Crestline Soaring Society

What does the Bond cover. Damage to DIRT..... I thought USHPA covered us for this kind of thing?

Mark

Elsinore got pretty good coverage in the local press.

http://www.pe.com/localnews/inland/stories/PE_News_Local_C_glide24.385c9ef.html

Alan

I have a wacky, but semi-serious idea. Why don't we try to get it zoned as a graveyard and then we all pre-buy plots there. We all agree to get those flat markers instead of the vertical grave stones. I would spend up to $600 to get a plot there. Pilots from all around would be dying to get in there.

I guess that my comment struck a negative chord on a fellow pilot, so I wanted to clarify: I see the potential loss of the Elsinore LZ as a serious matter and I appreciate the help that many are doing to preserve it. It just seems to me that the fight to save that LZ is so tough that alternate measures might need to be taken. Other flying sites have used graveyards as an LZ, notably Telluride. Sometimes you gotta use anything that you can get.

EHGA has not posted a BOND consequently no use of the OAK TREE LZ is allowed. Hopefully this issue will be resolved in the near future, END>

Below listed one of the many documents submitted in the lawsuit. It is my understanding when the below listed order was Granted the Judge must believe the requesting party (EHGA) has a probability of winning the case. My understanding is based on the Judge stating that before Granting the Motion this past Friday in the court room during the hearing.

MOTION FOR ORDER FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER IS GRANTED.

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION TO ISSUE. ALL ORDERS TO REMAIN AS PREVIOUSLY ORDERED. RESTRAINING ORDER TO REMAIN IN EFFECT. BOND ORDERED IN THE AMOUNT OF $250,000.00 IS TO BE POSTED. PETITIONERS DOCUMENTS ARE DUE BY MARCH 16, 2007. DEFENDANTS DOCUMENTS ARE DUE BY MARCH 9, 2007. HEARING RE TO DETERMINE ALL CONDITIONS OF USE SET 03/23/07 AT 08:30 DEPT 01

TO THE COURT, ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEY OF RECORD:
Plaintiff, ELSINORE HANG GLIDING ASSOCIATION (EHGA), submits this Reply to Defendants Opposition to Motion an Order for Protective Order ( Preliminary Injunction).
It is readily apparent that the Defendants are attempting to advance the trial date precluding Plaintiffs to a trial. The defendant also appears to be attempting to relitigate the:
1. Lawsuit that produced the subject Settlement Agreement
2. Their failed Motion for Summary Judgment.
The Plaintiff has met it’s burden in establishing good cause for the issuance of a preliminary injunction to maintain the status quo until the trial in this case. Balancing the equities, it is requested that court issue a protective order- preliminary injunction There should be no need of any bond given the length of time that the conflicts have existed the presence of liability insurance and the willingness of the EHGA to sign indemnity agreements related to hang gliding activities as well as the California Recreational Use Statute, Civil Code § 846 adequately protects the defendants as landowners of property used for recreational purposes When the defendants purchased the property in February 1998, Defendants admit that the defendants were aware of the hang gliders claim of easement and litigation over the landing zone (“LZ”). In the subject Settlement Agreement the hang gliders exchange their claim of a 56 acre easement for the 10 acre parcel. The EHGA has never relinquished it’s claim of the subject prooerty for use as a LZ.
The Defendants asset that “Perhaps most importantly the intent of the parties was to accommodate the recording of the flood control basin easement...first, followed by the recordation of the tract map, then the granting of the hang gliding easement. ...” ( Defendant’s Opposition page 5 lines 18-22) Plaintiff strongly disagrees with this assertion. But this is not supported by the Defendants actions. What did occur was Defendant’s FIRST recording the Tract Map for tracts 22626 and 22626-1- in a scheme, a wrongful attempt, to try to assert a vested right in the subject property and attempt to short circuit the subject settlement agreement. So much for the intent of the parties.
Public records (certified copies of which previously submitted as trial documents to the Court) establish that Tract 22626 located in the city of Lake Elsinore, County of Riverside, State of California was recorded in Book 354, pages 91-95 of Miscellaneous Maps in the Recorders office for the County of Riverside and Tract 22626-1 located in the city of Lake Elsinore, County of Riverside, State of California was recorded in Book 354, pages 41-46 of Miscellaneous Maps in the Recorders office for the County of Riverside, Assessors Parcel Numbers 386-120-028-6 and 386-120-029-7.

