Background .gov

?ALJ/HCF/jnfPROPOSED DECISIONAgenda ID #19786RatesettingDecision __________BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIAApplication of San Diego State University to construct a new gradeseparated crossing at the SDSU Mission Valley River Park and Street “A” in the City of San Diego on San?Diego Metropolitan Transit System’s (MTS) Green –Old Town to La Mesa Trolley Line at MP 9.00 (Proposed CPUC Crossing No. 081MV-9.00-B).Application?20-05-009DECISION AUTHORIZING SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY TO CONVERT A PRIVATE GRADE-SEPARATED CROSSING TO A PUBLIC GRADE-SEPARATED CROSSING AND TO CONSTRUCT A NEWAT-GRADE CROSSING SummaryPursuant to Public Utilities Code Sections 1201 and 1202, we authorize the San?Diego State University to convert an existing grade-separated crossing from a private crossing to a public crossing and to construct a new at-grade crossing. The requested authority for the crossings has two components: 1)?the existing grade-separated elevated tracks, and (2) the proposed at-grade pedestrian pathways within the Mission Valley River Park development. The crossings will have two separate California Public Utilities Commission Crossing Numbers, 081MV-8.87-B for the highway crossing at Street “A” and 081MV9.00BD for the pedestrian pathways that are part of a public park in the Mission Valley River Park development. This proceeding is closed.BackgroundOn May 18, 2020, the San Diego State University (SDSU or Applicant) filed the instant application initially seeking authority from the Commission to construct one new grade-separated rail crossing at SDSU Mission Valley River Park and Street “A” on the San Diego Metropolitan Transit System (MTS) Green – Old Town to La Mesa Trolley Line, Milepost (MP) 9.00 in the City of San Diego, San Diego County.The instant application was unclear and failed to indicate that an existing structure, namely an elevated track, had previously been constructed and operated as a private grade-separated crossing. The application also failed to expressly request authorization to construct a new at-grade crossing but did mention a public street “A” and a public park with pedestrian pathways. During the course of the proceeding, it came to light and the record of this proceeding was clarified that, as part of the Mission Valley River Park development, the Applicant is seeking to convert an existing grade-separated crossing from a private crossing to a public crossing and to construct a new at-grade crossing. Specifically, the preexisting grade-separated elevated track would be converted to public use to implement SDSU’s Mission Valley River Park development, and the new at-grade crossing would also be part of that development. The existing private grade-separated crossing proposed to be converted to public crossing and the proposed new at-grade crossing (collectively referred to as Proposed Crossings) are part of the much bigger project, the Mission Valley River Park development, which entails construction of a SDSU Mission Valley campus with a stadium, parks, recreation, and innovation area to support SDSU’s education, research, entrepreneurial, technology, and athletics programs. A RSD staff member reviewed the instant application and inspected the location of the Proposed Crossings on October 19, 2019. RSD found that the application and the Proposed Crossings comply with all the requirements of the Commission’s Rules and the safety requirements of Commission GO 26-D and 143-B. On June 29, 2020, the RSD filed a response to the instant application. RSD indicated that it has no objections to the instant application and recommends a three-year time-period to complete construction of the Proposed Crossings. RSD asserted that, “… the (grade separated) crossing will be inherently safer than an at-grade crossing as trains are separated from the pedestrian and vehicular traffic below.” RSD proposed, for identification purposes, that the Proposed Crossings be given two CPUC Crossing Numbers: 1) 081MV-8.87-B for the highway crossing at Street “A,” and 2)?081MV-9.00-BD for the pedestrian pathways. A telephonic prehearing conference (PHC) was held on August 11, 2020, to discuss the issues of law and fact, determine the scope and the need for hearing, set the schedule for resolving the matter, and address other matters, as necessary. An Assigned Commissioner’s Scoping Memo and Ruling was issued on April?29,?2021.The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued several rulings thereafter to clarify various aspects of the inconsistencies and ambiguity in the application. On January 20, 201, the ALJ issued a ruling requesting more information about the construction of the original grade-separated elevated track. In the response filed by SDSU, SDSU clarified that the existing gradeseparated elevated track was constructed by MTS, and no records were available about any correspondence with the Commission at the time of