The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutID-2732CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK April 9, 2012 The Honorable City Council Palo Alto, California CONFERENCE WITH CITY ATTORNEY - EXISTING LITIGATION Subject: City of Palo Alto et al. v. California High-Speed Rail Authority Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento, Case No. 34-2010- 80000679 Authority: Government Code section 54956.9(a) Attached are two documents received from Herb Borock regarding this issue. ATTACHMENTS: Atherton 1 (PDF) Atherton 2 (PDF) Department Head:Donna Grider, City Clerk Herb Borock P. O. Box 632 Palo Alto, CA 94302 April 3, 2012 Palo Alto City Council 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Pf.l I 0 .~t"'!;O C Y GLE'R~{;-;S"OF?ICr!\ 12 APR -3 A'i II: f 2 APRIL 9, 2012, CITY COUNCIL MEETING, CLOSED SESSION HIGH SPEED RAIL, CASE NO. 34-2008-80000022 (ATHERTON 1) Dear City Council: On April 2, 2012, the California High Speed Rail Authority filed an Initial Return to Peremptory Writ of Mandate for Case No. 34-2008-80000022 (Atherton 1) . Attached is a copy with its attachments. Sincerely, tJ..----. Herb Borock "~ .. :.",.: .. ..... ~. ".p ., ·.1 .... ' ... I :~:~ .. ; . .. :' ~ '~ .... t .:', 'li~ ·.·;:r~~' {:~ ;S' :';~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 . 13 KAMALA D. HARRIS Attorney General of California DANIEL L. SIEGEL Supervising Deputy Attorney General , >., .• \-. DANAE J. AITCHISON, State Bar No. 176428 JESSICA TUCKER-MOHL, State Bar No. 262280 Deputy Attorneys General 1300 I Street, Suite. 125 . P.O. Box 944255 Sacramento, CA 94244-2550 Telephone: (916) 327-7704 Fax: (916) 327-2319 . APR -2 2017 L . By'/ E-mail: Jessica.TuckerMohl@doj.ca.gov Aflorneysfol' Defendant and Respondent Cal!fomia High-Speed Rail Authority l . -.l.'!WrrFiEi] -OEPU1YCLERt-'~-__ 1 ---... SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO !: TOWN OF ATHERTON, a Municipal Case No. 34-2008-80000022 14 Corporation, et at, INITIAL RETURN TO SUPPLEMENTAL Plaintiffs and Petitioners, PEREMPTORY WRIT OF MANDATE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 v. CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY, a public entity, and DOES 1-20, Defendants and Respondents. Date: Time: Dept: 31 Judge: The Honorable Michael P. Kenny Trial Date: Action Filed: August 8, 2008 22 The California High-Speed Rail Authority ("Authority") files this initial return to the 23 supplemental peremptory writ of mandate issued by the COUlt on February 1, 2012 (the 24 "Supplemental Writ") along with the Court's Order Denying Motion for Discharge of Writ of 25 Mandate and Ordering Issuance of Supplemental Writ of Mandate ("Order"). The Supplemental 26 Writ is attached hereto as Exhibit A. The Court initially issued a Peremptory Writ in this matter 27 on November 3, 2009. The Authority sought the discharge of the Peremptory Writ following its 28 Initial Return to Supplemental Writ (34.2008-80000022) 1 certification of the 2010 Revised Final Program EIR and the Court declined to discharge the 2 Peremptory Writ. The Peremptory Writ is attached hereto as Exhibit B. 3 The Supplemental Writ orders the Authority to rescind its Resolution No. 11-11 certifying 4 the 2010 Revised Final Program ErR and approving of the Pacheco Pass Network Alternative, 5 preferred alignment alternatives and station location options, and to rescind related findings and 6 statement of overriding considerations. After the Authority was served with the Supplemental 7 Writ by Petitioners' counsel on February 13,2012, the Authority timely agendized a closed 8 session item on the above-captioned matter for the March 1, 2012 meeting of the Authority's 9 Board of Directors ("Board"). The March ~, 2012 Board meeting was the first regularly- 10 scheduled Board meeting following service of the Supplemental Writ, and thus the Board's first 11 opportunity to convene in closed session and be advised by counsel. A resolution rescinding . 