I
THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT APPROVAL OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY/FLOOD CONTROL IS IMPOSSIBLE OR OF ANY IMPOSSIBILITY.
The defense position as to impossibility is also directly contradicted by the evidence, including evidence submitted by the Defendants. John Snell admits in his declaration that there are two options to a workable symbiosis between the parties and Flood Control, thus precluding a finding of impossibility. Impossibility is also precluded by the deposition testimony of Mr. Williams has been a professional engineer and employee of Flood Control District since 1975 Mr. Williams and Flood have never told anyone including Mr. Chen, Mr. Snell or anyone affiliated with the Elsinore Hang Gliding Association that it was impossible for an accommodation to be made for the Hang Gliders for a Landing Zone in the subject parcels ( Tracts 22626 and 22626-1) (deposition of Warren D Williams page 10 lines 19-25, page 11 lines 1-3). Based upon this testimony there is no impossibility of a workable plan, format, location, design or evidence that prevents Flood’s approval or the defendants from issuing the subject easement.
The contract language as to the obligation of the Defendants to convey (and othgerwise acknowledge) the LZ easement is clear and unambiguous. There is NO MANDATE THAT THE LZ AND DEBRIS BASIN BE ON THE SAME PROPERTY.
Paragraph 12 OF THE Settlement Agreement states:“CKS Concordia Development LLC or it’s successor in interest SHALL CONVEY A NON EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT TO ELSINORE HANG GLIDING ASSOCIATION of the area described in paragraph 6, above. Any future easements conveyed or uses by CKS Concordia Development LLC of the area bounded by the hang gliding nonexclusive easement shall be compatible with the hang gliding nonexclusive easement.”(emphasis added)

The clear reading of all contractual terms fails to reveal any intent that there was any condition precedent to the granting of the LZ easement by Defendant. Any attempt to make such an assertion is directly refuted by the contract language- which presumably establishes the intent of the parties. The defendant owners, CKS Concordia Development (and Kang Shen Chen’s and Western International Development, Inc.) have refused to comply with this contractual parameter.
Pursuant to Paragraph 13, the easement format (but not the conveyance of the easement, itself) and location are subject to Approval of the County of Riverside and Riverside Flood Control District so as to not invalidate the tentative Tract Map 22626. As indicated above two tract maps for 22626 have been approved after the execution of the Settlement Agreement.. The Hang gliding easement is recognized in this approved plan.
Both Mr Williams and Mr Snell have provided evidence that there is a workable plan available.
Mr Snell states that he has prepared and submitted to Flood a plan for segregation of the property to allow for Defendant’s development, the hang gliders LZ and Flood Control’s concern. Being segregated there is no need for Flood Approval nor their input whatsoever. (Declaration of John Snell in opposition to the current Motion page 8 lines 16-51, page 9 lines 1-17, paragraphs 48 - 55)
Mr. Williams testified that the subject proposed grading plan ( identified in the deposition of Warren D. Williams as Exhibit 3) showed a collection facility to collect storm waters that would be tributary to the area downstream and rout them to the easterly side. This plan on page 2 recognizes an existing Hang Gliders easement. It was proposed (without any objection from any Flood Staff) that this proposed grading plan would accommodate both Flood Control in terms of a debris basin and also the Hang Gliders landing zone with some joint use from the land owner/developer (defendants) and the Hang Gliders. (deposition of Warren D Williams page 13 lines 6-18). Therefore there appears to be an extant and workable plan submitted by the Defendants that accommodates all parties, Flood Control (County of Riverside) the Hang Gliders Association and Defendants.
II
EHGA ACTIVELY PARTICIPATED IN THE PLANNING PROCESS AND SUBMITTED THEIR OWN DESIGNS- WORKING IN CONJUNCTION WITH FLOOD CONTROIL.
The Defense position as to the lack of EHGA and hang glider participation in the development process is contradicted by the evidence submitted by the defense.
Exhibit 18 to Defendant’s Opposition is a sign in sheet for a June 14, 2001 meeting of the parties with Flood Control and Riverside County Counsel. Representing the hang gliders and EHGA interests were Steven Niedziela, Ken Niemi, Frank Hoffman, Esq., Bill Soderquist. See Declaration of Bill Soderquist
III
EHGA MEMBERS HAVE BEEN COMPLIANT WITH
THE COURT’S JANUARY 9, 2007 ORDER
Since the January 9, 2007 Court order as stated by the Court, there has been compliance after the initial information disseminating period. After some initial problems, after the EHGA members were informed, there has been compliance as provided in the attached declarations.

There is a need for a workable compliance plan for the safety of the hang glider pilots and for any compliance officer that may be present at the LZ. Direct confrontation regarding compliance is fraught with potential problems regarding safety and potenytial for conflict.

See Supplemental Declarations of John C. Mulvana, Mike Hilberath, Bill Soderquist and Jay Scott.
IV
CONCLUSION
The bottom line is that since the dramatic increase in Southern California property values, Defendant is improperly trying to renege on the Settlement Agreement. It is submitted that the acts and omissions of the Defendants in failing to comply with their obligations and in the progress of this litigation has been made in bad faith and without merit.
Based upon all of the documents submitted in support of this motion it is requested that the Court grant the request for a protective order- a preliminary injunction or in the alternative shortening time to specially set a notice of motion and for protective order -Preliminary injunction).

DATED: 03/01/07
Respectfully submitted,
BY:
JOHN C. MULVANA
Attorney for Plaintiff,
EHGA