RJN in Opposition to Demurrer and mot to strike 4-3-17 in Opposition to Demurrer... · 1 plaintiffs’ request for judicial notice in opposition to defendants’ demurrer & motion

11

PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ DEMURRER & MOTION TO STRIKE

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

MICHAEL J. BRADY (SBN 40693) 1001 MARSHALL STREET, STE. 500 Redwood City, CA 94063-2052 Telephone (650) 364-8200 Facsimile: (650) 780-1701 Email: [email protected] LAW OFFICES OF STUART M. FLASHMAN STUART M. FLASHMAN (SBN 148396) 5626 Ocean View Drive Oakland, CA 94618-1533 TEL/FAX (510) 652-5373 EXEMPT FROM FEES PER Email: [email protected] GOVERNMENT CODE §6103 Attorneys for Plaintiffs John Tos et al.

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

JOHN TOS et al., Plaintiffs vs.

CALIFORNIA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY et al., Defendants

No. 34-2016-00204740 PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL

NOTICE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ DEMURRER AND

MOTION TO STRIKE ALLEGATIONS [Code of Civil Procedure §527]

Date: April 18, 2017 Time: 9:00 PM Department: 54 Action filed: December 13, 2016 Trial Date: Not Yet Set Reservation: 2232493

Pursuant to Evidence Code Sections 451 and 452, Plaintiffs John Tos et al hereby request

that the Court take judicial notice of the following documents:

1. Pursuant to Evidence Section 452(d), of the court’s ruling on Defendants’ Motion for

Judgment on the Pleadings in John Tos et. al. v. California High-Speed Rail Authority et al.

(“Tos I”), case No. 34-2011-00113919, and the Third District Court of Appeal’s summary denial

of a petition for writ of mandate on that ruling, true and correct copies of which, as served by the

court, are attached hereto as Exhibits A and B respectively;

2. Pursuant to Evidence Code Section 452(c), of an excerpt from the Governor’s 2008-9 State

Budget, May revise; of an excerpt from Defendant California High-Speed Rail Authority’s

22


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

(“CHSRA”) Central Valley Segment Funding Plan, dated January 1, 2017; and of a letter dated

March 3, 2017 from Mr. Michael Cohen, Director of the California Department of Finance to Mr.

Jeff Morales, Chief Executive Officer of Defendant CHSRA, which letter granted approval to the

Central Valley Segment Funding Plan; true and correct copies of which documents, as downloaded

from official government agency websites, are attached hereto as Exhibits C though E respectively.

Dated: April 3, 2017

Michael J. Brady

Stuart M. Flashman

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

by: _______________________ Stuart M. Flashman

SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

A. THE ATTACHED DOCUMENTS ARE SUBJECT TO JUDICIAL NOTICE.

1. Exhibits A and B – court documents.

Under Evidence Code Section 452(d), the court may take judicial notice of records of any

court of this state. (See, e.g., Taylor v. Department of Industrial Relations etc. (2016) 4

Cal.App.5th 801, 806 fn.3 [court took judicial notice of court rulings and other court documents].)

Here, the trial court’s ruling on a motion in a closely-related case, and the court of appeal’s

summary denial or writ review of that order are both properly subject to judicial notice.

2. Exhibits C through E – official acts of the executive branch.

Under Evidence Code Section 452(c), the court may take judicial notice of official acts of

the legislative, executive, or judicial branch of any state of the United States. That obviously

includes the executive branch of the State of California. (See, e.g., White v. Davis (2003) 30

Cal.4th 528, 553 fn. 11 [court took judicial notice of official acts of the California executive

branch].) Here, the Governor’s office, the Department of Finance, and CHSRA are all agencies

within the California Executive Branch.1 The May revise of the Governor’s 2008-2009 budget 1 CHSRA is currently contained within the State Transportation Agency.

33


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

was a formal act of the Governor. Likewise, the letter from Mr. Cohen represented a formal action

he took in his official capacity as the Director of the Department of Finance, and the Central

Valley Segment Funding Plan was a formal act of CHSRA. All these documents are therefore

subject to judicial notice.

B. THE DOCUMENTS ARE RELEVANT TO ISSUES BEFORE THE COURT.

In addition to being subject to judicial notice, judicial notice also requires that the fact or

document be relevant to an issue before the court. (People ex. rel. Lockyer v. Shamrock Foods Co.

(2000) 24 Cal.4th 415, 422, fn. 2.) Each of the documents for which notice is requested is relevant

to an issue before the court.

