Wednesday, December 28, 2011
Friday, November 11, 2011
Friday, October 28, 2011
I'm hosting a fun painting trip to Wilbur Hot Springs...read details below...
Painting, Hiking & Hot Soaking Retreat at Wilbur Hot Springs ~ November 4, 5, 6 Friday, Saturday & Sunday, November 4, 5 & 6, 2011
Wilbur Hot Springs, located about an hour north of Sacramento off the I-5 Williams, Ca exit. Wilbur’s hilly 1800 acre nature preserve provides stunningly beautiful hikes and scenes for pencil artists and painters. Add a massage, hot soaks, cool swims, good friends, good food and late night star gazing while you soak some more…and you have Heaven on earth!
Martha Esch, a lifelong artist, art teacher and Locke, Ca studio/gallery owner hosts exciting, fun paint-outs with guided drawing and painting exercises for artists of all skill levels. Participate in some or all of our group activities, including: hiking, soaking, sketching, painting, critiquing, star gazing, cooking, dining, acoustic music jam.
Retreat Schedule:
Friday 3 pm Arrive and check in anytime after 3 pm on Friday.
5:30 p.m. Welcome briefing from Martha on front porch, followed by group meal prep in Wilbur's big kitchen, then potluck dinner.
8 pm - Late night hot soaking and quiet star gazing in the hot spring flumes. (In the hot springs and pool area it’s clothing optional. Clothing required elsewhere.)
Saturday 7:30– 9 a.m. Soaking, swimming, painting, and breakfast.
10 am Group Hike. Along the way, a quick postcard watercolor demo, then all sketch or paint.
12:30 p.m. Group Lunch prep and dine together.
2 p.m. Sketching and watercolor painting demo by Martha at the bridge over the creek, near the pool. Then everyone paints their own chosen scenes. Individual guidance available. Take a break from painting and do another hot soak or two. Try out the different flumes to find your favorite temperature.
5-6:30 p.m. Potluck Dinner and constructive, friendly (optional) group critiques on our individual paintings.
7 pm Music jam, anyone? Borrow one of Wilbur’s acoustic instruments or bring your own. Meet at the piano.
Sunday 7:00-10 a.m. Breakfast, soaking, sketching, hiking and painting. Or, sleep in, and join us later - your choice. Noon – Group lunch prep, sharing and constructive casual art critiques while we eat. Our retreat ends after lunch on Sunday, but you are welcome to stay on Wilbur’s grounds until 5pm.
What to Bring? Wilbur is remote, so bring all you need for your weekend excursion: Groceries ~ Your own 2 day supply. Bring or cook up your potluck offering in Wilbur’s big kitchen -refrigerators provided.
Towel,
Slippers (Wilbur is shoes-off indoor, so slippers are nice),
Bathrobe,
Art supplies. Bring your paint kit. Or borrow some supplies from Martha, including student watercolors and brushes, etc., Comfortable walking or hiking shoes,
Flashlight,
Sunglasses,
Calling card for phone calls (no cell phone reception),
Water bottle,
Sleeping bag and pillow if you’ll be sleeping in the Bunk Room.
Costs:
Retreat Activities fee $30 payable at front desk when you check in.
Room Reservations: Reserve your private room or “bunk room” accommodations in the historic hotel directly through Wilbur staff at (530)473-2306.
Wilbur's room rates are at:
http://www.wilburhotsprings.com/hot-springs-rooms-rates.htm (You may also opt to stay just for the day and use the hot springs, and hiking and kitchen and dining facilities for the $50 day use fee, plus prorated activities fee, $15/day.)
Watch a beautiful slide show and see other Wilbur Hot Springs info at:
http://www.wilburhotsprings.com/
Please also RSVP Host, Martha at (916) 776-1000 on November 3rd, or send her an email to: aeroplane88[at]hotmail[dot]com (Fellow Hikers and Painters, I'm posting this on two other meetup sites and inviting anyone else who might be interested to join us. Please feel free to invite your friends or counterparts along. The more, the merrier.)
Please also RSVP Host, Martha at (916) 776-1000 on November 3rd, or send her an email to: aeroplane88[at]hotmail[dot]com (Fellow Hikers and Painters, I'm posting this on two other meetup sites and inviting anyone else who might be interested to join us. Please feel free to invite your friends or counterparts along. The more, the merrier.)
Saturday, October 1, 2011
Monday, September 12, 2011
Sunday, September 11, 2011
Thursday, September 8, 2011
Charlie and Mary ~ my awesome kids playing Charlie's original song, "Free"
http://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=273080142721692&id=100000421389059#!/photo.php?v=2365821311777
Sunday, September 4, 2011
Thursday, August 18, 2011
Great news - we won round one!
