Laserfiche WebLink
] <br /> <br /> 2 <br /> <br /> 3 <br /> <br /> 4 <br /> <br /> 5 <br /> <br /> 6 <br /> <br /> 7 <br /> <br /> 8 <br /> <br /> 9 <br /> <br />10 <br /> <br /> 11 <br /> 12 <br /> 13 <br /> 14 <br /> 15 <br /> 16 <br /> 17 <br /> 18 <br /> 19 <br /> 20 <br /> 21 <br /> 22 <br /> 23 <br /> 24 <br /> 25 <br /> 26 <br /> 27 <br /> 28 <br /> 29 <br /> 30 <br /> 31 <br /> 32 <br /> 33 <br /> 34 <br /> 35 <br /> <br />Hen Bulk. Bou~Jlass <br />g Anderson <br /> <br />TEL. (41 BI 224,7400 <br /> <br /> (c) No ordinance which is adopted pursuant to <br /> this section after the effective date of the <br /> amendments to this section enacted at the 1969 <br /> Regular Session shall apply to any state highway <br /> which is included in the national system of <br /> interstate and defense highways, except an <br /> ordinance which has been approved by the <br /> California Highway Commission by a four-fifths <br /> vote." <br /> <br />The noticed public hearing prior to adoption of such ordinance as <br />provided for in Section 35705 of the Vehicle Code was duly and <br />regularly noticed and held. <br /> <br /> Also prior to the adoption of the ordinance, the City <br />prepared an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) as ~equired by the <br />California Environmental Quality Act of the State of California <br />(Public Resources Code, Section 21000, et seq.). The final EIR <br />was approved by the City Council on December 22, 1980. <br /> <br /> Lone Star filed a suit in federal court to have Ordinance <br />No. 954 declared invalid and unenforceable against it. Lone Star <br />Industries, Inc., Plaintiff, v. City of Pleasanton, et al., <br />Defendants, United States District Court, Northern District of <br />California, No. C 81 0508 %~S, filed January 28, 1981. In the <br />federal court action Lone Star's motion for preliminary injunction <br />was denied by order dated August 17, 1981, provided the City post- <br />poned the enforcement of the ordinance against Lone Star to May <br />26, 1982. The City consented to such postponement and the order <br />was entered on August 18, 1981. The federal court's order also <br />dismissed without prejudice the federal court action. <br /> <br /> Kaiser and Rhodes-Jamieson filed action No. H-73942-9 <br />in this court on February 17, 1981, challenging the validity of <br />Ordinance No. 954 as applied to them. A preliminary injunction <br />enjoining the enforcement of the ordinance against Kaiser and <br />Rhodes-Jamieson was granted on September 30, 1981, and such <br />preliminary injunction is still in force and effect. <br /> <br /> Lone Star filed action No. H-82319-1 in this Court on <br />A[~rjt 1, 1982, chal]onc~i~lg the validity of Ordinance No. 954 as <br />applied to it. Said action was consolidated with action No. <br />H-73942-9 by order dated on or about April 27, 1982, and a <br /> <br /> -3- <br /> <br /> <br />