WORtrH ll D.AM, et al.
Plalntiff
vE”
CITY OF MARfINEZ, et aI
Defendant (g)
Caee No. N08-L644
nNREPgRTEp MrNrrrE oFpER
DECISION
A.
PROCEDURAL OBJECTTON
RESPONDENTS’ OBJECTION TO PETITIONERS’
PROCEEDINGU NDERC Ctr S 1094.5 TS SUSTATNED.
Ag PETITIONERS CONCEDEDA T HEARING TI{E PROPER
SECTION UNDER WHICH THEY SHOUI,DB E PROCEEDTNGT S
ccP s 108s.
ACCORDINGLY, THtr COURT IS TREA,TING THIS EX PARTE
PROCEEDTNG AS A RHQUEST FOR A TEMPOF.A,R,Y
RESTR.A,INING ORDER/ rNJlrNCTr ON .
E.
EVIDENTIARY OBJECTION
RESPONDENTSH AVE OBJECTEDT O THE COURT
CONSTDERING THE REPORT OF I,AUREL COLIJINS AS IT
IS EXTRA RECORD EVIDENCE AND CONSIDERATTON OF
SAME IS PROHIBITED.
2.
INIEB|2E88 ].E:1E 925957591 B DEPT 2
PAGE D3/86
EXTRA.RECORD EVIDENflE CA]'[ BE CONSIDERED IF ‘fT
WAS NOT FOSSIBLE IN THE EI(ERCISE OF’ RE.?\SONABLE
DTI,IGENCE TO FRESENT THIS EVIDENEE TO THE AGENCY
BEFORE THE DECISTON WAB MADE SO TI{JI’T TT COULD BE
CONSIDERED ” WBSTERN STATEF FETROLEUM ASSN.
v supERroRc. ouRT (1995) I CAr,. 4rH 559, 578.
a. THE RECORDB EFORET HE COURTI NDICATES
FETITIONERS DID NOT H.A,\/EA CCESS TO MR.
GREGORYS’ REPORTS UNTII T}IE I{EARING ON
ocToEER 1, 2008.
HOWEVER, THE REPORT EITY STAFF PREPARED
FOR THE COUNCII-.D, ISCUS,SEDM R. GREGORY’S
FINDINGS AND STAFF’S RECOMMENDATICTINO
HAVE THE CITY “IMPTJEMENT EI,IERGENCY
STABIL]ZATION MEASURES,” SEE GRAFF
DECIJARATION, EXHTBIT 5.
STAFF’S REPORT IS DATED SEPTHMBER 25 AND
WAS AVAII.ASIJE TO THE PUBT.,IC BEFORE THE
d.
ocToBER 1, 2oo8 HEARTNG.
PETITIONERS WERE ABLE TO
CO],LINS’ REPORT ON SHORT
CUR.RENTI{ EARING.
PETITIONERS TIAVE FAIIJED
SIMIITAR REFORT COUTTDN OT
OBTAIN MS.
NOTICE FOR THE
TO ESTAE]-,ISH /I
“IN THE EXERCISE
A
1B/08/ZEEB L6:lE 325957591B DEPT 2
OF REASONABIJE DTLTGENCE,, HAVE BEE}il
PREPARED AND SUBMITTED TO THE COIINCTIJ FOR
THE HEARING ON OCTOBER 1, 2008.
3 . ACCORDINGLY, RESPONDENTS’ OBJEETION TO THE COURT
CONSIDERING THE REFORT IS SUSTAINED AND
PETTTIONER$’ ARGUMENT BASED ON THE COLLTNS
REFORT IS $TRICKEN.
C. INLTUNCTIVE RELIEF
]-. “IN DECTDING IVHETHER TO ISSUE .A, PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTTON, (ONCE IRREPARABLE I{ARM FIAS BEEN
ESTABL,ISHED), A COURT, MUST WEIGH TWO
INTERREI,ATED FACTORS: (1) THE I.ITKELTHOOD TIIAT
THE MOVING PARTY WIIJL TJJ’TIMATELY PREVAIL ON TFIE
MERITS AND (2) THE REIJATIVE IMIHRIM HARIVI TO THE
FARTIES FROM IS$UAI{CE OR NOI,I-ISSUANCE OF Ti{E
INJIINC?ION”. BUTT v gTATE q.F- CATJTFOR:\II4 (1-p92)
4 CAIr. 4rts 668 .
2. AS TI{E CTTY ARGUED, QF PRIMARY CONCERN IN TT{IS
CASE IS TI{E HARM THAT WIIJIJ ENSUE NOT ONIJY TO THE
AFFECTED PROpERTY O$iltfERS, BUT TO THE FUBI,IC AT
LARGE IF AN TNTTUNCTION IS NOt ISSUED VERSUE TI{E
HARM THE BEAVER HABTTAT WILL SUFF’ER.
3. THE COLIRT IS VERY SENSITIVE TO T}TE SUPPORT THE
BEAVERS HAVE FROM THE IJOCAII COI{MUNITY, THE
PAGE 84166
t4lSEt2g7g 1″6: LE 928957E91 8 DEPT 2 PAGE E1T86
M”d
UNTQUENESS OF HAVING A BEAVER COIJONY IN WHA,T IS
ESSENTIATJLY AN URBAI{ AREA ASID fHE AFPE.AL SUCH A
PI{ENOMENON HAS TO TI1E FUBLIC AT IJARGE. HOWEVER,
THE RECORD BEFORE ?FIE COTIRT INDICATES TI{ERE WAS
SUBSTA}{TTAL EVIDENCE BEFORE THE CTTY
EBTA-BLISHING THERE HAS BEEN SIGNIFICANT CHANGE
AIJONG THE EAST BANK OF’ AI.,HAMBRA CREEK TN THE
AREA OF Ti{E BEAVER }IABITAT REQUIRING IMMEDTATE
AEATEMEMT. FURTI{ERMORE, TI{E REMEDIAL MEAEURES
SE].,ECTED BY THE EITY-THE TNSTAI,I-,AT1ON OF SI.IEET
FILES-]S THE “AI.TERNATIVE LEA,ST IJIKELY TO INJURE
THE SURROU}TDTNG EREEK Eil’VIRONMENT AND, TN
PARTICUI.,AR, THE BEAVERS.
4, ACCORDINGLYI REQUHST FOR INJUNCTIVE REITTEF IS
DENTED.
Lil.}.
SUPERTOR COIJRT
From our attorney:
