Laserfiche WebLink
1 <br /> 2 <br /> 3 <br /> 4 <br /> 5 <br /> 6 <br /> 7 <br /> 8 <br /> 9 <br /> 10 <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 /> <br /> 31 <br /> 32 <br /> 33 <br /> 34 <br /> 35 <br /> <br />~en Dulk, Douglass <br />& Anderson <br /> <br /> preliminary inj_.nction enjoining the enforcement of the ordinance <br /> against Lone Star was granted on May 27, 1982, such preliminary <br /> injunction still being in force and effect. <br /> <br /> The City contends that Ordinance No. 954'is fully <br />enforceable against all three companies because each of the <br />companies has an available alternate route for the transport of <br />its quarry products. Each of the companies contendsthat it does <br />not have an available alternate route for the transport of all <br />of its quarry products, and that therefore the ordinance is not <br />enforceable against it. <br /> <br /> Kaiser and Rhodes-Jamieson each has a route other than <br />the Stanley Boulevard Route that each uses for northbound, east- <br />bound and westbound deliveries of its quarry proddcts. These are <br />routes that connect the Kaiser and Rhodes-Jamieson properties to <br />the access road to Highway 1-580. The Kaiser and Rhodes-Jamieson <br />E1 Charro routes are hereinafter described and defined. Kaiser <br />and Rhodes-Jamieson presently use the Stanley Boulevard Route for <br />southbound deliveries, each having a private at-grade railroad <br />crossing which provide access to Stanley Boulevard from their <br />respective quarry properties. <br /> <br />Lone Star presently uses the Stanley Boulevard. Route for <br />all transport of its quarry products other than eastbound deliveries. <br /> <br /> The City for many years has sought to terminate the use <br />of the Stanley Boulevard Route by the trucks that transport Kaiser, <br />Rhodes-Jamieson and Lone Star quarry products, contending that the <br />public health, safety and general welfare require the discontinu- <br />ance of such route for such purpose. The companies, on the other <br />hand, have sought the continued use of said route contending that <br />each would suffer severe financial hardship (with Lone Star <br />contending also that its Pleasanton operation would be forced out <br />of business) if the trucks that transport their quarry products <br />were required to summarily discontinue its use. Although none of <br />the parties admit or concede that the contentions of the other <br />parhies are correct, they all recognize ~hat there may be validity <br />to each of such contentic>ns af~d that the outeome of a trial on <br /> <br />these issues is uncertain. Accordingly, the parties have attempted <br /> -4- <br /> <br /> <br />