12 Resolution No. 11-11 and related findings and statement of overriding considerations has been 13 placed on the agenda for the next sche,duled Board meeting, April 12, 2012, for the Board's 14 consideration. That agenda is attached.~et~to'as Exhibit C" This agenda also includes a closed 15 session agenda item on this litigation and the Board may also consider other procedural options 16 available to it. 17 The Supplemental Writ also orders the Authority to further revise the Program EIR prior to 18 reconsidering certification. The Authority has issued a Partially Revised Draft Program EIR 19 addressing the deficienc~es identified in the Court's November 10,2011 rulings, which circulated 20 for public comment between January 6, 2012 and February 2],2012. The Authority will file a 21 supplemental return to the writ following completion of the additional work necessary to comply 22 with the Final Judgment, the Supplemental Writ, and the California Environmental QLlality Act 23 (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines. 24 25 26 27 28 I, : ' 2 Initial Return to Supplemental Writ (34-2008-80000022) 1 Dated: April 2, 2012 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 SA2008303831 to 10852049 .doc 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 i' '!, 3 . Respectfully Submitted, KAMALA D. HARRIS Attorney General of Cali fornia DANIEL L. SIEGEL Supervising Deputy Attorney General· JESSICA TUCKER~MoHL Deputy Attorney General Attorneysfor Defendant and Respondent California High-Speed Rail Authority Initial Return to Supplemental Writ (34-2008-80000022) 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 ,. ) IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN' AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO TOWN OF ATHERTON, a M1.micipal Corporation, PLANNING AND CONSERVATION LEAGUE, a California nonprofit corporation, CITY OF MENLO PARK, a Mtmicipal Corporation, TRANSPORTATION SOLUTIONS DEFENSE AND EDUCA nON FUND, a California nonprofit corporation, and QALIFORNIA RAIL FOUNDATION, a California nonprofit corporation, . Petitioners and Plaintiffs v. CALIFORNIA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY, a public entity, and DOES .1-20, Respondents and Defendants No. 34-2008-80000022 SUPPLEMENTAL PEREMPTORY WRIT OF MANDATE To RespondeJ:lt CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED RAIL AUTHORlTY: An order has been filed in this proceeding requ~ring that a supplemental peremptory writ of mandate issue under seal of this Court. THEREFORE you are commanded, upon receipt of this Writ: 1) Tp rescind and set aside your Resolution No. -11-11 certifying the Revised Final. Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) for the Bay Area to Central Valley High-Speed. Train Project, ·approvip.g the Pacheco Pass Network Alternative Serving • \ .• 'I ~:. I! San Francisco via San Jose ,.and approving prefelTed aHgnment alternatives and station location options. This resolution is remanded to Respondent for reconsideration after completing cOinpliance with this writ; SUPPLEMENTAL PEREMPTOR Y WRIT OF MANDATE, PAGE 1 I I . ! j I I ....... ~ .......... _ ............... _ ...... _ •••••••••• __ •• _._ ••• _ .......... M ••••• h ..... __ ...... ,._ ••• " .,. " ••• ' •• _ ... _ 0 .. _ ..... ,_ •••• 1 •• ') 2) To rescind and set .aside your Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding 2 Considerations und~r the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQ A") in support 3 ofthe aforesaid resolution No. 11 ~ 11. These findings and statement of overriding 4 considerations areremande;:t.'to Respondent for reconsideration after completing 5 compliance with this writ; and 6 3) To further revise the PEIR for the Bay Area to Central VaUey High-Speed Train 7 Project in accordance with CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines; the Final Judgment entered 8 in this case and the orders filed in this case regarding Respondent's return on the 9 prior writ prior to reconsidering certification of that ~EIR. 10 Under Public Resources Code §21168.9(c), this Court does not direct Respondent to 11 . . exercise its lawful discretion in any particular way. 12 YOU ARE FURTHER commanded to make and file a return within 60 days after issuance 13 of the writ, setting forth what you have .done to comply with the writ. 14 Dated: FEB 1 -20ll . ' .. ~. " Approved: Dated I/~ /1'2-~4Jfr4,~ rfanae Aitchison Deputy Attorney General 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ·24 25 26 27 28 29 SUPPLEMENTAL P~REMPTORY WRIT OF MANDATE, PAGTI 2 I . .. ......... "".'