Laserfiche WebLink
1 <br /> <br />2 <br /> <br />4 <br /> <br />v <br /> <br />8 <br /> <br /> I0 <br /> <br /> II <br /> <br /> 12 <br /> <br /> 13 <br /> <br /> 14 <br /> <br /> 16 <br /> <br /> 17 <br /> <br /> 18 <br /> <br />19 <br /> <br />20 <br /> <br />21 <br /> <br />22 <br /> <br />23 <br /> <br />24 <br /> <br />25 <br /> <br />26 <br /> <br />27 <br /> <br />28 <br /> <br />IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF TttE STATE OF CALIFORNIA <br /> <br /> IN AND FOR TIlE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA <br /> <br />CITY OF PLEASANTON, a municipal ) <br />corporation and general law city, ) <br /> ) <br /> Plaintiff, ) <br /> ) <br /> vs. ) <br /> ) <br />CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, ) <br />a municipal corporation, ) <br /> ) <br /> Defendant. ) <br /> ) <br /> <br /> A. <br /> <br />NO. 367464 <br /> <br />NO. 385598 <br /> <br />MODIFIED INTERLOCUTORY <br />JUDGMENT IN CONDE?~IAT!ON <br /> <br />The above-entitled actions were consolidated for trial and <br /> <br />judgment and upon submission of written stipulation for judgment tc <br />the court an Interlocutory Judgment in Condemnation was entered on <br />November 5, 1969 bv Judge Lyle E. Cook of the Superior Court of <br />Alameda County as set forth in Exhibit "A" ("1969 Interlocutory <br />Judgment"). <br /> <br /> B. By Decision No. 93160, 0.I.I. No. 83, the City of Pleasanton <br />("Pleasanton") obtained aoproval of the Public Utilities <br />Commission of the State of California ("CPUC") for a grade <br />separation in the same general vicinity as ori%inally contemplated <br />by the 1969 Interlocutory Judgment, but with minor variation <br />as to location and quantities of land required. The grade <br /> <br /> <br />