construction. In the response filed by Rail Safety Division (RSD), RSD further clarified that the existing elevated track was located on private property and had limited public access. According to RSD’s response, pursuant to Public Utilities (Pub. Util.) Code §?7537 and General Order (GO) 75-D, owners of private property through which a rail crossing passes do not typically file an application at the Commission to obtain authorization to construct that private crossing. Therefore, this preexisting private crossing did not require Commission authorization before being built and was not assigned a California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) crossing number nor a United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) crossing number. SDSU’s proposed construction of Street “A”, a component of the Mission Valley River Park development, will create a crossing when the grade-separated elevated tracks cross the new proposed street underneath it. Both Street “A” and the pedestrian pathways that are part of the proposed public park, will extend north and cross the grade-separated elevated tracks. Therefore, as noted above, RSD has assigned two separate CPUC Crossing numbers, one for the elevated tracks and the other for the pedestrian paths underneath it.JurisdictionThe Commission has jurisdiction over railroad crossings pursuant to Pub. Util. Code §§?1201 and 1202. Rules 3.7 and 3.9 of the Commission’s Rules Practice and Procedure govern the applications to construct a public road, highway, or street across a railroad. The Commission’s GOs govern applicable safety and engineering requirements. GO 26-D prescribes the minimum clearance requirements for all construction of tracks or structures adjacent to tracks. GO 72-B governs the construction and maintenance of crossings and GO?75-D governs warning devices for at-grade highway rail crossings.Issues Before the CommissionThe assigned Commissioner’s April 29, 2021 scoping memo identified the issues to be determined as follows:Whether the Application and the Proposed Crossings, clarified by the parties, comply with the Commission’s Rules, including Rules 3.7 through 3.11, as applicable, such that the Commission should authorize construction of the Proposed Crossings; Whether the Application and the Proposed Crossings, as clarified by the parties, comply with applicable safety and regulatory requirements, such as GOs 26-D and 143-B; Whether the Applicant has complied with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); Whether the Application aligns with or impact the achievement of any of the nine goals of the Commission’s Environmental and Social Justice Action Plan; and Whether the Commission should grant the Applicant a period of thirty-six (36) months from the Application approval date to complete the Proposed Crossings.Filing, Safety and Engineering RequirementsApplications for the construction of railroad crossings must meet the pertinent requirements of Rules 3.7 through 3.11 as well as the safety and engineering requirements of GO 26-D (clearances on railroads and street railroads), 72-B (construction and maintenance of crossings), and 75-D (warning devices).RSD's response states that on October 8, 2019, its Rail Crossing and Engineering Branch (RCEB) staff participated in a diagnostic team review at the proposed crossing location. The diagnostic team was comprised of RCEB staff and representatives from RailPros, City of San Diego, San Diego MTS and SDSU. The team focused its review on applicable safety and regulatory requirements for grade separated crossings as well as compliance with the applicable Rules.Rule 3.7 (a) requires a milepost number and legal location for a crossing. The proposed crossing mileposts for an underpass at the SDSU Mission Valley River Park and Street “A” is from 8.73 to 9.35 along the MTS Green Line viaduct. Rule 3.7 (b) the crossing identification numbers of the nearest existing public crossing on each side of the proposed crossing. They are: To the north/east: Interstate 15 grade-separated crossing (roadway below track), CPUC No. 081MV9.52-DA. To the south/west: Fenton Parkway Station (MTS) at-grade crossing, CPUC No. 081MV-8.65-D. Rule 3.7 (c) is not applicable because the proposed crossing will not be an at-grade crossing. Rule 3.7 (d) requires a map of suitable scale (50 to 200 feet per inch) showing accurate locations of all streets, roads, property lines, tracks, buildings, structures, or other obstructions to view for a distance of at least 400 feet along the railroad and 200 feet along the highway in each direction from the proposed crossing. A map in compliance with Rule 3.7 (d) is included in Exhibit C of the Application. Rule 3.7 (e) requires a map of suitable scale (1,000 to 3,000 feet per inch) showing the relation of the proposed crossing to existing roads and railroads in the general vicinity of the proposed crossing. A map in compliance with Rule 3.7 (e) is included in Exhibit?B