Here's the Superior Court Judge's tentative ruling made yesterday, August 17, 2011 at 2 pm. It was not contested by the LMA's lawyer, so the hearing on the injunctive matter that was scheduled for today has been cancelled. YAY for our side! ~ martha
- - - - - - - - -
Item 17 2011-00103789-CU-OR
Locke Management Association vs. Martha Esch
Nature of Proceeding:
Filed By:
Motion for Preliminary Injunction
Beede, Stephen J.
Plaintiff Locke Management Association’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction is denied.
Plaintiff is a non-profit corporation whose stated purpose, according to its bylaws, is “to
improve the economic well-being, preserve the cultural and historical integrity, and
manage the Town of Locke.” (Plf. Exh. 1.) The Town of Locke has been included on
the registry of national historic places “because of its unique status as the only town in
the United States built exclusively by the Chinese for the Chinese.” (Opening Memo.
1:3-4.) Plaintiff fulfills its stated purpose in part by enforcing Locke’s covenants,
conditions and restrictions (“CC&Rs”). The CC&Rs include a provision requiring any
owner wishing to sell property in Locke to first give notice to Plaintiff in order to allow
Plaintiff to exercise its right of first refusal to purchase any such property. (CCRs Art.
II, §2.8.) Plaintiff must give notice of any proposed sale to persons identified on the
“Locke Prior Residents, Descendants and Ascendants List” and the “List of Any
Individual that Would Like Notice of Available Properties,” and may assign its first
refusal right to any interested person responding to the Notice to the Lists.
Plaintiff alleges that on March 15, 2011, Defendant Martha Esch purchased property in
Locke despite Plaintiff’s having exercised its right of first refusal to purchase the
property itself. The subject property is designated for residential use only. Plaintiff
also alleges that, upon taking possession of the property, Defendant began making
alterations without Plaintiff’s permission and in violation of the CC&Rs, and using the
property for commercial purposes in violation of the CC&Rs. Plaintiff seeks a
preliminary injunction enjoining Defendant from altering the subject property or using
the subject property for any commercial purposes.
In deciding whether to enter a preliminary injunction, the court must evaluate two
interrelated factors: (1) the likelihood that the applicant will prevail on the merits at trial,
and (2) the interim harm that the applicant will likely suffer if preliminary relief is not
granted, as compared to the likely harm that the opposing party will suffer if the
preliminary injunction issues. (See, e.g., Langford v. Superior Court
(Gates) (1987) 43 Cal.3d 21, 28.) One of these two factors may be accorded greater
weight than the other depending on the applicant's showing. (See Commons Cause v.
Bd. of Supervisors (1989) 49 Cal.3d 432, 447.)
“[T]he party seeking the injunction must present sufficient evidentiary facts to establish
a likelihood that it will prevail.” (Tahoe Keys Property Owners’ Assn. v. State Water
Resources Control Board (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 1459, 1478.) Here, Plaintiff argues
that Defendant “took possession and commenced to make alterations to the Subject
Property” and that Defendant “is in breach of the Use Restrictions…in that she is
purportedly changing the Subject Property from Residential to Commercial use without
any authority to do so.” (Opening Memo. 7:11-17.) However, Plaintiff presents no
evidence of Defendant’s alleged activities. The only items of evidence Plaintiff
presents in support of its motion are (1) copies of the bylaws of the Locke
Management Association; (2) the Town of Locke CCRs, and (3) a Sacramento County
ordinance describing the Locke Special Planning Area. (Plf. Exhs 1-3.) None of this
evidence pertains to the alleged alterations Plaintiff made to the property.
In opposition, Defendant presents evidence disputing that she has made any improper
alterations to the property. She presents evidence that she repainted a pink wall a
natural brown color that is permitted by the CC&Rs (Esch Decl. ¶3), cut a damaged
post flush with the roadway so it would not be a hazard (Esch Decl. ¶2), cut back
overgrown vegetation and removed rat excrement (Esch Decl. ¶5), and replaced a
hazardous propane tank at the request of the Sheldon Gas Company. (Esch Decl. ¶4;
Benge Decl.) Defendant states that she has made no other changes to the property.
(Esch Decl. ¶6.) Further, Defendant presents evidence that Plaintiff has never issued
any complaint or notice to Defendant that her activities were in violation of the CC&Rs,
as required by Section 8.10 of the CCRs. (Esch Decl. ¶9.)
Based on the evidence presented (and lack thereof), Plaintiff has failed to meet its
burden to show that it is likely to prevail on the merits and that Defendant’s activities
on the property are likely to cause interim harm to Plaintiff. The motion for preliminary
injunction is denied.
The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule
3.1312 or further notice is required.