The court’s ruling on the Motion for Judgment of the Pleadings in Tos I and the denial of

writ review of that ruling are relevant because the legal issue, and situation, involved are closely

related, if not identical, to those involved here, and the parties are either the same or in privity with

those involved here.

The excerpt from the Governor’s May revise to the 2008-2009 budget is relevant because

that budget document was before the Legislature while it was writing and considering AB 3034,

which placed Prop. 1A on the November 2008 ballot. The excerpt is relevant in determining the

Legislature’s intent in writing and approving that bill and the ballot measure it contained, and

specifically the phrase, “suitable and ready for high-speed train operation,” which is central to the

challenge to AB 1889’s constitutionality.

The Director of Finance’s decision approving the Central Valley Segment Funding Plan is

relevant because it shows that Plaintiffs’ allegation of such approval has actually been fulfilled.

Finally, the excerpt from the Funding Plan is relevant is showing that, as alleged in the

complaint, the segment will not, when completed, be “suitable and ready for high-speed train

operation,” or even testing, because the Funding Plan does not include any trains, or cars, to run or

test.


44


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

Respectfully submitted,

Michael J. Brady

Stuart M. Flashman

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

by: _______________________ Stuart M. Flashman

DECLARATION OF AUTHENTICITY

I, Stuart Flashman, declare as follows:

1. I am an attorney licensed to practice in the State of California. I am one of the attorneys

representing Plaintiffs John Tos et al. in this case. I have personal knowledge of the facts stated in

this declaration and am competent to testify as to them if called as a witness.

2. The attached Exhibits A and B are true and correct copies of court documents from the case

John Tos et. al. v. California High-Speed Rail Authority et al. (“Tos I”), case No. 34-2011-

00113919, and the Third District Court of Appeal’s interlocutory writ review of an order in that

case. Both documents had been served on me as counsel for the plaintiffs in that case.

3 The attached Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of an excerpt from a portion of the May

revise of the Governor’s 2008-2009 state budget, as I downloaded it in electronic form from the

official website of the California Department of Finance, where California budget documents are

stored in electronic form.

4.. The attached Exhibits D and E are a true and correct copies of the document or document

excerpt identified herein. I personally downloaded both documents, in electronic form, from the

official website of Defendant CHSRA.

I declare under penalty of perjury pursuant to the laws of the State of California that the

foregoing is true and correct. Executed on this 3rd day of April, 2017, at Oakland, California.

Stuart M. Flashman

Exhibit A

DO

WN

EY

BR

AN

D L

LP

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

RULING ON SUBMITTED MATTER CASE NO. 34-2011-00113919-CU-MC-GDS

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

JOHN TOS, AARON FUKUDA, COUNTY OF KINGS Plaintiffs and Petitioners, v. CALIFORNIA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY, et al., Defendants and Respondents.

Case No. 34-2011-00113919-CU-MC-GDS

RULING ON SUBMITTED MATTER: MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS (CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 438)

The Court heard oral argument on this matter on Friday, February 14, 2014. Deputy Attorney

General Sharon O’Grady argued on behalf of respondents. Stuart M. Flashman argued on behalf of

petitioners. Raymond L. Carlson argued on behalf of amicus curiae. At the close of the hearing, the Court

took the matter under submission for issuance of a written ruling.

The following shall constitute the ruling of the Court.

Petitioners’ request for judicial notice in opposition to the motion is granted. The documents

attached to the request are records of the courts of this State and therefore are proper subjects for judicial

notice pursuant to Evidence Code section 452(d).

Petitioners’ objection to portions of the reply brief is overruled. Petitioners assert that the reply

brief raised a new argument (that petitioners’ claims arose from the Authority’s adoption of the funding

DO

WN

EY

BR

AN

D L

LP

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2


plan, the draft business plan and the revised business Plan) that they were unable to rebut by arguing that

the adoption of the business plan did not commit the Authority to any course of action. Petitioners

explicitly raised this argument at page 11, footnote 7 of their opposition brief.

This is a motion for judgment on the pleadings, in which defendants/respondents seek an order

dismissing petitioners’ remaining claims for failure to state a cause of action.

In ruling on a motion for judgment on the pleadings, the court applies the same standards that are

applicable to a general demurrer. (See, Civic Partners Stockton, LLC v. Youssefi (2012) 218, Cal. App. 4th

1005, 1012.) The court must accept the allegations of the complaint as true and liberally construe them

with a view toward attaining substantial justice. (See, Inter-Modal Rail Employees Association v.

Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company (1999) 73 Cal. App. 4th 918, 924.) At the pleading

stage, the court does not decide whether the petitioners will be able to prove their allegations, and does not

consider the possible difficulty in making such proof. (See, Collier v. Superior Court (1991) 228 Cal.

App. 3rd

117, 1120.)

A motion for judgment on the pleadings must be denied if the facts alleged in the complaint state a

viable cause of action under any legal theory. Thus, the court is not limited to the petitioners’ stated

theory of recovery. (See, Zhang v. Superior Court (2013) 57 Cal. 4th 364, 370.)

Having applied these standards to petitioners’ Second Amended Complaint, the Court concludes

that petitioners have alleged facts sufficient to state a cause of action for review of an administrative

determination by respondent California High Speed Rail Authority to commit to the building of a high-

speed train system that does not comply with the substantive design requirements of Proposition 1A (most

specifically, Streets and Highways Code section 2704.09), including financial viability and required

“maximum nonstop service travel times” that “shall not exceed” specified limits. At a minimum, the facts

alleged state a cause of action for issuance of a writ of mandate under Code of Civil Procedure section

1085. For purposes of the present motion, the Court must accept those facts as true, without considering

any difficulty petitioners may have in proving those facts at trial.

The Court finds that this case is similar to Hayward Area Planning Association v. Alameda

DO

WN

EY

BR

AN

D L

LP

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3


County Transportation Authority (1999) 72 Cal. App. 4th 95 (“HAPA”). In HAPA, the First District Court

of Appeal reversed an order granting summary judgment for respondents, thus permitting the petitioners to

go to trial on their claim that the respondents had violated applicable law by using revenue generated from

a voter-approved sales and use tax to implement a highway extension project that contained a route or

alignment significantly different from the one presented to the voters. Here, petitioners similarly allege

that respondents have violated applicable law by committing to build a high-speed rail system that differs

significantly from the one approved by the voters in Proposition 1A.

Petitioners have standing to assert this claim under Code of Civil Procedure section 526a. The

California Supreme Court has stated that Section 526a provides a general citizen remedy for controlling

illegal governmental activity which should be construed liberally in order to achieve its remedial purpose.

(See, Van Atta v. Scott (1980) 27 Cal. 3rd

424, 447.) Although Code of Civil Procedure section 526a by its

terms applies only to funds and officials of “a county, town, city or city and county of the state”, judicial

decisions have held that it provides a basis for suing state officials as well. (See, Serrano v. Priest (1971)

5 Cal. 3rd

584, 618, footnote 38.) “If a taxpayer can demonstrate that a state official did authorize the

improper expenditure of public funds, the taxpayer ‘will be entitled, at least, to a declaratory judgment to

that effect; if he establishes that similar expenses are threatened in the future, he will also be entitled to

injunctive relief.’” (Hooper v. Deukmejian (1981) 122 Cal. App. 3rd

987, 1019, citing Stanson v. Mott

(1976) 17 Cal. 3rd

206, 222-223.)1

The Court is not persuaded that petitioners’ remaining claims have been resolved by the ruling on

the writ of mandate claims previously adjudicated. Those first-stage writ claims focused on the validity of

the initial detailed funding plan required by Streets and Highways Code section 2704.08(c). That funding

plan applies to the use of bond proceeds for a “corridor, or usable segment thereof”, i.e., a discrete portion

of the high-speed rail system. The issues that remain to be tried involve the design of the entire system

1 In a writ of mandate case involving improper governmental action, declaratory relief is available as an additional

remedy. (See, Shaw v. People ex rel. Chiang (2009) 175 Cal. App. 4th

577, 616: Third District Court of Appeal

affirmed a judgment for declaratory relief and writ of mandate in a case involving the Legislature’s transfer of

spillover gas tax revenue to the Mass Transportation Fund in violation of Proposition 116.) Furthermore, injunctive

relief is identical in purpose and function to a writ of mandate and therefore is an appropriate remedy when a writ is

granted. (See, Venice Town Council v. City of Los Angeles (1996) 47 Cal. App. 4th

1547, 1563, footnote 9.)

DO

WN

EY

BR

AN

D L

LP

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4


and whether that design complies with Proposition 1A.

Of course, at this stage, the Court reaches no conclusions regarding whether petitioners will be

able to prove their claims. That is a matter to be resolved at trial. The present ruling only finds that

judgment should not be entered for respondents based solely on the face of the Second Amended

Complaint, and that the case should proceed to trial.