_" ........... 1 1; 10412009 16:17 . One Legal. (FA.359044 ) P.033/034 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 1.5 16 17 !8 19 21 2-1 2(i I ::!7 \ I 2)) JNTHE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ., IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO TOWN OF ATHERTON. a Municipal Corporation, PLANNING AND CONSERVATION LEAGUE, a California nonprofit cbrporation, CITY OF MENLO PARK, a Municipal Corporation, TRANSPORTATION SOLUTIONS DEFENSE AND EDUCATION fUND. a Catifornia nonprofit c(}rporation, CALIFORNIA RAIL FOUNDATION, a' California nonprofit corporation, and BA ):'RAIL ALLIANCE,.a California nonprofit corPoration, and other similarly situated entities, Petitioners and Plaintiffs CALIFORNIA H1GH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY, a public entity, and DOES 1-20, Respondents ,ilnd Defendants No. 34-2008-80000022 PEREMPTORY WRIT OF MANDATE To Respondent CALIFORNIA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY: Judgment has been entered in this proceeding ordering that a peremptory writ of mandate issue under seal of this Court.. THEREFORE you are commanded, immediately upon receipt eftnis Writ: \) To rescind and set aside your Resolution No. 0&-01 certifyi~g the Final Environmental Impact ReportiEnvironmentallmpact Study ("EI RIElS") for the: Bay Area to Central Valle.~ High-Speed Train Project, approving the Pacheco Pass Network Alternative Serving San Francisco and SilO Jose Termini, and approving . preferred alignment alternatives'and station location options. This resolution is PEREMPTORY WlUTOFMMlDATE, PAGE 1 109M20a02G45~.Uf ·11/4/20094:17:37 PM ',: 11/04/2009 . "6:18 One Legal. . P.034/034 .;" .1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 J1 ·13 14 15 16 J7 18 19 o remanded to Respondent for reconsideration after completing compliance with this writ; 2) To rescind and set aside your Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding ~. t . , Considerations under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQN') in support !I ~ . of the aforesaid resolution No. 08-01. These findings are remanded to Respondept for reconsideration after completing compJiance with this writ; and 3) To revise the Environmental Impact ReportlEnvironmental Impact Statement for the Bay Area to Central Valley High-Speed Train Project in accordance with CEQA, the CEQA GwdeHnes, and the Final Judgment entered in this case prior to reconsidering certification of that EIRIEIS. Under Public Resources Code §21168.9(c), thls Court does not direct Respondent to exercise its lawful discretion in any particular way. , YOU ARE FURTHER commanded to se.rve and. file a written return to this Writ on or hef(lTt! the seventieth day following service of this writ, showing your compliance. NOV '\..:.. 2009 Dated: ~ ]£N~(~ B . .::rO/Jt9 Clerk of the. ~p~~or .Court . ~~~J\~~~I~ . ", \ :. f; .'. , , Approved: s. LEE 20 D£lted Or::r. I~ pea1 ~M(,~ 21 T} Approved: 25 Dated._....;..:..~....;::...::;..;:....;· .:.... __ -C_l_·f .4..[ 16 27 Stuart Flashman . Anorney for Petitioners and Plaintiffs . /' , 1. I , • ( .