DiabloScott

Protest!

blt

A couple of clarifications here.

FIrst, the article was correct to indicate that the judge did NOT rule that the easement expired. "A previous version of this story incorrectly reported that an easement for the popular gravel path expired. That was one of the plaintiffs’ claims filed within a July 2023 judgment, but the judge did not specifically address the easement when ruling that a fence be installed on the neighboring vacant property."

Second, something the article doesn't make clear, the judgment itself wasn't a DECISION of the judge, it was a STIPULATED JUDGMENT, i.e., an agreement between the parties, the intervenors (a bunch of Diablo residents) and the Wooten Trust (i.e., the owner of the property that, apparently, the easement did NOT cover). Fine, the Wooten property owner and a bunch of Diablo owners agreed that a fence should be built on the Wooten property, and based on that agreement, the judge ordered the fence built on the WOOTEN property, not the U.S. Bank property. Nothing in that judgment is going to be binding on anybody else, when it was a judgment based on an agreement between parties who want the same thing.

There is NO ruling about the easement, and NOTHING regarding the U.S. Bank property, that is seemingly the proper site of the easement.

The basic argument of the Diablo people seems to be that the State Parks never ACCEPTED the easement, although it was recorded on the county maps, and therefore got extinguished. The plaintiffs (so far, our heroes) in the current suit are citing cases that claim that an easement dedicated to a public agency can be accepted by public use, as opposed to a formal acceptance by the agency. I have not read those cases to see if the cases clearly support that position, or if there may be a question on that point and the facts of the cited cases are distinguishable. But if the plaintiff's claim regarding the cases is true, it would seem to be a slam dunk. Never trust arguments by litigators, however, even if they are representing our side.

The complaint also does not quote the entirety of the easement, only indicating that it is "for public use for riding and hiking," which doesn't necessarily address the argument of the Diablo residents that it was for horseback riding and hiking, not bicycling. I don't know how a full reading might impact the nature of the easement.

The biggest piece of crap from the Diablo residents in the article is from the "lead intervenor" from the earlier lawsuit with the stipulated judgment, Jeff Mini. “It’s just a safety issue for having people cutting through when they could be using Diablo Road,” Mini said. “Come down here in the afternoon, you’ll see people walking, taking babies in strollers and kids on bicycles. That’s my concern.” A safety issue for having people cut through when they could be using Diablo Road? A safety issue when cyclists are using a safe road instead of a suicidal road? I'm assuming he's implying that cyclists going to or from Diablo present a safety concern for the Diablo residents walking, taking babies in strollers, and kids on bicycles. Is there any evidence that there has, in the many decades of use, been any injury or harm to any people walking, taking babies in strollers, or kids on bicycles by cyclists going to or from Diablo? Baloney. OTOH, there HAS been harm to cyclists on Diablo Rd. Yeah, it is a safety issue creating a need to use the easement, not the other way around.

In the end, the solution seems very easy to me. DiabloScott buys the property from U.S. Bank, simply removes the fence on his part of the property, and defends the lawsuit brought by Diablo residents saying that he needs to build a fence.

DiabloScott

https://www.ktvu.com/video/1305187

Protest makes the news.
In other news - local TV news is still a thing.

Joe Bikerider

What actually got aired this morning (on KTVU) was a much shortened version of the link you posted. Nice to see though. The bit where the one cyclist stated that he wouldn’t allow his team to be endangered by having to ride on the main road was very powerful. I don’t think cagers understand.

cthenn

Thanks for posting all of this, good information!

vorpal.bits

Im studying google maps. how about from the alameda, right turn at los calldos. at the end of los caldos appears to be a path and a gap in the fence. at least from what i can see using street view. I will have to get there to confirm it. then left on to diablo senic, wich looks to be further up into the residental area

cthenn

yes there is a gate at the end of Calle los calledos. That one I believe is truly on private property and there is no easement. I use that, but always try to get through there quickly and quietly, hopefully that one does not get locked or fenced off as well. There has been a lot more use of that cut through lately, with a lot of churned up dust and tire tracks everywhere. Just hope everyone is respectful as they ride through the area.

DiabloScott

They're even trying to prevent ME from putting a public path on my own (future) property!

RChung

Story in the SF Chronicle:
https://www.sfchronicle.com/outdoors...o-18460415.php

Polaris OBark

The case for access by children on the mountain bike team is probably the most compelling. That should become a major focus.

spdntrxi

just make it a gate.. so it looks like a fence.

jrob94526

The property in question, 2354 Alameda Diablo just came on the market today for $2.6M. (I am Realtor - happy to represent someone who would be supportive of taking down the fence)

As the wife of the current Head Coach of the San Ramon Valley Mountain Bike Team and mom of 3 team riders, I have seen first hand the positive mental and physical impact getting more kids on bikes has had on the hundred of kids that have come through our Team. It is imperative to our program that kids have safe access to our local Mountain.

Thank you to all who have been supportive on this thread and attended the Rally!

DiabloScott

update TODAY! 2024.06.21

bikingshearer 

Excellent news! Many thanks to all who made this happen. And many thanks to DiabloScott for letting us know.

I just read the Court's Tentative Ruling (which I assume has become adopted as the official ruling of the Court). Wow, what a tangled mess. My hat is off to the lawyer(s) who put this argument. together. As a lawyer myself, I know it was not easy.

This a very important victory in that it voids the stipulated judgment that served as the basis for installing the fence, but it isn't a final victory. It looks like the final battle is being fought in what the Court called the "Hammond case" (Hammond v. U.S. Bank National Association, Case No. MSC23-02578). I just skimmed the Court's extensive ruling in February on a motion for a preliminary injunction. In that, the judge said the plaintiffs (the folks who want to open up the Hole in the Wall) "have shown some likelihood of prevailing" but have some issues to overcome. Understand, at this stage of the litigation, obtaining the injunction that we need is very difficult - the plaintiffs had to show a strong likelihood of prevailing, and the Court said they had not met that burden. As I read it, the Court told the good guys that they have a decent chance of ultimately winning at trial but still have some issues to address and nothing is guaranteed. That does not diminish the importance of the ruling DiabloScott has announced, but it does mean that the ultimate battle is still to come at the trial of the Hammond case, which (based on a couple filings in Court's on-line docket) looks like it is not going to happen any sooner than Spring 2025, and possibly later than that.

The wheels of justice grinde slowly, but they are moving forward.

cthenn

By the time this is all resolved, the bike lane along Diablo Road will be complete anyway...maybe that's the ultimate goal of these "intervenors".

Interestingly, it seems like there may yet another alternative that at least MTB'ers are using, some kind of dirt cut through that emerges right at the gate by the last house. I don't know anything about that but I've seen what looks like tracks ducking behind the fence, as well as riders along some of those roads that leads to that area (and not the secondary cut through most are using now).

DiabloScott

Property owner is now defendant in a lawsuit.

BikeDanville

bikingshearer 

Looks like the issue is now well and truly joined. Thanks again, Scott, for keeping is up to date on this.

BTW, the fact the the property owner is now a defendant does not necessarily mean they are opposed to the suit (although they probably are). In quiet title action, the plaintiffs have to name anyone and everyone who has some right or claim regarding the property - all lienholders, anyone who claims some other easement, any governmental agency that has a tax lien, anyone. So the landowner has to be named as a defendant even if they are in favor of indifferent to the lawsuit.

/pedantic law school lesson