The motion for judgment on the pleadings is therefore denied.

Counsel for all parties are directed to meet and confer and contact the Clerk of this Department

regarding setting a date for trial. The Court notes that much of respondents’ argument in the present

motion focused on whether the evidence at trial should be limited to the content of the administrative

record supporting respondents’ determination(s) regarding the design of the high-speed rail system. The

present motion was not brought as an evidentiary motion, and was not directed towards any specifically-

identified evidence that petitioners intend to offer at trial. The Court therefore declines to make any

specific evidentiary rulings at this time. Counsel for the parties are directed to meet and confer and report

to the Court regarding their positions as to the scope of admissible evidence at trial, and regarding any

further proceedings that will be needed to resolve disputes over the admissibility of evidence.

This ruling shall take effect immediately. No further written order shall be required.

DATED: March 4, 2014

Judge MICHAEL P. KENNY Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento

DO

WN

EY

BR

AN

D L

LP

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5


CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE BY MAILING (C.C.P. Sec. 1013a(4))

I, the undersigned deputy clerk of the Superior Court of California, County of

Sacramento, do declare under penalty of perjury that I did this date place a copy of the above-

entitled RULING ON SUBMITTED MATTER in envelopes addressed to each of the parties, or

their counsel of record or by email as stated below, with sufficient postage affixed thereto and

deposited the same in the United States Post Office at 720 9th

Street, Sacramento, California.

MICHAEL J. BRADY Attorney at Law 1001 Marshall Street, Suite 500 Redwood City, CA 94063-2052 Email: [email protected]

STUART M. FLASHMAN Attorney at Law 5626 Ocean View Drive Oakland, CA 94618-1533 Email: [email protected]

SHARON L. O’GRADY Deputy Attorney General 455 Golden Gate Avenue, Ste 11000 San Francisco, CA 94102-7004 Email: [email protected]

STEPHANIE F. ZOOK Deputy Attorney General P.O. Box 944255 Sacramento, CA 94244-2550 Email: [email protected]

TAMAR PACHTER Supervising Deputy Attorney General 455 Golden Gate Avenue, Ste 11000 San Francisco, CA 94102-7004 Email: [email protected]

RAYMOND L. CARLSON, ESQ. Griswold LaSalle Cobb Dowd & Gen LLP 111 E. Seventh Street Hanford, CA 93230 Email: [email protected]

THOMAS FELLENZ Chief Legal Counsel 770 L Street, Suite 800 Sacramento, CA 95814 Email: [email protected]

Superior Court of California,

County of Sacramento Dated: March 4, 2014

By:

S. LEE

Deputy Clerk

mailto:[email protected]

Exhibit B

IN THE

Qtourt of _eal of tbe iPtatt of Qtalifomia IN AND FOR THE

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY et aI., Petitioners v.

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SACRAMENTO COUNTY, Respondent;

JOHN TOS et a!., Real Parties in Interest.

C076042 Sacramento County

WR ! I) 2014

<~,nun r:r ;"\.;r;<".J; ~~"l< ; i\r·;~~.;~i,.1~~''! I:';'~tnl~r • .;. ~_-t " ;"'"!,:' ":':'

.,,1 _ .......... ______ " .•

No. 34201100113919CUMCGDS

BY THE COURT:

The Petition for Extraordinary Writ of Mandate or Other Appropriate Writ is denied. The standard of review for a judgment on the pleadings is the same as for a judgment following sustaining of a demurrer; we look only to the face of the pleading under attack. [Citations.] ... All facts alleged in the complaint are admitted for purposes of the motion and the court determines whether these facts constitute a cause of action. [Citations.] (Hughes v. Western MacArthur Co. (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 951, 954-955.)

The parties' motions for judicial notice are denied.


RAYE, P.J.

cc: See Mailing List

Exhibit C

GOVERNORS BUDGET

MAY REVISION 2008-09

INTRODUCTION

California's structural budget deficit persists. Slower rates of economic growth,

softening state revenues and increased costs have widened California's budget gap.

In January, the projected deficit for 2008-09 was $14.5 billion. Left unaddressed,

the projected gap would grow to $24.3 billion based on updated revenue projections,

revised case load estimates and higher costs. The single largest factor contributing

to the increase in the projected budget gap is a $6.0 billion decrease in estimated

General Fund revenues. Other factors include increased program costs, higher estimates

of growth and costs of living adjustments, and erosion of savings due to delays in the

adoption of reduction proposals. (See Figure INT-01).

