STATE OF CALIFORNIA, GRAY DAVIS, Governor
RE: Variance Request #3 - Open Cut Crossings at Five Locations
Dear Mr. Cornman:
We have reviewed your Variance Request #3 and approve the open cut crossings at four of the five proposed locations: three crossings within the MTA corridor and one crossing on Rancho Way. This approval is granted based on the factors and conditions discussed below. As described by SFPP:
• Open cut construction at these locations (instead of bored crossings as specified on project alignment sheets) would expedite construction and reduce potential traffic impacts. Open cut construction can be completed in one day at a given location, whereas boring activities require up to 5 days of construction.
• The local jurisdictions are urging SFPP to complete construction as soon as possible so subsequent projects can be started in these corridors.
Open cut construction would require closure of one traffic lane (for locations #1 and #3 below); this lane would already be closed due to pipeline construction on either side of the subject locations. The following locations would be affected:
1. Los Angeles County – Union Pacific (UP) railroad spur along Rancho Way north of Del Amo Boulevard: Open cut construction would occur within the street right-of-way of Rancho Way for about 84 feet. No other roadways would be affected. The pipeline in this location would be within the edge of the road, and the alignment would not change.
2. MTA railroad ROW – three locations would be open cut within the railroad ROW. No traffic impacts would result because no public roads would be affected.
a. City of Bellflower, east of Bellflower Boulevard, about 84 feet of ROW would be open cut.
b. City of Bellflower, west of Bellflower Boulevard, about 84 feet of ROW would be open cut.
c. City of Cerritos, east of San Gabriel River, about 84 feet of ROW would be open cut.
3. City of Bellflower – Lakewood Boulevard at Alondra Boulevard: Open cut construction would occur for about 157 feet across this large intersection within the street right-of-way. The alignment would not change.
Traffic on the Rancho Way is light to moderate, and there is no public traffic on the MTA ROW where three of the crossings would occur. Therefore, for locations #1 and #2 above (which include four open cut crossings), no significant traffic impacts are anticipated with the implementation of the measures noted below. Therefore, we approve the open cut crossings at locations #1 and #2 as defined above. The following measures must be implemented:
• All applicable mitigation measures for the project shall be implemented at each of the locations, including dust abatement and traffic control. • Prior to the commencement of construction of the trench across these areas within each jurisdiction, approval of the proposed construction method within the roadway (trenching versus boring) shall be provided by the appropriate jurisdiction (County of Los Angeles, City of Bellflower, City of Cerritos, and MTA for the MTA corridor activity) and a copy of this approval shall be provided to the CPUC Environmental Monitor. All conditions imposed by these jurisdictions shall be implemented. • Construction through the intersections outside of the MTA railroad corridor shall be conducted during non-peak traffic hours (8:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.), unless otherwise approved by the local jurisdictions. • Implementation of this variance in accordance with the provisions noted above shall be verified on a random basis by a CPUC Environmental Monitor.The third crossing location would be an open cut crossing across Lakewood Boulevard (location #3). Lakewood Boulevard is a State Highway under Caltrans jurisdiction with daily traffic flow of up to 41,000 vehicles, and an open cut crossing does have the potential for affecting traffic. A letter of inquiry requesting additional information on the potential impacts and mitigation at the Lakewood Boulevard location was sent to SFPP from Aspen on January 26, 1999. Before we can recommend approval of the Lakewood Boulevard open cut crossing, we would like to evaluate additional information submitted in response to that letter.
Sincerely,