of the Application. Rule 3.7 (f) requires a profile showing the ground line and grade line and rate of grades of approach on all highways and railroads affected by the proposed crossing. A profile in compliance with Rule 3.7 (f) is included in Exhibit C of the Application.General Order 26-D, Sections 12.1 and 12.2 require a minimum vertical clearance of 15 feet above the roadway, and a minimum width of 24 feet. These requirements are met because the minimum vertical clearance is 15.65 feet and the horizontal distance between bridge supports is approximately 100 feet. General Order 26-D does not have clearance requirements applicable for pedestrian or bicycle pathways, but the vertical clearance at all the pathways shown on Exhibit B is at least 8 feet, which meets the safety guidelines RCEB uses for these types of crossings.RSD's response also states SED staff reviewed and analyzed the plans submitted with the Application and found: 1) no safety issues; and 2) the plans comply with all applicable Commission rules and orders.Upon review, the Commission finds that SDSU provided materials in its Application sufficient to satisfy the requirements of the applicable Rules and the GOs for the Proposed Crossings. The Commission also finds safety concerns are adequately addressed for the Proposed pliance with the California Environmental Quality ActThe CEQA applies to discretionary projects to be carried out or approved by public agencies. A basic purpose of CEQA is to inform governmental decision-makers and the public about potential, significant environmental effects of the proposed activities. Under CEQA, the lead agency is either the public agency that carries out the project or has the greatest responsibility for supervising or approving the project. The California State University (CSU) is the lead agency under CEQA for the purposes of identifying environmental impacts for the proposed SDSU Mission Valley Campus Master Plan Project (Master Project). CSU is acting on behalf of SDSU, one of 23 CSU campuses throughout California. The CSU Board of Trustees is the lead agency responsible to make decisions about the Project. A final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was completed in compliance with California Resource Code § 21000 et seq. and CEQA Implementing Guidelines; CCR?15000 et seq. SDSU has filed the SDSU Mission Valley Campus Master Plan Final Impact Report (FEIR) dated January?17,?2020.? (State Clearinghouse Number: 2019011042).??Since the Commission must issue a discretionary decision for the Proposed Crossings to proceed, as part of this larger project, the Commission is a responsible agency under CEQA for the Master Project and must consider the lead agency’s environmental documents and findings before acting on or approving the Proposed Crossings. As a responsible agency the Commission must consider the environmental effects identified in the portion of the Master Project, the Proposed Crossings, that is before the Commission for approval.? The Commission must approve any mitigations measures within the Commission’s jurisdiction that avoid or mitigate the parts of the project the Commission approves, unless the changes or alterations are infeasible for specific economic, legal, social, technical, and other benefits.? The Commission must file a Notice of Determination (NOD) with the State Clearinghouse certifying that the Commission has considered the environmental document.The SDSU Mission Valley Campus Master Plan FEIR, considered numerous categories of possible impacts.? These included: aesthetics; air quality; biological resources; cultural resources; energy; geology and soils; greenhouse gas emissions; hazards and hazardous materials; hydrology and water quality; land use and planning; mineral resources; noise; population and housing; public services and recreation; transportation; tribal cultural resources; utilities and service systems; wildfire and growth inducement.??When an impact was found to exceed the accepted level of significance a mitigation measure was designed to eliminate the impact or keep the impact below the level of significance.? Even with the implementation of mitigations certain impacts could not be reduced below the level of significance.? These impacts included air quality; cultural resources; noise; population and housing; public services and transportation and traffic.? However, none of these impacts were specifically related to the Proposed Crossings that are the subject of this application.The Commission reviewed and considered the FEIR.? We find that the FEIR, and specifically the portions addressing the Proposed Crossings, to be adequate for our decision-making purposes.? The Commission’s Energy Division will file a NOD with the State Clearinghouse stating the Commission considered the environmental document for the Proposed Crossing.??Alignment with the Commission’s Environmental and Social Justice Action Plan In February 2019, the