Figure INT-01

Defining the Budget Gap

(Dollars in Millions)

Governor's Budget

Reserve

Adjustments Since Governor's Budget

Total Size of Problem

-$14,479

-2,009

-7,789

-$24,277

BUSINESS, TRANSPORTAT'JON, AND HOUSING

BUSINESS, TRANSPORTATION,

AND HOUSING

The Business, Transportation and Housing Agency oversees programs that

promote the state's business and economic climate, transportation infrastructure,

affordable housing, and patient's rights. The Agency also promotes public safety through

the California Highway Patrol and the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control.

The majority of funding is derived from special fund revenues, federal funds, and the

proceeds from Proposition 1 B. the Highway Safety, Traffic Reduction. Air Quality,

and Port Security Bond Act of 20n6.

TRANSPORTATION PROGRAMS

• 2007-08 No Change

• 2008-09 $126.1 million Other Funds

CAPITAL OUTLAY SUPPORT STAFFING

The Department of Transportation traditionally submits a zero-based request for Capital

Outlay workload as part of the May Revision. This request is based on anticipated

project allocations by the California Transportation Commission for the upcoming year

and associated workload. The May Revision reflects a decrease of $26.1 million in state

special funds and bond funds, reflecting a decrease in workload due to declining gas tax

revenues, and being close to peak workload for bond-funded projects. Approximately

89 percent of the decrease will come from a reduction of 247 positions and 11 percent

will come from a reduction of 22 contract positions.

GOYERNOR'S HrDGET :\Lw REYISlON 2008-09 2S

BUSINESS, 'fRA:'\ISPORTATION, AND HOUSIN(;

in the Education portion of the Budget) and debt service on current and prior year

transportation-related General Obligation bonds ($235 million).

SECRETARY FOR BUSINESS, HOUSING AND TRANSPORTATION


• 2008-09 $2.0 million General Fund

CALIFORNIA PARTNERSHIJI FOR THE SAN JOAQ£IN VALLEY

The May Revision proposes $2 million General Fund to be transferred to the California

Economic Development Fund, created by Chapter 631, Statutes of 2007, to continue

the implementation of the 10-Year San Joaquin Valley Strategic Action Proposal.

Funding will sustain a public-private partnership to promote economic development,

workforce development, education, transportation, land use and environmental issues.

The California Economic Development Fund will allow state funding to complement

potential federal, local, and private funds

HIGH-SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY


2008-09 $41.2 million Other Funds

In November, voters will have the opportunity to approve a $9.9 billion bond for

high-speed rail. While the Authority's current long-term plans could cost $40 billion, it is

expected that local and federal sources, as well as private investment, will provide the

rest of the funding for construction of high speed rail. The High-Speed Rail Authority

projects that once train service is operational, it will be self-supporting from fares.

• The May Revision includes $10 million from the Public Transportation Account to

sustain current engineering and project management work and mobilize contract

resources for all corridors, prior to the election. The May Revision also proposes to

appropriate $8.2 million from Proposition 116 for additional environmental studies and

engineering work on the Fresno-to-Sacramento segment. An additional $23 million is

proposed to be appropriated from the bond fund to continue work after the election.

The Administration will be proposing amendments to the Safe, Reliable High-Speed

Passenger Train BOr')d Act for the 21st Century to ensure an appropriate balance between

GOVEUNOU's HCDGET MAY REYJSJON 2008·09 27

BUSINESS, TRANSPORTATION, ANn HOUSING

assuring that expenditures of the bond funds will result in operational high-speed rail

services and providing the flexibility needed to attract federal and local government,

as well as private sector, participation in funding, constructing, and operating the system.

The following changes to the bond legislation are being proposed.

• Limit the amount of bond funding that may be used for engineering work,

environmental studies needed to obtain permits, and preservation of right-of-way to

enable project costs to be more accurately determined and project risk to be reduced

before other parties' funds are fully committed. This will help pave the way for public

and private partners to participate in the project, while limiting the amount of bond

funds at risk.

• Before any construction or equipment purchase contracts can be signed for a portion

of the system, there must be a complete funding plan that provides assurance that

all funding needed to provide service on that portion of the system is secured.

LOANS FROM SPECIAL FUNDS


• 2008-09 -$288.7 million General Fund

$288.7 million Other Funds

The May Revision proposes loans from various special funds to provide one-time funding

to the General Fund to help close the budget gap. Loans from funds in the BTH Agency

total $288.7 million as noted below. The loans are proposed only from those funds in

which the loss of revenue will not result in any impact to the programs supported by

the fund, will not require fee increases, and will not need to be repaid prior to 2010-11.

