RJN in Opposition to Demurrer and mot to strike 4-3-17 in Opposition to Demur… · Pursuant to...
Transcript of RJN in Opposition to Demurrer and mot to strike 4-3-17 in Opposition to Demur… · Pursuant to...
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
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
(“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
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
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.
Dated: April 3, 2017
44
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
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
RULING ON SUBMITTED MATTER CASE NO. 34-2011-00113919-CU-MC-GDS
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
RULING ON SUBMITTED MATTER CASE NO. 34-2011-00113919-CU-MC-GDS
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
RULING ON SUBMITTED MATTER CASE NO. 34-2011-00113919-CU-MC-GDS
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
RULING ON SUBMITTED MATTER CASE NO. 34-2011-00113919-CU-MC-GDS
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
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.
Dated: April 15, 2014
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
• 2007-08 No Change
• 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
• 2007-08 No Change
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
• 2007-08 No Change
• 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
Exhibit E