Commission adopted its Environmental and Social Justice (ESJ) Action Plan as a comprehensive strategy and framework for addressing ESJ issues in each proceeding. The overall goals identified by the ESJ action plans include: Goal 1: Consistently integrate equity and access considerations throughout CPUC proceedings and other efforts. Goal 2: Increase investment in clean energy resources to benefit ESJ communities, especially to improve local air quality and public health. Goal 3: Strive to improve access to high-quality water, communications, and transportation services for ESJ communities. Goal 4: Increase climate resiliency in ESJ communities. Goal 5: Enhance outreach and public participation opportunities for ESJ communities to meaningfully participate in the CPUC’s decision-making process and benefit from CPUC programs. Goal 6: Enhance enforcement to ensure safety and consumer protection for ESJ communities. Goal 7: Promote economic and workforce development opportunities in ESJ communities. Goal 8: Improve training and staff development related to ESJ issues within the CPUC’s jurisdiction. Goal 9: Monitor the CPUC’s ESJ efforts to evaluate how they are achieving their objectives.The Mission Valley River Park development was approved by the City of San Diego and endorsed by the public in a city-wide ballot initiative. Here, the processes that SDSU used to garner support for the Mission Valley River Park development do indicate support for equity and access. The Applicant also indicated during the PHC, that multiple community meetings were held to provide opportunities for input from ESJ communities and other communities in San Diego. The Mission Valley River Park development through the creation of an extensive shoreline park with walking and biking pathways introduces public health, transportation, and climate resiliency for the ESJ communities in San Diego. Consistent with ESJ Goal 6, the Proposed Crossings comply with the safety measures in General Order 26-D. Consistent with ESJ Goal 7, we encourage SDSU to hire local contractors and conduct public outreach about temporary street closures in multiple languages when any crossing construction is scheduled related to this application. Upon review of the Application and the record of this proceeding, including the Final EIR we find that the Proposed Crossings in this Application align with the Commission’s ESJ Action Plan.Request for Thirty-Six Months to ConstructIn its response to the instant application, RSD recommends a three-year authorization time-period, based on the allotted time typically authorized for similar projects. No party objected to the proposed time-period for construction. The Commission finds RSD’s recommendation reasonable and adopts it here.ConclusionThe Application conforms to our Rules. Accordingly, we grant SDSU authority to convert an existing grade-separated crossing from a private crossing to a public crossing and create a new at-grade crossing, subject to compliance with the terms and conditions set forth in the Ordering Paragraphs. Waiver of Comment PeriodThis is an uncontested matter in which the decision grants the relief requested. Accordingly, pursuant to Section 311(g)(2) of the Pub. Util. Code and Rule 14.6(c)(2), the otherwise applicable 30-day period for public review and comment is waived.Assignment of ProceedingDarcie L. Houck is the assigned Commissioner and Hazlyn Fortune is the assigned ALJ in this proceeding.Findings of FactOn May 18, 2020, the Applicant filed the instant application initially seeking authority from the Commission to construct one new grade-separated rail crossing at SDSU Mission Valley River Park and Street “A” on the San Diego MTS Green – Old Town to La Mesa Trolley Line, MP 9.00 in the City of San Diego, San Diego County. The instant application was unclear and failed to indicate that there was an existing structure namely, an elevated track, that had previously been constructed and operated as a private grade-separated crossing. The application also failed to explicitly request authorization to construct a new at-grade crossing, a public street “A” and a public park with pedestrian pathways. During the proceeding, it came to light and the record of this proceeding was clarified that, as part of the Mission Valley River Park development, the applicant is seeking to convert an existing grade-separated crossing from a private crossing to a public crossing and to construct a new at-grade crossing. The preexisting grade-separated elevated track would be converted to public use to implement SDSU’s Mission Valley River Park development, and the new at-grade crossing would also be part of that development. The existing private grade-separated crossing proposed to be converted to public crossing and the proposed new at-grade crossing (collectively referred to as Proposed Crossings) are part of the much bigger project, the Mission Valley River Park development. A RSD staff member reviewed the