On October 5, 2017, Union Pacific Railroad Company (“UPRR”) filed an application with the California Public Utilities Commission (“CPUC”) to alter, relocate, or close the railroad crossing at County Road 32A, just east of Davis. The County opposed the application, as did the City of Davis, the Yolo County Farm Bureau, and the Sacramento Area Council of Governments. Bike Davis, a local advocacy group, joined the proceedings as well.
After an initial appearance before the CPUC, the parties entered into mediation proceedings, with two of the CPUC’s Administrative Law Judges serving as mediators. The parties met several times, both in person and telephonically. The discussions focused on evaluating various short-, medium-, and long-term improvements to the County Road 32A Crossing.
The parties believed that the discussions were fruitful and should continue, with a focus on possibly opening a new crossing further east of the current crossing. To facilitate these ongoing discussions, the parties agreed to a framework set forth in the attached Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”). The key provisions of the MOU are as follows:
- Section 1: UPRR will withdraw the Application without prejudice to the railroad or any other party to file future applications related to the Crossing or assert any facts or arguments related to it.
- Section 2
- 2.1: The County will conduct a preliminary review of environmental, engineering, safety, and cost considerations for replacing the Crossing with a new crossing within two miles east of the Crossing. The County will use best efforts to complete its preliminary review within 12 to 18 months after the execution of this MOU. UPRR will provide technical assistance as warranted.
- 2.2: The parties will coordinate to identify and pursue funding opportunities for a project to construct the new crossing described in Section 2.1. The parties may contribute funding, staff time, or other in-kind resources to help prepare competitive applications for local, state, and federal funding.
- 2.3: The parties understand that this is a multi-year process. Any potential final project may have to be tailored to available funding opportunities. If the parties elect to pursue a new crossing, the terms related to the project will be memorialized in subsequent agreements between or among relevant parties before construction begins.
- Section 3: The parties will meet quarterly to discuss progress on a project to replace the Crossing with a new crossing within two miles east of the Crossing and to consider interim measures that might improve safety at and around the Crossing. The parties may agree among themselves to hold meetings more or less frequently than quarterly as project demands warrant. Topics for the meetings will specifically include further evaluation of the Bike Davis proposal to restrict vehicular access to the Crossing through the use of gates on either side as an interim measure. At the conclusion of each meeting one of the parties will be designated as the lead for the next meeting and that party shall be responsible for providing a notice about the date, time, location, and agenda for the next meeting.
- Section 6: The parties acknowledge that this MOU does not reflect a final settlement of any issues raised in the proceeding related to the Application. The parties agree to treat discussions that move forward under this MOU as continuing settlement efforts. For this reason, conversations among the parties will be treated as confidential among the parties and will be inadmissible as evidence in any formal proceedings related to the Crossing. At the conclusion of each meeting described in Section 3, the parties will agree upon which information from the meeting, if any, may be shared with relevant stakeholders or the public.
Staff recommends that the Board authorize the Chair to execute the MOU on behalf of the County. |