Santa Rosa SMART crossing hits a hitch

It’s been five years since Santa Rosa officials began trying to figure out how to preserve a rail crossing at Jennings Avenue once regular rail service was restored to the area.

It’s been two years since the Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit agency fenced off the crossing just south of the Guerneville Road station to keep people off the tracks during train testing. And it’s been a year since Santa Rosa won a hard-fought approval from state utility regulators to build the at-grade crossing over the line, a $1.8 million project that includes a level walking surface and flashing warning gates.

Now, city officials are expressing frustration that a month after paid rail service on the 43-mile rail line began, the crossing is being held up further by a legal dispute between the city and SMART.

Councilman Chris Rogers took the unusual step last week of attending a SMART board meeting in Petaluma to express the city’s frustration that the project, which the city is paying SMART to build, is stalled.

The project is “being held hostage” by SMART officials seeking leverage in an unrelated legal dispute, Rogers said.

“The bottom line is this was promised to the neighbors, the money has been allocated, so let’s just get the project done,” Rogers said.

At the core of the dispute is a question of who should be responsible for lawsuits that arise over rail crossings in quiet zones, the stretches of track where trains do not routinely sound their horns at rail crossings. Engineers still have full discretion to blow their whistles whenever they see fit in response to road and track conditions.

SMART wants the cities along the line to indemnify SMART, or agree that they, not SMART, are legally responsible, for such lawsuits, explained Santa Rosa City Attorney Sue Gallagher.

The language is buried in detailed technical agreements that lay out responsibility for maintaining the conditions at rail crossings. For example, SMART is responsible for crossing gates working properly, but the city is responsible for ensuring the lines painted on the roads telling cars where to stop remain visible, Gallagher said.

But the indemnification agreement as insisted upon by SMART’s general manager, Farhad Mansourian, effectively put the city on the legal hook for any incidents at crossings, regardless of who is responsible, Gallagher said.

“This isn’t about the safety of that crossing,” she said. “It’s about who’s going to have to pay for any litigation.”

While the debate over the fairness of that provision continues among staff members at SMART and other cities negotiating with it on this issue, Mansourian has said the Jennings crossing will not move forward, Gallagher said. The city views this as Mansourian using the Jennings project as leverage to win the “unilateral city indemnification of SMART” that he seeks, Gallagher said.

But Mansourian is worried about safety at the crossing and doesn’t want to allow another crossing to be built in a quiet zone until these issues are worked out, said Supervisor Shirlee Zane, who agrees.

“I want to make sure that whatever we do at Jennings is ultimately going to protect the safety of the people who live there,” Zane said.

It’s not clear what the safety issue is. The area is fenced off and safe, SMART spokeswoman Jeanne Belding said.

“This is a complex project, and clearly there are issues that need to be resolved,” Belding said. “The safety of children, and all pedestrians, is and remains SMART’s highest priority. SMART is committed to continue working with all of our partners to resolve any issues.”

The issue came to Zane’s attention after a resident asked her why the crossing was held up. It has for years been used by schoolchildren to get to Helen Lehman Elementary School a few blocks west of the crossing. The city pushed for the crossing in part out of a concern that closing it would force kids to either walk up to Guerneville Road, try to jump the fence as a shortcut or have to be driven to school by their parents. The idea of a bridge over the rails was abandoned following opposition from neighbors.

Zane proposed a meeting to sort the issue out, but that hasn’t happened. Gallagher said the staff of SMART and cities involved, including Novato, Petaluma and Cotati, preferred to continue working toward a fair agreement.

Options include joint indemnification, or just leaving it out and letting the ample case law on liability guide ultimate responsibility, she said.

You can reach Staff Writer Kevin McCallum at 707-521-5207 or kevin.mccallum@pressdemocrat.com. On Twitter @srcitybeat.