Here's the Superior Court Judge's tentative ruling made yesterday, August 17, 2011 at 2 pm. It was not contested by the LMA's lawyer, so the hearing on the injunctive matter that was scheduled for today has been cancelled. YAY for our side! ~ martha
- - - - - - - - -
Item 17 2011-00103789-CU-OR
Locke Management Association vs. Martha Esch
Nature of Proceeding:
Filed By:
Motion for Preliminary Injunction
Beede, Stephen J.
Plaintiff Locke Management Association’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction is denied.
Plaintiff is a non-profit corporation whose stated purpose, according to its bylaws, is “to
improve the economic well-being, preserve the cultural and historical integrity, and
manage the Town of Locke.” (Plf. Exh. 1.) The Town of Locke has been included on
the registry of national historic places “because of its unique status as the only town in
the United States built exclusively by the Chinese for the Chinese.” (Opening Memo.
1:3-4.) Plaintiff fulfills its stated purpose in part by enforcing Locke’s covenants,
conditions and restrictions (“CC&Rs”). The CC&Rs include a provision requiring any
owner wishing to sell property in Locke to first give notice to Plaintiff in order to allow
Plaintiff to exercise its right of first refusal to purchase any such property. (CCRs Art.
II, §2.8.) Plaintiff must give notice of any proposed sale to persons identified on the
“Locke Prior Residents, Descendants and Ascendants List” and the “List of Any
Individual that Would Like Notice of Available Properties,” and may assign its first
refusal right to any interested person responding to the Notice to the Lists.
Plaintiff alleges that on March 15, 2011, Defendant Martha Esch purchased property in
Locke despite Plaintiff’s having exercised its right of first refusal to purchase the
property itself. The subject property is designated for residential use only. Plaintiff
also alleges that, upon taking possession of the property, Defendant began making
alterations without Plaintiff’s permission and in violation of the CC&Rs, and using the
property for commercial purposes in violation of the CC&Rs. Plaintiff seeks a
preliminary injunction enjoining Defendant from altering the subject property or using
the subject property for any commercial purposes.
In deciding whether to enter a preliminary injunction, the court must evaluate two
interrelated factors: (1) the likelihood that the applicant will prevail on the merits at trial,
and (2) the interim harm that the applicant will likely suffer if preliminary relief is not
granted, as compared to the likely harm that the opposing party will suffer if the
preliminary injunction issues. (See, e.g., Langford v. Superior Court
(Gates) (1987) 43 Cal.3d 21, 28.) One of these two factors may be accorded greater
weight than the other depending on the applicant's showing. (See Commons Cause v.
Bd. of Supervisors (1989) 49 Cal.3d 432, 447.)
“[T]he party seeking the injunction must present sufficient evidentiary facts to establish
a likelihood that it will prevail.” (Tahoe Keys Property Owners’ Assn. v. State Water
Resources Control Board (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 1459, 1478.) Here, Plaintiff argues
that Defendant “took possession and commenced to make alterations to the Subject
Property” and that Defendant “is in breach of the Use Restrictions…in that she is
purportedly changing the Subject Property from Residential to Commercial use without
any authority to do so.” (Opening Memo. 7:11-17.) However, Plaintiff presents no
evidence of Defendant’s alleged activities. The only items of evidence Plaintiff
presents in support of its motion are (1) copies of the bylaws of the Locke
Management Association; (2) the Town of Locke CCRs, and (3) a Sacramento County
ordinance describing the Locke Special Planning Area. (Plf. Exhs 1-3.) None of this
evidence pertains to the alleged alterations Plaintiff made to the property.
In opposition, Defendant presents evidence disputing that she has made any improper
alterations to the property. She presents evidence that she repainted a pink wall a
natural brown color that is permitted by the CC&Rs (Esch Decl. ¶3), cut a damaged
post flush with the roadway so it would not be a hazard (Esch Decl. ¶2), cut back
overgrown vegetation and removed rat excrement (Esch Decl. ¶5), and replaced a
hazardous propane tank at the request of the Sheldon Gas Company. (Esch Decl. ¶4;
Benge Decl.) Defendant states that she has made no other changes to the property.
(Esch Decl. ¶6.) Further, Defendant presents evidence that Plaintiff has never issued
any complaint or notice to Defendant that her activities were in violation of the CC&Rs,
as required by Section 8.10 of the CCRs. (Esch Decl. ¶9.)
Based on the evidence presented (and lack thereof), Plaintiff has failed to meet its
burden to show that it is likely to prevail on the merits and that Defendant’s activities
on the property are likely to cause interim harm to Plaintiff. The motion for preliminary
injunction is denied.
The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule
3.1312 or further notice is required.
Monday, July 25, 2011
Sunday, May 29, 2011
Saturday, May 28, 2011
Saturday, May 7, 2011
"Paint the Town" (first Saturdays 9 am to noon in Locke, CA)
May 7. 2011 "Paint the Town" participants pictured L-R: pat, martha, dottie, laurie, karin.
Saturday, April 30, 2011
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)