4. Determination of Factors to be Considered

On December 10, 2001, the assigned Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) convened a Prehearing Conference (PHC). At the PHC, RCES stated that it was opposed to the proposed modification of the at-grade crossing and that for safety reasons the crossing should be grade separated. RCES counsel contended that the Commission's decisions in City of San Mateo, (1982) 8 CPUC 2d 673, and City of Oceanside, (1992) 43 CPUC 2d 46, required grade separation in this instance. BNSF raised issues relating to San Diego's compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Pursuant to a schedule set by the ALJ, the parties submitted briefs on the applicability of the two cited decisions and the City's compliance with CEQA.⁵

On July 11, 2002, the assigned ALJ and assigned Commissioner convened a second PHC. All parties participated in the PHC. At the PHC, the parties, ALJ, and the assigned Commissioner engaged in an extensive discussion of the most efficient means to resolve the issues in this proceeding and the applicability of Pasadena Metro Blue Line, Decision (D.) 02-05-047. The parties agreed that the six factors adopted in that decision covered the scope of the issues to be addressed in this proceeding.

On August 12, 2002, the assigned Commissioner issued the scoping ruling required by Rule 6.3 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (Rules). The ruling found that the scope of the proceeding would be to determine whether San Diego has met its burden of proving that the proposed crossing meets the standard set out in Pub. Util. Code § 1201. In making that determination, the Commission would evaluate the factors set out in the Blue Line decision, which requires:

1. A demonstration that there is a public need for the crossing;

2. A convincing showing that San Diego has eliminated all potential safety hazards;

3. The concurrence of local community and emergency authorities;

4. The opinions of the general public, and specifically those who may be affected by an at-grade crossing;

5. Although less persuasive than safety considerations, the comparative costs of an at-grade crossing with a grade separation;

6. Staff's recommendation, including any conditions; and,

7. Commission precedent in factually similar crossings.

The ruling also set the procedural schedule for the remainder of the proceeding, including a Public Participation Hearing (PPH) in San Diego, and designated the assigned ALJ, Maribeth A. Bushey, as the principal hearing officer in the proceeding.