Discussion

As part of the project to construct its 22-mile SPRINTER Oceanside-Escondido Rail Project (OERP), NCTD proposes to construct four crossings at three LRT stations in the City of San Marcos, as described in Appendix A and located as shown in a vicinity map in Appendix B attached to this order. Detailed drawings of the proposed four crossings are included in the application.

The four crossings and three LRT stations form part of the existing 22-mile Escondido Branch Line of the San Diego Subdivision formerly owned by the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railroad, now owned by NCTD. The OERP is a new LRT system consisting of partial track realignment and the construction of three sections of passing track, each 3.5 miles in length. The existing track system accommodates three round trips of freight rail service each week. The new light rail system will share the tracks with the freight rail service. However, freight and light rail service will be completely separate. Freight service will operate only in the evening hours after the completion of light rail service for the day.

NCTD will provide light rail service by means of diesel-multiple-unit (DMU) light rail vehicles. The DMU is a self-propelled diesel-electric or diesel-hydraulic rail vehicle with a maximum speed of 55 miles per hour. NCTD can couple the vehicles together to make trains consisting of two or three vehicles total. However, initial service will consist of trains with a maximum of two vehicles. During peak loading, each train may transport a maximum of 300 passengers. NCTD plans a maximum of sixty-four (64) passenger trains per day, based on a 30-minute operating headway.

North San Diego County Transit Development Board (NSDCTDB) is the lead agency for this project under the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA), as amended in 1982 and as stated in Public Resources (PR) Code Section 21000 et seq. NSDCTDB prepared a Subsequent Final Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) for the project in March 1997. On September 13, 2001, in compliance with PR Code Section 21108 or 21152, NSDCTDB filed a Notice of Determination (NOD) with the San Diego County Clerk. The NOD found that "Implementation of the 100% design plans for the project will not create new significant effects on the environment from those analyzed in the Subsequent Final Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) certified by NSDCTDB in March 1997." NSDCTDB prepared an Addendum for the project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. Additional mitigation measures were not made a condition of the approval of the project. A copy of the NOD is included in Appendix C attached to this order.

The Commission is a responsible agency for this project under CEQA. CEQA requires that the Commission consider the environmental consequences of a project subject to its discretionary approval. To comply with CEQA, a responsible agency must consider the lead agency's Environmental Impact Report or Negative Declaration prior to acting upon or approving the project (CEQA Guideline Section 15050(b)). The specific activities that a responsible agency must conduct are contained in CEQA Guideline Section 15096.

We reviewed and considered the lead agency's NOD. Safety, transportation, and noise are within the scope of the Commission's permitting process.

We find that NSDCTDB's environmental documents are adequate for our decision-making purposes. We find that NSDCTDB reasonably concluded that implementation of 100% design plans for the project will not create new significant effects on the environment from those analyzed in the SEIR certified by NSDCTDB in March 1997. Applicable mitigation measures adopted in the SEIR will be applied as part of this project. Accordingly, we adopt the NOD for purposes of our project approval.

The Commission's Consumer Protection and Safety Division - Rail Crossings Engineering Section (RCES) staff inspected the site of each of the three proposed LRT stations. After reviewing the need for and the safety of the proposed crossings, RCES recommends that the Commission grant NCTD's requests.

The application is in compliance with the Commission's filing requirements, including Rule 38 of Rules of Practice and Procedure, to construct a public highway across a railroad. Notice of the application filing was published in the Commission Daily Calendar on August 17, 2004.

In its application, NCTD states its belief that the requirement of Rule 38a for a legal description is burdensome when applied to a situation where a pedestrian crossing is located within the limits of a transit station. The three proposed stations are owned by NCTD, and there is no easement, license or encroachment of any kind that distinguishes the locations of the proposed crossings from platforms, tracks, and other station facilities.

NCTD believes that the Rule 38a requirement, as written, is burdensome when there is no accompanying easement, license or encroachment to be documented as part of real estate agreements between railroads and local roadway agencies. Generating a unique metes-and-bounds or other similar legal description for the sole purpose of satisfying Rule 38a is costly, as California law requires that only a licensed land surveyor can prepare such descriptions. NCTD believes that the location of pedestrian crossings within transit stations is best determined by their relationship with station design, not by road, street or highway alignment.

RCES staff, after consulting with the Commission's Legal and Administrative Law Divisions, has worked with NCTD to develop an alternative method of identifying the locations of proposed pedestrian crossings within transit stations. Staff believes that for our locating purposes, a railroad milepost accompanied by transit station plans noting the crossing location with footage distances from observable points within the station, and a description of the crossing warning devices, adequately identifies the proposed pedestrian crossing locations within the boundaries of transit stations. We accept NCTD's milepost identifier and accompanying plans, included in its application, as satisfying the requirements of Rule 38a.

Categorization and Need for Hearings

In Resolution ALJ 176-3137, dated August 19, 2004, and published in the Commission Daily Calendar on August 20, 2004, the Commission preliminarily categorized this application as ratesetting, and preliminarily determined that hearings were not necessary. Since no protests were filed, this preliminary determination remains correct. It is not necessary to revise the preliminary determinations made in Resolution ALJ 176-3137.

Waiver of Comment Period

This is an uncontested matter in which the decision grants the relief requested. Accordingly, pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 311(g)(2), we waive the otherwise applicable 30-day period for public review and comment.