City of Los Angeles v. Lainer

WOOD, P. J. This is an eminent domain action pertaining to the improvement and construction of public streets in Los Angeles as a part of a railroad grade separation project known as the Laurel Canyon Boulevard and Sherman Way Grade Separation project.

Defendants’ real property consisted of approximately 4 acres which adjoined the north side of Sherman Way for a distance of approximately 536 feet. Sherman Way was a through east-west highway which intersected Radford Avenue about 540 feet east of defendants’ property (Radford being the next intersecting street to the east), and intersected Laurel Canyon Boulevard, at grade, about 200 feet [147]west of their property (Laurel being the next intersecting street to the west of their property). Laurel Canyon Boulevard is a through north-south highway.

Defendants Mr. and Mrs. Lainer owned an undivided one-half of the property (referred to as Parcels No. 24A), and defendants Mr. and Mrs. Loew owned the other undivided one-half thereof.

The improvement project involved the relocation of Sherman Way to the east and south of defendants’ property so that it would underpass the railroad right-of-way and tracks of the Southern Pacific Company; and the project involved the widening and lowering of Laurel Canyon Boulevard so that it would underpass the railroad right-of-way and tracks. Such widening and lowering of Laurel Canyon Boulevard was done on property which the city acquired from other persons (who owned the property at the intersection of Laurel Canyon and Sherman Way).

After the construction, the defendants’ property did not adjoin Sherman Way which was reconstructed or relocated several feet south of the place where Sherman Way had been prior to the improvement. The street space south of defendants’ property, which had been known as Sherman Way, was renamed “Cantlay Street,” and the west end of the new street was a cul-de-sac at the east side of Laurel Canyon Boulevard, which boulevard as above stated had been lowered in order to underpass the railroad tracks. That boulevard had been lowered about 17 feet from its former position at grade with the old Sherman Way. In other words, as a result of the changes made, the defendants did not have access to Laurel Canyon Boulevard over the new Cantlay Street which ended in a cul-de-sac east of Laurel Canyon Boulevard, which boulevard was several feet below the place where it formerly joined old Sherman Way at grade.