~:C/"& (,1) kt{.f.SCt~' Dan AitchisOn Deputy Attorney General Attorney for Respondent PEREMI'T9RY WRIT OF MANOi\ TE, PAGE 2 \ , 109M206026453.ur ·11/4/20094;17:37 PM i ,~ • ~-. CALIFORNIA . .. HIGH~SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY AMENDED MARCH 27, 2012 MONTHLY MEETING AGENDA Thursday April 12,2012 San Francisco, CA, location TBA PUBLIC COMMENT An opportunity for public comment will be provided either before or during the consideration of each agenda item. Those persons, who wish to comment on agenda and non-agenda items, are required to submit their requests to Board Secretary before the start of the meeting by filling in the green cards. Typically public comment will be limited to 90 seconds per person, however the Chair may decide to shorten or lengthen the public comment periods, at his or her discretion. Agenda ACTION Items 1. Approval of Meeting Minutes from March Meeting 2. Review and Approval of Revised 2012 Business Plan Staff will request approval of revised 2012 business' plan J' ',1 . • I :" 3. Approval of Southern California Memorandum of Understanding (as amended). Staff will request board approval for the existing Southern CA MOU. 4. Approval of MTC Memorandum of Understanding Staff will request board approval fo: theMTC MOU S. Approval of Amendment to Regional Consultant Contracts Staff will request board approval for the amendment of the existing Regional Consultants' contracts. 6. Approval of Amendment to KPMG Contract Staff will request board approval for the amendment of the existing KPMG contract. 7. Approval of Amendment to Nossaman Contract Staff will request board approval for the amendment of the existing Nossoman contract. 8. Approval of Amendment to PMO Contract Staff will request board approval for the amendment of the existing PMO contract. Reseonsible Partl£ Board Members T. Fellenz! J. Morales G. Albright G. Albright H. Van Winkle / S. Pourvahidi S. Pourvahidi / K. Ramey T.Fellenz M. Ashley I W. Vongjesda 9. Consideration of a Resolution to Rescind Resolution HSRA# 11-11 Certifying 2010 Bay T. Fellenz Area to Central Valley Revised Final Program EIR, Selecting Pac_~eco Pass Network Alternative, and Making Related Decisions The board will discuss and consider taking action on a resolutio'n to rescind its approvals and certification of the 2010 Revised Final Program Environmental Impact Report, in compliance with the judicial decision. 770 L Street, Suite 800, Sacramento, CA 958141 (916) 324-1541, (916) 322-0827 fax For further information you may visit the California High-Speed Rail Authority Web site at www.cahighsvccdrlli1.ca.gov Status A A A A A A A A A I - 10. Review and Approve the Revised SB/DBE Program 11. R.eview and Approve the formation of the Business Advisory Council Agenda INFORMATION Items r~ ,;1' 12. RFP -Enforcement of Small Business Program 13, Update on Title VI Questions posed at last Board Meeting Stoff will provide on update on the questions related to enforcement and Title VI Program Plan, 14. Members' Report 15. Chief Executive Officers' Report P. Padilla / T. Fellenz P. Padilla / T. Fellenz P. Padilla / T. Fellenz P. Padilla / T. Fellenz Board Members T, Fellenz 16. Closed Session Pertaining to Litigation Legal Counsel The Authority Board will meet in closed session pursuant to Government Code section 11126(e)(2)(A) to confer with legal counsel with regard to the following litigation: • Town of Atherton v, California High-Speed Rail Authority, Sacramento Superior Court No, 34-2008-80000022 • Town of Atherton v. California High-Speed Rail Authority, Sacramento Superior Court No. 34-2010-80000679 • John Tos; Aaron Fukada and County of Kings v. California High Speed Rail Authority, Sacramento Superior Court Case No. 34-2001-00113919 The Authority may also meet in closed session pursuant to Government Code section 11126(e)(2)(B) (i) to consider potential litigation. • Consultant Claim f.' ,', : 17, Closed session related to employment of a Chief Executive Officer The Authority Board will meet in closed session pursuant to Government Code section 11126(a) to discuss the employment of 0 new Chief Executive Officer "AN denotes on "Action" item; "/" denotes on "In/ormation" item ·/rems mav be roke" out Of order Reasonable Accommodation for AnV Individual with a Disability D, Richard/Board Members A A Any individual with a disability who requires reasonable accommodation to attend or particillate may request aSSistance by contacting the Authority at (916) 324. 