Findings of Fact

1. Each year the Commission is required pursuant to S&H Code § 2452 to establish a Priority List for the Grade Separation Program to fund projects throughout the state that will eliminate hazardous grade crossings.

2. On July 8, 1999, in its order instituting the investigation in this proceeding, the Commission provided written notice to all cities, counties, railroads, the League of California Cities, the County Board of Supervisors Association, CTC, Caltrans, Light Rail Transit Agencies and known interested parties that the procedure of issuing a Commission decision each year for two years would change due to newly effective time limits in SB 960. No party commented on this revision.

3. Notice of this proceeding was also published in the Commission's Daily Calendar on July 9, 1999.

4. PHCs were held in Los Angeles and San Francisco on September 20 and 21, 1999, respectively.

5. The procedure of certifying in one decision a Priority List for the first fiscal year of the two-year period, and authorizing Staff to revise the list for the second year of this period is the most efficient and less burdensome procedure under SB 960 for this two-year Priority List process.

6. EHs on adjudicative facts were held in Los Angeles and San Francisco on February 22-23 and February 28-29, 2000, respectively, where the Commission Rail Safety and Carriers Division Staff, interested parties, and nominees appeared.

7. At the evidentiary hearing, the presiding officer preliminarily resolved all adjudicative facts disputed by the parties. The preliminary resolution of those facts is reasonable.

8. During the fiscal year 2000-2001, Caltrans will notify Staff of projects to be deleted from the Priority List for Year 1 herein established. After these projects are removed, the remaining projects in the same priority form the Priority List for Year 2.

9. No party opposed establishing the Priority List attached as Appendix C, which is revised pursuant to the presiding officer's ruling on disputed adjudicative facts.

10. Parties commenting on Robert M. Barton's proposed formula revisions were unable to agree that revisions were necessary or what these revisions should be.

11. The commenting parties requested that a workshop be held to discuss the proposed revisions to the formulas and attempt to either agree or narrow the disputed issues.

12. Due to time constraints in this proceeding and Staff's request that studies on the impact of the existing formulas be conducted, the assigned Commissioner deferred resolution of the proposed formula revisions until after a workshop is held.