Budget Trailer legislation is proposed to provide the State Highway Account authority to

borrow from the Pooled Money Investment Account to reduce the need to carry a large

cash balance.

TRANSPORTATION LOANS - $238.1

• State Highway Account, State Transportation Fund-$200 million

• Local Airport Loan Account-$14.9 million

• Motor Vehicle Fuel Account-$8 million

28 (;O\TRl'.;oR\ Bcnra'T f..Ln REVlSIOS 200H09

Exhibit D

www.hsr.ca.gov

Central Valley Segment

Funding Plan Final – January 1, 2017

Central Valley Segment Funding Plan 4

A. The Usable Segment

Streets and Highways Code section 2704.08, subdivision (d)(1)(A) requires identification of the

corridor, or usable segment thereof, and the estimated full cost of constructing the corridor or

usable segment thereof. A usable segment is defined in section 2704.01 as a portion of corridor

that includes at least two stations.

Overview of the Usable Segment

The Usable Segment that is the subject of this Funding Plan is the part of the high-speed rail system now

under construction stretching from approximately adjacent to the Madera Amtrak station to Poplar

Avenue in Shafter. As required, this section includes at least two stations in Fresno and at Kings/Tulare.

This Funding Plan includes all of the necessary high-speed rail components to be able to test and run

high-speed rail trains over the segment. Additionally, the segment could be connected to the existing

BNSF line on both ends to run Amtrak service over the corridor, should the completion of the Valley to

Valley Line be significantly delayed. Funds are specifically reserved in the Federal grant for this purpose.

Construction Elements

The total expenditure for completion of this segment is estimated to be $7.813 billion in Year of

Expenditure dollars (YOE$). This includes all items that will enable the Authority to test and run high-

speed trains on the segment. Specifically, the expenditures will include the following:

Civil Works

Track

Railroad Infrastructure

Signaling

Overhead catenary system

Communications systems

Positive train control

Heavy Maintenance Facility

Stations (Fresno and Kings/Tulare)

The purchase of high-speed rail trains is not part of completing the Usable Segment but will be part of

the Authority’s implementation of the Valley to Valley Line. The trains will utilize this Usable Segment as

a test track in order to enable the rolling stock, signaling system, and the electrification system to be

tested and commissioned and for all of those systems to be certified. To purchase the trains, the

Authority will request an additional appropriation of $865 million in Prop 1A funds or will use $865

Central Valley Segment Funding Plan 5

million from the continuous appropriation the Legislature provided in SB 862. Those funds (if Prop 1A)

will be part of a future Funding Plan that the Authority will submit.

Exhibit A-1 – Central Valley Segment Capital Cost Projections

Capital Costs 2015$ YOE$

Central Valley Segment 7,161 7,552

Heavy Maintenance Facility 234 261

Total Central Valley Segment Capital Cost 7,395 7,813

Components of the Usable Segment

The Central Valley segment that is under construction has been adopted by the Authority’s

Board as a Usable Segment upon approval of this Funding Plan. The segment will cover 119

miles of new high-speed rail alignment. As adopted by the Board, the segment will include

substructure, bridges, track, systems and communications, yards, buildings and stations

constructed to high-speed rail standards and will be suitable and ready for high-speed rail

operations. Construction of Central Valley segment civil works has been ongoing since 2013

with over $3 billion of contracts awarded to design-build contractors.

CP 1 is the first construction contract executed on the Valley to Valley Line portion of Phase 1 of the

high-speed rail system. The CP 1 construction area is a 32-mile stretch between Avenue 19 near the city

of Madera (approximately adjacent to the existing Madera Amtrak station) and East American Avenue in

Fresno County. It includes 20 grade separations, 2 viaducts, 1 tunnel and a major river crossing over the

San Joaquin River. Construction is under way at multiple active sites and will expand in the coming

months to other areas. The scope and boundaries of CP1 are presented in Exhibit A-2. For more

information on CP1 please refer to:

http://www.hsr.ca.gov/Programs/Construction/about_construction_package_1.html

http://www.hsr.ca.gov/Programs/Construction/about_construction_package_1.html

Exhibit E

Documents

RJN in Opposition to Demurrer and mot to strike 4-3-17 in Opposition to Demurrer... · 1 plaintiffs’ request for judicial notice in opposition to defendants’ demurrer & motion