1541. Requests for additional accommodations for the disabled, signers, assistive listening devices. or translators should be made no later than one week prior to the meeting. ::-~ • : I . '. 770 L Street, Suite 800, Sacramento, CA 95814 f (916) 324-1541, (916) 322·0827 fax Por further information you may visit the California High-Speed Rail Authority Web site at www.cahighspeedl.llil.cn.gov Herb Borock P. O. Box 632 Palo Alto, CA 94302 April 3, 2012 Palo Alto City Council 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 r:U1EY{fjFp;r· ...... . en Y cLERbP ALIe;·.CA f\ s OFFtCt 12 APR -3 A/til: It APRIL 9, 2012, CITY COUNCIL MEETING, CLOSED SESSION HIGH SPEED RAIL, CASE NO. 34-2010-80000679 (ATHERTON 2) Dear City Council: On April 2, 2012, the California High Speed Rail Authority filed an Initial Return to Peremptory Writ of Mandate for Case No. 34-2010-80000679 (Atherton 2) . Attached is a copy with its attachments. Sincerely, (j- Herb Borock ,. ,f:t:;.'~. '1.:1,£' ';~ . .~ ... : .>: ~. ; .: .. ~ .: :.: .:i ......... ':;;',./ 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 KAMALA D. HARRIS Attorney General of California DANIEL L. SIEGEL Supervising Deputy Attorney General DANAE J. AITCHISON, State Bar No. 176428 JESSICA TUCKER~MoHL, State Bar No. 262280 Deputy Attorneys General 1300 I Street, Suite 125 P.O. Box 944255 Sacramento, CA 94244-2550 Telephone: (916) 327-7704 Fax: (916) 327-2319 E-mail: Jessica.TuckerMohl@doj.ca.gov A ttorneys for Defendant and Respondent California High-Speed Rail Authority .1 /\?R - 2 2012 By: __ ~l.:::::W~H~IT;;;::FIE~L'f-0 __ _ O~PUTV CLERK SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO TOWN OF ATHERTON, a Municipal Case No. 34-2010-80000679 14 Corporation, ct al., 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 INITIAL RETURN TO PEREMPTORY Plaintiffs and Petjtioners, WRIT OF MANDATE v. CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY, a public entity, and DOES 1- 20, Defendants and . Respondents. Date: Time: Dept: Judge: Trial Date: 31 The Honorable Michael P. Kenny Action Filed: October 4, 2010 22 The California High·Speed Rail Authority ("Authority") files this initial return to the 23 peremptory writ of mandate issued by the Court on February 1, 2012 (the "Peremptory Writ") 24 along with the Court's Final Judgment Granting in Part and Denying in Part Petitioners' Verified 25 Petition elFinal Judgment"). The Peremptory Writ is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 26 the Peremptory Writ orders the.Authority to rescind its Resolution No. 11-11 certifying the . ,. 27 2010 Revised Final Program EIR and approving of the Pacheco Pass Network Alternative, 28 preferred alignment alternatives and station location options, and to rescind related findings and I Initial Return to Peremptory Writ (34·2010-80000679) . 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ]0 11 ]2 13 ]4 15 16 17 18 statement of overriding considerations. After the Authority was served with the Peremptory Writ by Petitioners' counsel on February 13,2012, the Authority timely agendized a closed session item on the above-captioned matter for the March 1,2012 meeting of the AuthoritY's Board of Directors ("Board"). The March 1,2012 Board meeting was the first regularly-scheduled Board meeting following service of the Peremptory Writ, and thus the Board's first opportunity to convene in closed session and be advise~ by counsel. A resolution rescinding Resolution No. 11- 11 and related findings and statement 9£ overriding considerations has been placed on the agenda for the next scheduled Board meeting, April 12,2012, for the Board's consideration. That agenda is attached hereto as Exhibit B. This agenda also includes a closed session agenda item on this litigation and the Board may also consider other procedural options available to it. The Peremptory Writ also orders the Authority to further revise the Program EIR prior to reconsidering certification. The Authority has issued a Partially Revised Draft Program EIR addressing the deficiencies identified in the Court's November 10,2011 rulings, which circulated for