3. Amendments to Application

In its original application filed on September 12, 2001, the City sought Commission authorization to modify the existing Eighth Avenue at-grade crossing by replacing it with another nearby crossing. As proposed by San Diego, the new crossing would be located approximately 70 feet southeast of the existing crossing, where a newly constructed Park Boulevard would cross the rail tracks.

The Commission's Rail Crossings Engineering Section of the Rail Safety and Carriers Division (RCES) protested the application on October 12, 2001. RCES stated that it had worked closely with the City on considering options for the crossing but had reached the conclusion that the crossing must be grade-separated to be safe.

BNSF also filed a protest to the City's application. BNSF took issue with the City's characterization of this project as a "minor modification" of an existing crossing, which would be categorically exempt² from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). BNSF also recommended that the new crossing include four quadrant gates as an additional safety measure. BNSF also stated that it would not make the modifications to its tracks that the City assumed in the application, and that it supported grade-separation for this crossing.

On November 5, 2001, the City submitted its first amendment to its application. The amendment revised the plans for the intersection to retain the existing two tracks for BNSF. The amendment also contained letters of support for an at-grade crossing from the Metropolitan Transit Development Board, San Diego Trolly, Inc., San Diego and Arizona Eastern Railway, San Diego and Imperial Valley Railroad, and North County Transit District, all of which will use the proposed crossing. The amendment also informed the parties that San Diego's Council of Governments is conducting a comprehensive study of transportation management improvements that might reduce traffic congestion in the I-5 corridor in San Diego, and that conflict between rail and automobile traffic in downtown San Diego was one of the topics being studied.

On August 16, 2002, the City submitted its second amendment to its application. The main purpose of this amendment was to provide additional detail on the safety measures the City proposed to include in the at-grade crossing:

· Pedestrian bridge, crossing deterrent and redirection to provide pedestrians a safe way to avoid the at-grade crossing.

· Four-quadrant gates, with a vehicle detection system, to ensure that automobiles do not maneuver around lowered gates, and to provide another barrier to pedestrians. Medians will also be raised and fenced to assist in achieving the same purposes.

· Traffic signal pre-emption to allow vehicles to clear the tracks before the railroad signal is activated, and traffic light presignals which will turn red and stop traffic before the railroad signals are activated.

In its second amendment, the City also included the first draft of its Event Transportation Management Plan, which provides for extensive traffic and parking controls during an event at Padre stadium.

The City, RCES, and BNSF filed a Joint Stipulation of Facts on September 20, 2002. The stipulation covers the basic facts of the crossing including the number and frequency of trains and trolleys passing over the crossing each day. On November 22, 2002, BNSF filed a motion requesting permission to withdraw its protest to the application. BNSF stated that the additional safety measures the City had added as set forth in the second amendment³ had addressed all BNSF's concerns.⁴ BNSF thereafter ceased to participate in the proceeding.

The City submitted its third amendment to the application on December 19, 2002, which included the additional detail and drawings for the pedestrian bridge spanning both the rail tracks and Harbor Drive.