1

7
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
8
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
9
TOWN OF ATHERTON, a Municipal
10 Corporation, PLANNING AND No. 34-2008-80000022
CONSERVATION LEAGUE, a California
11 nonprofit corporation, CITY OF MENLO PARK,
12 a Municipal Corporation, TRANSPORTATION
[proposed] FINAL JUDGMENT
SOLUTIONS DEFENSE AND EDUCATION
13 FUND, a California nonprofit corporation,
CALIFORNIA RAIL FOUNDATION, a
14 California nonprofit corporation, and BAYRAIL
ALLIANCE, a California nonprofit corporation,
15 and other similarly situated entities,
Petitioners and Plaintiffs
16 v.
17 CALIFORNIA HIGH SPEED RAIL
AUTHORITY, a public entity, and DOES 1-20,
18 Respondents and Defendants
19
This action came on regularly for hearing on May 29, 2009 in Department 31 of the
20
Superior Court, the Honorable Michael P. Kenny presiding. Petitioners and Plaintiffs TOWN
21
OF ATHERTON, PLANNING AND CONSERVATION LEAGUE, CITY OF MENLO PARK,
22
TRANSPORTATION SOLUTIONS DEFENSE AND EDUCATION FUND, CALIFORNIA
23
RAIL FOUNDATION, and BAYRAIL ALLIANCE appeared by counsel Stuart Flashman.
24
Respondent and Defendant CALIFORNIA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY appeared by
25
Deputy Attorneys General Danae Aitcheson and George Spanos. The Court having considered
26
the papers submitted by the parties, the administrative record, which was admitted into evidence
27

28
FINAL JUDGMENT, PAGE 1
29

30
 1 at the hearing, and the arguments of the parties at hearing, issued its Ruling on Submitted Matter

2 on August 26, 2009.

3 Pursuant to the Court’s Ruling on Submitted Matter and based upon the pleadings,

4 evidence and argument submitted in this case, it is ordered, adjudged and decreed as follows:

5 1. On the First Cause of Action, Petitioners and Plaintiffs TOWN OF ATHERTON,

6 PLANNING AND CONSERVATION LEAGUE, CITY OF MENLO PARK,

7 TRANSPORTATION SOLUTIONS DEFENSE AND EDUCATION FUND, CALIFORNIA

8 RAIL FOUNDATION, and BAYRAIL ALLIANCE shall have judgment against Respondent

9 and Defendant CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY. A Peremptory Writ of

10 Mandate shall issue under seal of the Court, ordering Respondent and Defendant CALIFORNIA

11 HIGH-SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY to rescind and set aside its determinations to certify the

12 Final Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Study (“EIR/EIS”) for the Bay Area

13 to Central Valley High-Speed Rail Project, and to approve said Project. Respondent and

14 Defendant CALIFORNIA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY shall file a written return to said

15 writ demonstrating its compliance on or before the seventieth day following service of the writ

16 upon the Respondent.

17 2. On the Second Cause of Action, Petitioners and Plaintiffs TOWN OF

18 ATHERTON, PLANNING AND CONSERVATION LEAGUE, CITY OF MENLO PARK,

19 TRANSPORTATION SOLUTIONS DEFENSE AND EDUCATION FUND, CALIFORNIA

20 RAIL FOUNDATION, and BAYRAIL ALLIANCE shall have judgment against Respondent

21 and Defendant CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY. A Peremptory Writ of

22 Mandate shall issue under seal of the Court, ordering Respondent and Defendant CALIFORNIA

23 HIGH-SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY to rescind and set aside its determinations to certify the

24 Final Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Study (“EIR/EIS”) for the Bay Area

25 to Central Valley High-Speed Rail Project, and to approve said Project. Respondent and

26 Defendant CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY shall file a written return to said

27 writ demonstrating its compliance on or before the seventieth day following service of the writ

