(Cal. Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (c).) Likewise, the transcript of the State of the Union Address is “not reasonably subject to dispute and [is] capable of immediate and accurate determination by resort to sources of reasonably indisputable accuracy.” (Cal. Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (h).) The District obtained the transcript of the address from the 10 official White House website and it is available at http://www.whitehouse.

California Evidence Code § 452(d) authorizes a court to take judicial notice of “[r]ecords of (1) any court of this state or (2) any court of record of the United States or of any state of the United States.” Under Section 452(d), courts regularly take judicial notice ofjudicial records. People v. Maxwell, 78 Cal. App. 3d 124, 130 (1978).

California Evidence Code § 452(d) authorizes a court to take judicial notice of “[r]ecords of (1) any court of this state or (2) any court of record of the United States or of any state of the United States.” Under Section 452(d), courts regularly take judicial notice ofjudicial records. People v. Maxwell, 78 Cal. App. 3d 124, 130 (1978).

) This Court routinely takes judicial notice of documents published on government websites. In People v. Seumanu (2015) 61 Cal.4th 1293. 1372- 1373 [192 Cal.Rptr.3d 195,355 P.3d 384], this Court cited Evidence Code section 452, subdivision (h) when taking judicial notice of documents on “sites maintained by California’s Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and the Office of the Attorney General.” This is consistent with the Court’s reliance, in other contexts, on materials presented on government websites.

gov/Divisions/Planning-and-Research/CEQA- GUIDELINES.aspx. Judicial notice of this document is appropriate under Evidence Code Section 452, subdivision (c) and (h) becauseit constitutes an official act of a public agency and is not reasonably subject to dispute. CBIArespectfully requests this Court grant judicial notice of Exhibits H through L. Dated: May 28, 2014 Respectfully submitted, Cox, Castle Nicholson LLP Attorneys for Plaintiffjand Respondent CaliforniajBuilding Industry Association nA\)\\ { EXHIBIT H EXHIBIT H GOVERNORS OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH General Plan Guidelines Ss. [ATE OF CALIFORNIA State of California Gray Davis, Governor Governor’s Office of Planning and Research Tal Finney, Interim Director 1400 Tenth Street Sacramento, CA 95814 916-322-2318 State Clearinghouse Director: Terry Roberts Lead Editor: Brian Grattidge Assistant Editor: Anya Lawler October 2003 Please feel free to reproduce all or part of this document.

Exhibit EE consists of a document fromthe legislative history file for SB 1453, which created Public Resources Code section 21096. This documentis relevant because it demonstrates that the League of California Cities previously interpreted CEQAdifferently than it does now. Exhibit EEis subjectto judicial notice pursuant to Evidence Code section 452(h). Courts have held that letters from bill sponsors or supporters not communicated to the Legislature as a whole are not subject to judicial notice as legislative history. Quintano v. Mercury Casualty Co. (1995) 11 Cal.4th 1049, 1062 fn. 5.

These may be noticed pursuant to Evidence Code section 452(c). Further, the Court should take notice of Exhibits H, I and J, which evidencelegislation, and may be noticed pursuant to Evidence Code sections 452(c) and (h). (See also Elsner v. Uveges (2004) 34 Cal.4th 915, 929 [legislative history appropriate for judicial notice].)

take judicial notice of facts falling within the ambit of Evidence Code section 452 because Evidence Codesection 453 provides: The trial court shall take judicial notice of any matter specified in Section 452 if a party requests it and: (a) Gives each adverse party sufficient notice of the request, through the pleadings or otherwise, to enable such adverse party to prepare to meet the request; and (b) Furnishes the court with sufficient information to enableit to take judicial notice of the matter. ... This motion and these documents provide Association and this Court with more than sufficient notice, in that the hearing on the Petition for Review is not yet scheduled, and Association has the opportunity to deal with these issues in its Reply Brief. Evidence Code section 459 provides that a reviewing court “shall” take judicial notice of any matter which may bejudicially noticed under Evidence Code section 452. Here, as shown above, the documents mayall be noticed under Evidence Code section 452. V. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, the City of Los Angeles respectfully requests the Supreme Court take judicial notice of the above listed documents. DATED: December12, 2011 Respectfully submitted, CARMENA.

Appendix D is an excerpt from the municipal code ofthe City of San Jose, and therefore is a proper subject for judicial notice under California Evidence Codesection 452, subd.(c). Appendix is a publication of the Federal Reserve (which is within the United States federal government’s executive branch), and states information that is of a sufficiently general knowledge that it cannot be subject to challenge, and is therefore a proper subject for judicial notice under Evidence Code § 452, subd. (c) and (g). . | Appendix H is a publication of the United States Census Bureau (which is within the United States federal government’s executive branch), and states information that is not reasonably subject to dispute and whichis capable of immediate and accurate determination by resort to sources of reasonably indisputable accuracy.It is therefore a proper subject for judicial notice under Evidence Code § 452, subd. (c) and (h). Based on the foregoing reasons and authorities, Petitioners respectfully request that the Court grant their Motion for Judicial Notice.

(Evid. Code § 452(h).) A copyof this speech can be viewed and downloaded from a websitethatit is maintained by Stanford University where Chairman Gouldis the Charles A. Beardsley Professor of Law, emeritus.? This speechis relevantto this appeal becauseit discusses the purpose and effect of the MMCstatute on collective bargaining in California, and it was given by Chairman Gould whois the head officer of the Respondentagencyin this matter.