public comment between January'6, 20] 2 and February 21, 20] 2. The Authority will file a supplemental return to the writ following completion of the additional work necessary to comply with the Final J udgmcnt, the Peremptory Writ, and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines. 19 Dated: April 2, 2012 20 Respectfully Submitted, KAMALA D. HARRIS 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SA20 I 0303408 10852570.doc 2 ! •• ~. Attorney General of California DANIEL L. SIEGEL Supervising Deputy Attorney General JESSICA TUCKER-MoHL Deputy Attorney General Attorneysfor Defendant and Respo/1de/1t California High-Speed Rail Authority Initial Return to Peremptory Writ (34·20 I 0-80000679) 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. ) IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO CITY OF PALO ALTO, a Municipal Corporation, COMMUNITY COALITION ON HlGH-SPEED RAIL, a California nonprofit corporation, MID PENINSULA RESIDENTS FOR CIVIC SANITY, an unincorporated association, and PATRICIA LOUISE HOGAN-GIORNI, Petitioners and Plaintiffs v. CALIFORNIA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY, apubJic entity,'and DOES 1-20, Respondents and Defendants No. 34-2010-800.00679 feR&""I'tOlt~ (iJ. WRIT OF MANDATE To Re~pon~ent,CALIFORNIA HIGH SPEED RAIL,AUTHORITY: Judgment has been entered.in this proceeding ordering that a p~remptory writ of , mandate issue under seal of this Court. THEREFORE you are commanded, upon receipt of this Writ: 1) To rescind 'and set aside 'your Resolution No. 11-11 certifying the Revised Final Program Environmental Impact Report for the Bay Area to Centr~l Valley High-' Speed Train Project, approving the Pacheco Pass Network Alternative Serving San Francisco via San Jose and approving preferred alignment alternatives and station location options. !his resolution is remanded to Respondent for reconsideration after completing compliance with this writ -••• _ ....... _ ............... , ...... _ ................... -.............. -......... _ •. -......... , ...... , ...................... """"""''' __ ''_r •• ' , •.• ____ ._ ....... _ ••.•.•.•. ___ •• _ .• _ •. "., .•••• __ .... ~_ .... , 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) To rescind and set aside your Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") in support of the aforesaid resolution No. 11-11. These findings and statement of overriding considerations are remanded to Respondent for reconsideration after completing compliance with this writ; and . . 3) To further revise the Program Envirorunental'Impact Report (PEIR) for the Bay ~ea < • to Central Valley High-Speeg Train Project in accordance with CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines, ·and the Final Judgment entered in this case prior to reconsidering certification of that PErRo Under Public Resources Code §21168.9(c), this Court does not direct Respondent to. exercise its lawful discretion in any particular way, YOU ARE FURTHER commanded to make and file a return within 60 days after issuance of the writ, setting fOlth what you have done to comply with the writ, Dated: FEB 1 -2012 tEfJ N L> 'B .30tJES Clerk of the Superior Court ~ . .... . S. LEE \ bep~ tU3R~ Approved: Dated Ij ~ ;'1.. .. ' ';'; '!. ~J:~ a~Aitchison Deputy Attorney General FINAL JUDGMENT, PAGE 2 ..... ~ ~ .. -. '" ... '" .... ," . . ...... , . .. _ .... '" ................ _ ...................... " ............ "",,,. " .. 