4. Discussion
The various issues we considered in authorizing this crossing are discussed below.
4.1. Need for Crossing
The proposed crossing will provide additional, safer and more efficient access to the Paseo Del Oro Village Center, a new commercial development near the crossing site that draws patronage from both sides of the tracks, as well as to residential and recreational areas. The crossing also will serve two nearby schools whose students will use the crossing daily to access bus stops and travel to/from school. Some pedestrians, including students, now trespass across the tracks (cross illegally) at the crossing site as it is the most convenient relative to the residential, commercial and school locations.
4.2. Practicability
Pursuant to Rules 3.7 and 3.11, any application for an at-grade crossing must show why a grade-separated crossing is not practicable. A grade-separated crossing is not practicable here primarily due to the lack of available space to construct a pedestrian bridge or tunnel within the configuration of the rail right-of-way and adjacent roadways. The rail right-of-way is approximately 100 feet wide. Public roadways run parallel to the track on both sides, and the available land to construct a grade-separated crossing (bridge or tunnel) is approximately 6 feet, insufficient space for such construction. The City also considered constructing a longer bridge over the rail line and both roadways, but found that the space for the bridge "footprint" (the available land between the outside limits of the roadway right-of-way and the commercial buildings of the Paseo del Oro development) also was insufficient. Other physical factors to overcome at this location relative to a possible grade separation include underground fiber-optic communication lines and railroad signal conductors along the rail right-of-way, as well as a wayside drainage.
In addition to physical constraints, the City also reports in its application that the area near the crossing is one of high crime and gang activity. In this regard, the City found that potential users of the crossing would prefer to cross the tracks at-grade, as a grade-separated crossing (especially a tunnel crossing) would pose a higher risk to possible threats or crime activities.
Lastly, in determining practicability we also consider the recommendations of our staff. As noted earlier in this discussion, CPSD staff has reviewed and analyzed the plans submitted with the application, and recommends that the Commission grant the City's request.
In view of the above, we find it is not practicable to construct a grade separation at the proposed crossing site.
4.3. Crossing Design/ Warning Devices
In its application, the City provided the necessary detailed drawings, plans and maps of the proposed crossing. The crossing surface panels will be pre-cast concrete, and additional fencing will be constructed near the crossing to channelize pedestrian flow. The crossing will be constructed at a 90-degree angle to the track to provide the highest level of safety. Commission Standard #9 crossing warning devices will be installed, along with automatic swing exit gates, electronic warning bells, and flashing lights.
Also relative to crossing safety, the City reports a high number of Spanish-speaking residents in the area of the proposed crossing. In this regard, the City will install warning signage and pavement markings in both English and Spanish.
The City otherwise shall comply with all applicable rules, General Orders, and the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, including the California Supplement, regarding crossing safety.
4.4. Environmental Review
The California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA), as amended, Public Resources (PR) Code Sections 21000, et seq., requires that the Commission consider the environmental consequences before acting upon or approving a project.3 Under CEQA, the Commission must act as either the Lead Agency or a Responsible Agency. The Lead Agency is the public agency with the greatest responsibility for supervising or approving the project as a whole.4 The Responsible Agency must consider the Lead Agency's environmental review and make its own findings that the Lead Agency complied with the requirements of CEQA before acting on or approving a project. Here, the City is the Lead Agency and the Commission is the Responsible Agency.
The PR Code exempts from the provisions of CEQA any new, small facilities, limited in numbers.5 The City determined that the subject proposed crossing is such a project, and therefore qualifies as a Categorical Exemption to CEQA and the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report. On September 20, 2007, the City filed a Notice of Exemption (NOE) regarding this project with the State Office of Planning and Research, and separately with the office of the San Diego County Clerk/Recorder. No objections or opposition to the NOE were filed.
We have reviewed and considered the City's Categorical Exemption. The site of the proposed crossing has been inspected in the field and the proposed plans have been reviewed by CPSD staff. We agree with the City that the proposed project is exempt from the requirements of CEQA, and overall find that the City has complied with the requirements of CEQA.
4.5. Crossing Identification Number
The new crossing is assigned the following Commission identification number: California Public Utilities Commission Crossing No. 106E-115.89.
4.6. Post-Construction Report and Monitoring
Within 30 days after completion of the work under this decision, the City shall notify CPSD Staff in writing by submitting a completed standard Commission Form G (Report of Changes at Highway Grade Crossings and Separations).
In addition to submitting the Form G, and as a result of meetings and consultations with CPSD and NCTD staff, the City agreed to perform a post-construction crossing monitoring plan with respect to rail right-of-way trespassing and other safety and security issues. The monitoring plan will be in place for three months after the City submits its Form G to CPSD, and calls for the City to monitor and conduct on-site observations of the crossing on certain school days and week-end days. The City will document its findings, including any safety warning device problems and trespassing/illegal activity enforcement, and at the end of the three-month period will report the results to CPSD and NCTD. If deemed necessary, the City, NCTD and CPSD jointly will develop a corrective action to be implemented by the City.
3 Title 14, California Code of Regulations, Chapter 3, Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA Guidelines), Section 15050(b).
4 CEQA Guidelines, Section 15051(b).
5 CEQA Guidelines Section 15303.