instant application, inspected the location of the Proposed Crossings on October 19, 2019, and found that the application and the Proposed Crossings comply with all the applicable requirements of the Commission’s Rules and the safety requirements of Commission GOs. On June 29, 2020, the RSD filed a response to the instant application. RSD indicated that it has no objections to the instant application and recommends a three-year time-period to complete construction of the Proposed Crossings. RSD asserted that, “… the crossing will be inherently safer than an atgrade crossing as trains are separated from the pedestrian and vehicular traffic below.” RSD proposed, for identification purposes, that the crossing be given two?CPUC Crossing Numbers: 1) 081MV-8.87-B for the highway crossing at Street “A,” and 2) 081MV-9.00-BD for the pedestrian pathways. CSU is the lead agency under CEQA for the purposes of identifying environmental impacts for the proposed SDSU Mission Valley Campus Master Plan Project (Master Project).SDSU has filed the Final EIR of the Master Project.The Commission is a responsible agency and has considered the lead agency’s environmental documents and findings.?In February 2019, the Commission adopted its ESJ Action Plan as a comprehensive strategy and framework for addressing ESJ issues in each proceeding.Conclusions of LawSDSU’s clarified request in this proceeding for Commission authorization to convert the existing private grade-separated crossing to public crossing and to construct a new proposed at-grade crossing within three years is reasonable and should be granted. The Application and all attached exhibits should be received into the record.The Final EIR, as it relates to the two Proposed Crossings in A.20-05-009, is adequate for Commission decision-making processes.The Application and Proposed Crossings are consistent with the Commission’s ESJ Action Plan.Upon issuance of this decision and in compliance with 14 Cal. Code Regs. §§?15096(h) and 15096(i), the Commission’s Energy Division should file a NOD with the CEQA clearinghouse certifying that the Commission considered the environmental documents related to the proposed railroad crossings.The approval and construction authorization granted in this decision should expire if not exercised within thirty-six months of the issuance of this Decision, unless SDSU seeks an extension of time or if the conditions adopted in the Ordering Paragraphs are not satisfied. Application?2005009 should be closed.ORDERIT IS ORDERED that:San Diego State University is authorized to convert the existing private grade-separated crossing to public crossing and construct a grade separated rail crossing below the San Diego Metropolitan Transit System’s Green Line viaduct tracks from Mile Posts 8.73 to 9.35 in the City of San Diego, San Diego County.The crossings shall have the configurations and safety features described and specified in the application and its attached exhibits. The crossings shall be identified with a proposed California Public Utilities Commission Numbers 081MV-8.87-B for the highway crossing at Street “A” and 081MV-9.00-BD for the pedestrian pathways.San Diego State University shall comply with all applicable rules, including California Public Utilities Commission General Orders and California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices.Within 30 days after completion of the work authorized by this decision, the San Diego State University shall notify the California Public Utilities Commission’s Rail Crossings and Engineering Branch of the Rail Safety Division by submitting a completed California Public Utilities Commission Form G (Report of Changes at Highway Grade Crossing and Separations). Form G requirements and forms can be obtained from the California Public Utilities Commission web site at cpuc.. The completed report must be submitted via email to rceb@cpuc.. This authorization shall expire if not exercised within three years of the issuance of this decision unless time is extended or if the above conditions are not satisfied. Authorization may be revoked or modified if public convenience, necessity, or safety so require. A request for extension of the three-year authorization must be submitted to the California Public Utilities Commission’s Rail Crossings and Engineering Branch of the Rail Safety Division at least 30 days before the expiration of that period. A copy of the extension request shall be sent to all interested parties.All rulings issued by the assigned Commissioner and ALJ are affirmed herein.The Application and all attached exhibits are received into the record.Application 20-05-009 is closed.This order is effective today.Dated , at San Francisco, California.APPENDIX AAppendix ASUMMARY OF FILING REQUIREMENTSRule 3.11 is the applicable Rule of Practice and Procedure for applications to construct crossings of a light-rail transit system. Rule 3.11 requires applicants to comply with the appropriate