Discussion

Rule 51.1, subdivision (c), requires a motion by parties proposing a settlement for adoption by the Commission to contain a statement of the factual and legal considerations adequate to advise the Commission and parties not expressly joining the agreement of its scope and of the grounds on which adoption is urged. Subdivision (e) proscribes adoption unless the settlement is reasonable in light of the whole record, consistent with law, and in the public interest. We find that the parties' motion in this matter fully satisfies these requirements.

The scope of the Settlement is clear: It provides that the two contested at-grade crossings may be established and constructed in accordance with applicable Commission safety requirements in return for reconfiguring CN's Napa Junction Yard in a manner that will eliminate many potential traffic conflicts and safety hazards at the South Napa Junction Road crossing. The grounds on which the parties urge adoption of this agreement are clearly and concisely stated in the motion.

The way in which the Settlement accomplishes its purposes is reasonable in light of the record, particularly in that it promotes a simpler and better means of doing so than would the elimination of essential east-west arterial roads required by the City's General Plan or requiring the construction of grade separations that are infeasible from a practical standpoint. The requirements that the construction comply with Commission safety requirements and that other crossings be eliminated ensures consistency with the law. Finally, the significant reduction of potential traffic conflicts and associated safety hazards is in the public interest, as is comprehensive land use planning for the new community.

The Settlement is an all-party settlement because it is an agreement among all of the parties to this consolidated proceeding. In the case of an all-party settlement the Commission requires the record to support findings that all active parties to the proceeding join in its sponsorship; that the sponsoring parties are fairly reflective of the affected interests; that no term of the settlement contravenes statutory provisions or prior Commission decisions; and that the settlement conveys sufficient information to permit the Commission to discharge its future regulatory obligations with respect to the parties and their interests. (D.92-12-019, 46 CPUC 2d 538, 550-51 (1992).) The record in this proceeding supports each of these findings. The specific circumstances of this proceeding involving the creation of an entirely new community adjacent to an active railroad line require us to balance the public interest in fashioning a functional community and the public interest in safety, while nonetheless ensuring that the railroad will be able to conduct its common carrier activities without undue interference. The Settlement achieves that balance without violating any statute or specifying relief that conflicts with a prior Commission decision. It is comprehensive, and it conveys to us the necessary information to enable us to address future issues that may arise in relation to traffic generated by the City as it grows and changes

For the foregoing reasons we adopt the Settlement, approve the establishment of a public at-grade crossing of the CN track at South Napa Junction Road, and extend the authority granted in D.02-06-059 to establish a public at-grade crossing at Donaldson Way for a period of two years from the effective date of our order.