28 upon Respondent.
FINAL JUDGMENT, PAGE 2
29

30
 1 3. On the Third Cause of Action, Petitioners and Plaintiffs TOWN OF ATHERTON,

2 PLANNING AND CONSERVATION LEAGUE, CITY OF MENLO PARK,

3 TRANSPORTATION SOLUTIONS DEFENSE AND EDUCATION FUND, CALIFORNIA

4 RAIL FOUNDATION, and BAYRAIL ALLIANCE shall have judgment against Respondent

5 and Defendant CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY. A Peremptory Writ of

6 Mandate shall issue under seal of the Court, ordering Respondent and Defendant CALIFORNIA

7 HIGH-SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY to rescind and set aside its determination to approve the

8 Environmental Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Bay Area to Central

9 Valley High-Speed Train Project. Respondent and Defendant CALIFORNIA HIGH SPEED

10 RAIL AUTHORITY shall file a written return to said writ demonstrating its compliance on or

11 before the seventieth day following service of the writ upon Respondent.

12 4. On the Fourth Cause of Action, Petitioners and Plaintiffs TOWN OF

13 ATHERTON, PLANNING AND CONSERVATION LEAGUE, CITY OF MENLO PARK,

14 TRANSPORTATION SOLUTIONS DEFENSE AND EDUCATION FUND, CALIFORNIA

15 RAIL FOUNDATION, and BAYRAIL ALLIANCE shall have judgment against Respondent

16 and Defendant CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY. The Court hereby declares

17 that:

18 a) The project approval for the Bay Area to Central Valley High-Speed Train Project

19 failed to comply with the requirements of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines;

20 b) The Final EIR/EIS for said project failed to comply with the requirements of

21 CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines;

22 c) The environmental findings issued by Respondent in support of its approval of

23 said Project failed to comply with the requirements of CEQA and the CEQA

24 Guidelines.

25 The details of Respondent’s lack of compliance are laid out in the Court’s Ruling on Submitted

26 Matter, a copy of which is attached to this Judgment as Exhibit A and is incorporated herein by

27 this reference. The writ of mandate that shall issue pursuant to this writ shall require that the

28
FINAL JUDGMENT, PAGE 3
29

30
 1 defects identified in the Court’s Ruling on Submitted Matter shall be corrected prior to

2 Respondent’s reconsideration of certification of the EIR/EIS and approval of the Project.

3 5. TOWN OF ATHERTON, PLANNING AND CONSERVATION LEAGUE,

4 CITY OF MENLO PARK, TRANSPORTATION SOLUTIONS DEFENSE AND EDUCATION

5 FUND, CALIFORNIA RAIL FOUNDATION, and BAYRAIL ALLIANCE, as the prevailing

6 parties, shall recover their costs of suit against Respondent and Defendant CALIFORNIA HIGH-

7 SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY in the amount of $_____________.

8 6. The right of Petitioners and Plaintiffs TOWN OF ATHERTON, PLANNING

9 AND CONSERVATION LEAGUE, CITY OF MENLO PARK, TRANSPORTATION

10 SOLUTIONS DEFENSE AND EDUCATION FUND, CALIFORNIA RAIL FOUNDATION,

11 and BAYRAIL ALLIANCE to recover their attorneys’ fees from Respondent and Defendant

12 CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY under Code of Civil 1021.5 is hereby

13 reserved for later determination in accordance with California Rule of Court 3.1702.

14 IT IS SO ORDERED.

15 Date:______________________

16 ______________________________
Michael P. Kenny
17 Judge of the Superior Court
18
APPROVED
19
Date:______________________
20
Edmund G. Brown, Jr.
21 Attorney General of California
Daniel L. Siegel
22 Supervising Deputy Attorney General
Christine Sproul
23 George Spanos
Danae Aitcheson
24 Deputy Attorneys General
Attorneys for Respondent and Defendant
25 CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED RAIL
AUTHORITY
26

27 By: ___________________________
28
FINAL JUDGMENT, PAGE 4
29

30