requirements of Rules 3.7 through 3.10. The appropriate requirements for this application are found in Rule 3.7, which the applicant has complied with, as set forth below.Rule3.7(a)Milepost and Legal Location: The milepost and geographic coordinateinformation (longitude & latitude) for the crossing is included in Exhibit Bof the application.3.7(b)While the exact crossing identification numbers of the nearest existingpublic crossings are not included in the application, this is because thenearest crossings will also be part of the Los Angeles – Pasadena FoothillExtension Gold Line extension project and as such, will be subject toseparate applications. Exhibit A shows the locations of all crossings ofthe proposed extensions sufficient for SED to understand where theproposed crossings will exist in relation to other nearby crossings that areproposed as part of the larger extension project.3.7(c)The application includes an explanation that sufficiently demonstrates thepublic need to be served by construction of the crossing at page 8, astatement sufficiently explaining why a grade- separated crossing is notpracticable at page 9, and a statement showing the signs, signals, or othercrossing warning devises which applicant recommends be provided at theproposed at-grade crossing at pages 5 through 7 and Attachments C and D.3.7(d)A map in compliance with Rule 3.7(d) is included as Attachment B.3.7(e)A map in compliance with Rule 3.7(e) is included as Attachment A.3.7(f)A profile in compliance with Rule 3.7(f) is included in Attachment D.Rail Safety DivisionRail Crossings and Engineering BranchRail Crossing Application Check ListApplication: A.20-05-009 Filed: May 18, 2020 Applicant: San Diego State University (SDSU) Railroad: San Diego Metropolitan Transit System (MTS)Crossing Location (Roadway, City, and County): San Diego State University Mission Valley River Park, City of San Diego, San Diego County. Crossing Type (Grade Type, Roadway, Bike Path, or Pedestrian): Grade-separated pedestrian, bicycle, and roadway rail crossing below the span of the viaduct railroad track. Proposed Crossing Numbers (CPUC/DOT): CPUC No. 081MV-9.00-B and 081MV8.87BDNumber and Type of Tracks: Two mainline light rail vehicle rail tracks at the crossing. Diagnostic Review / Site Visit Date: On October 8, 2019, Rail Crossing and Engineering Branch (RCEB) participated in a diagnostic team review at the proposed location of the crossing. RCEB, RailPros, City of San Diego, San Diego Metropolitan Transit System (MTS) and San Diego State University (SDSU) reviewed and discussed the proposed design. Compliance with the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure: Rules of Practice and Procedure, Rules 3.11 and 3.7 Rule 3.11 requires compliance with the applicable provisions of Rules 3.7 through 3.10 for light-rail transit system crossings. The applicable provisions are below. Rule 3.7 (a): Milepost and Legal Location: The proposed crossing mileposts for an underpass at the SDSU Mission Valley River Park and Street “A” is from 8.73 to 9.35 along the MTS Green Line viaduct. The legal description of the location of the proposed crossing is included in Exhibit A. Rule 3.7 (b): The crossing identification numbers of the nearest existing public crossings are stated in paragraph 8 of the Application. They are: To the north/east: Interstate 15 grade-separated crossing (roadway below track), CPUC No. 081MV-9.52-DA.To the south/west: Fenton Parkway Station (MTS) at-grade crossing, CPUC No. 081MV-8.65-D.Rule 3.7 (c): Rule 3.7(c) is not applicable because the proposed crossing will not be an at-grade crossing. Rule 3.7 (d): A map in compliance with Rule 3.7(d) is included as Exhibit C of the Application. Rule 3.7 (e): A map in compliance with Rule 3.7(e) is included as Exhibit B of the Application.Rule 3.7 (f): A profile in compliance with Rule 3.7(f) is included as Exhibit C of the Application.Applicable Safety and Regulatory Requirements: General Order 26-D, Sections 12.1 and 12.2 require a minimum vertical clearance of 15?feet above the roadway, and a minimum width of 24 feet. These requirements are met because the minimum vertical clearance is 15.65 feet and the horizontal distance between bridge supports is approximately 100 feet. General Order 26-D does not have clearance requirements applicable for pedestrian or bicycle pathways, but the vertical clearance at all of the pathways shown on Exhibit B is at least 8 feet, which meets the safety guidelines RCEB uses for these types of crossings.Crossing Issues: No Issues present. Application Review Date: June 4, 2020 Results of Application Review: The application meets the requirements of RCEB, applicable Commission General Orders, and the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, Rule 3.11. RCEB recommends that the Commission grant authorization to the SDSU as requested in this application. (END OF APPENDIX A) ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download