1 I I • AMENDED MARCH 27, 2012 PUBLIC COMMENT CALIFORNIA HIGH~SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY MONTHLY MEETING AGENDA Thursday April 12,2012 San Francisco, CA, location TBA An opportunity for public comment will be provided either before or during the consideration of each agenda item. Those persons, who wish to comment on agenda and non-agenda items, are required to submit their requests to Board Secretary before the start of the meeting by filling in the green cards. Typically public comment will be limited to 90 seconds per person, however the Chair may decide to shorten or lengthen the public comment periods, at his or her discretion. Agenda ACTION Items 1. Approval of Meeting Minutes from March Meeting 2. Review and Approval of Revised 2012 Business Plan Staff will request approval 01 revised 2012 business plan 3. Approval of Southern California Memorandum of Understanding (as amended). StoffwHl request board approval for the existing Southern CA MOU. 4. Approval of MTC Memorandum of Understanding Staff witl request board approval for the MTC MOU 5. Approval of Amendment to Regional Consultant Contracts Stoff will request board approval for the amendment of the existing Regional Consultants' contracts. 6. Approval of Amendment to KPMG Contract Staff will request board approval for the amendment of the existing KPMG contract. 7. Approval of Amendment to Nossaman Contract Staff will request board approval for the amendment of the existing Nossomon contract. 8. Approval of Amendment to PMO Contract Stoff will request board approval for the amendment oj the existing PMO contract. Reseonsible Part~ Board Members T. Fellenz I J. Morales G. Albright G, Albright H. Van Winkle / S. Pourvahidi S. Pourvahidi I K. Ramey T.Fellenz M. Ashley / W. Vongjesda 9. Consideration of a Resolution to Rescind Resolution HSRA # 11-11 Certifying 2010 Bay T, Fellenz Area to Central Valley Revised Final Program EIR, Selecting Pacheco Pass Network Alternative, and Making Related Decisions The board will discuss and consider taking action on 0 resolution to rescind its approvals and certification 01 the 2010 Revised Final Program Environmental Imp oct Report, in compliance with the judicial decision. 770 L Street, Suite 800, Sacramento, CA 958141 (916) 324-1541, (916) 322·0827 fax For further information you may visit the California High-Speed Rail Authority Web site at www.cahighspccdnliLca.gov Status A A A A A A A A A 10. Review and Approve the Revised SB/DBE Program 11. Review and Approve the formation of the Business Advisory,Cguncil Agenda INFORMATION Items 12. RFP -Enforcement of Small Business Program 13. Update on Title VI Questions posed at last Board Meeting Sraffwill provide on update on the questions related to enforcement and Title VI Program Plan. 14. Members' Report 15. Chief Executive Officer~t Report 16. Closed Session Pertaining to Litigation The Authority Board will meet in closed session pursuant to Government Code section 11126(e)(2)(A) to confer with legal counsel with regard to the fof/owing fitigation: • Town of Atherton v. California High-Speed Rail Authority, Sacramento Superior Court No. 34-2008-80000022 • Town of Atherton v. California High-Speed Rail Authority, Sacramento Superior Court No. 34-2010-80000679 • John Tos; Aaron Fukada and County of Kings v. California High Speed Rail Authority, Sacramento Superior Court Case No. ,34-2001-00113919 The Authority may also meet in closed session pursuant to:Gol(ernment Code section 1 1126(e)(2)(B) (i) to consider potentia/litigation. • Consultant Claim P. Pal;lilla / T. Fellenz P. Padilla /T. Fellenz P. Padilla/ T. Fellenz P. Padilla I T. Fellenz Board Members T. Fellenz Legal Counsel 17. Closed session related to employment of a Chief Executive Officer D. Richard/Board Members The Authority Board will meet in closed session pursuanr to Government Code section 11126(0) to discuss the employment of 0 new Chie/Executive Officer NAn denot~s on "Action» it~m; "/" denotes an ·(nformation" item -Items may be taken out of order Reasonable AcC!~mmodatlon for Any Individual with a Disability A A Any individual with a disability who requIres reasonable accommodation to attend or participate may request assistance by contactIng the Authority at ~916) 324- 1541. Requests for additional accommodatlons for the disabled, signers, assistlve listening devices, or translators should be made no later than one week prior to the meeting. 77,0 L Street, Suite 800, SIlCrilmento. CA 958141 (916) 324-1541. (916) 322-0827Jllx For further information you may visit the Callrornia High-Speed Rail Authority Web site at www.c:lhighspeedrail.cn.gov .