4) The traffic analysis concludes that the Metrolink Station would "significantly" impact intersections on Railroad Avenue, specifically the intersection of Railroad Avenue/11th Street/San Fernando Road, reducing it from LOS "A" to B." Response: Table 4 in the Traffic Study indicates that the LOS for the above referenced intersection will go from "A" to `B" in the AM peak hour and considers this to be significant in relation to intersection operating levels. LOS "A" indicates that an intersection is operating at an excellent level. LOS 'B" indicates that an intersection is operating at a very good level. This reduction in the level of operation does not constitute a significant impact on traffic and circulation within the area. Additionally, the traffic study concludes that this intersection is being designed to handle Metrolink -generated traffic and that no additional capacity is necessary. Other intersections along Railroad Avenue remain are not significantly impacted by the project and would operate at very acceptable LOS. 5) The initial study identifies the loss of 121 parking spaces. Contrary to the initial study, sufficient on -street parking will not be provided for the following reasons: The "observed" demand is based on the existing baseline need for parking; upon completion of the Metrolink Station the demand will "surge" far beyond the existing level and staff claimed that parking lots constructed in conjunction with the station will provide additional parking on evenings and weekends to serve existing businesses now utilizing parking on Railroad Avenue, but their hours of operation are primarily. those when the Metrolink lots would be full. Response: Under the proposed project, no on -street parking would be eliminated along Railroad Avenue. A reduction in parking spaces, if it occurs at all, will only occur if Railroad Avenue is striped for four travel lanes in conjunction with a future reduction in lanes on San Fernando Road. Reducing travel lanes on San Fernando Road is not a part of this prcjdct. As part of this project, parking will be improved --parking spaces would change from informal angle parking spaces to parallel parking spaces within the road. The 208 parking spaces proposed on the Metrolink site will be sufficient to accommodate the expected number of station users. 6) The Mitigated Negative Declaration fails to address the impacts from increased traffic to children who cross Railroad Avenue on the way to school. Response: An ancillary part of the project includes the provision of sidewalks on Railroad Avenue and Market Street. Additionally, the project includes signalization of several intersections along Railroad Avenue. Both of these factors are expected to improve safety in the area. 7) Other impacts that have not been studied or mitigated include: a) 'Increased air pollution from the locomotives. b) Increases air pollution from the increase auto traffic the Metrolink Station will bring. c) Construction noise d) Construction traffic congestion Response: (a) There will be a total of 18 stop and starts from the Newhall Metrolink Station (nine in the morning and nine in the evening). Increased emissions produced by these stops and starts is not considered to be significant. (b) The implementation of the Metrolink Station is expected to have a positive impact on regional air quality by reducing vehicle miles of travel and associated levels of congestion. Additionally, it is expected that the proposed project will improve traffic flow and level of service along San Fernando Road with the result that any sensitive receptors in the area will be exposed to the same or lesser levels of emissions than undercurrent conditions. (c) The Initial Study discusses potential short-term increases in noise levels attributable to site construction, however, noise -sensitive land uses are either sufficiently distant from the project site or separated from it by the Metrolink tracks and Pine Street so as not to be significantly impacted by the project. (d) The Initial Study discusses a potential for traffic congestion due to construction of the project; however, the study indicates that construction will be staged and access will be provided to all of the businesses along Railroad Avenue during construction. Therefore, this impact is not considered significant. 8) The Initial Study displays only token observance of regulatory requirements. It fails to: (a) Note the source or the content of the data relied upon for its conclusions. (b) Explain the proposed mitigation measures "implied" by checking the box "potentially significant impact unless mitigation incorporated." (c) Record consultation with other agencies, including but not limited to Caltrans, with respect to the safety and feasibility of the new intersections. (d) CEQA requires the project to be revised to include mitigation measures before the Mitigated Negative Decfaration is released for public review; no mitigation measures are incorporated into the Negative Declaration. Response: (a) Where sources are not specifically listed within the Initial Study, they are based upon staff expertise and consultation with affected City Departments and outside agencies. Additionally, the General Plan, Zoning Code, Traffic Study, Caltrans, and the SCRRA are all cited as sources within the document. 9) (b and d) The Initial Study does identify a potentially significant impact in the Hazards Section of the document. The related text provides the mitigation measure requiring the City's Transit Division to prepare a Phase II Environmental Assessment and to ensure that the recommendations of this assessment related to soil contamination be cleaned -up prior to site construction. (c) Consultation with Caltrans and other agencies is recorded as part of the Nuke of Completion, which was prepared on March 6, 1997. Responses to the Caltrans Comments City staff responded to the comments from Caltrans in a letter dated April 4, 1997. Those comments and the responses are attached to this document. Responses to the letter from Richard Fre land The issues cited in this letter are covered in the above responses. GFA -d nwhlydv\m.p".gen M