Newspaper Archive of
Feather River Bulletin
Quincy, California
Lyft
October 27, 2010     Feather River Bulletin
PAGE 10     (10 of 44 available)        PREVIOUS     NEXT      Full Size Image
 
PAGE 10     (10 of 44 available)        PREVIOUS     NEXT      Full Size Image
October 27, 2010
 

Newspaper Archive of Feather River Bulletin produced by SmallTownPapers, Inc.
Website © 2019. All content copyrighted. Copyright Information.     Terms Of Use.     Request Content Removal.




lea Wednesday, Oct. 27, 2010 Feather River Bulletin Lassen files response in Dyer Mountain lawsuit Sam Williams News Editor swilliams@lassennews.corn Both sides have now fired the opening salvos in a legal dispute over the voter- approved proposed four- season resort at Dyer Moun- tain near Westwood in a case expected to be heard in Lassen County Superior Court this December. Mountain Meadows Con- servancy, Sierra Watch and the Sierra Club fried the peti- tioners&apos; opening brief in the case Aug. 26, alleging the Lassen County Board of Supervisors illegally certified the environmental impact report that approved the de- velopment of the resort -- and Lassen County filed its response denying those alle- gations Thursday, Oct. 14. Both sides are expected to file more documents in the case before court proceedings begin. Attorney Richard Crabtree, who also serves as acting county counsel, prepared the county's response. The devel- oper is responsible for the costs of the litigation defend- ing the project. According to the county's response, the environmental groups seek to "substitute their will for the elec- torate's," and the petitioners' brief "raises several chal- lenges to the project, all of which lack merit." "Let's identify the elephant in ,the courtroom," the county wrote. "Petitioners' objective is not really to obtain additional analysis or information in the EIR. Peti- tioners instead seek to stop or delay the project approved by voters by any means possible. Petitioners have publicly acknowledged this fact." The county contends the petitioners object to only a small portion of the informa- tion presented regarding the project. "Petitioners contest on a very selective basis, only a small part of the decision of the Board of Supervisors to certify the EIR and approve the project. The majority of the EIR and almost all of the findings of the board of super- visors are unchallenged." According to the county's filing, the county took "an extraordinary amount of care" when preparing the environmental documents for the project. The county noted it also prepared a recir- culated draft EIR to study the potential environmental impacts of the project more exhaustively. "The EIR, in turn, fulfilled its statutorily mandated func- tion of informing the public and the county's decision makers of the consequences of approving the project," the county wrote. In addition, the county noted the developer agree- ment "creates a legal frame- work by which the proposed project will proceed; while at the same time recognizing the county's need to protect the health, safety and welfare of the Lassen County resi- dents." As the project moves forward, the developer agree- ment permits the county to regulate potential environ- mental impacts, establish parameters for a variety of reporting documents and establish site-specific devel- opment standards. PUBLIC NOTICES South Mill Creek Road Quincy property sale Notice of Trustee's Sale TS # CA-09-317898- TC Order # 090700789-CA-DCI you are in default under a deed of trust dated 6/22/2007. Unless you take action to protect your property, it may be sold at a public sale. If you need an explanation of the nature of the proceeding against you, you should con- tact a lawyer. A public auction sale to the highest bidder for cash, cashier's check drawn on a state or national bank, check drawn by state or federal credit union, or a check drawn by a state or federal savings and loan association, or savings association, or savings bank specified in Section 5102 to the Financial Code and authorized to do busi- ness in this state, will be held by duly appoint- ed trustee. The sale will be made, but without covenant or warranty, expressed or implied, regarding title, possession, or encum- brances, to pay the remaining principal sum of the note(s) secured by the Deed of Trust, with interest and late charges thereon, as provided in the note(s), advances, under the terms of the Deed of Trust, interest thereon, fees, charges and expenses of the Trustee for the total amount (at the time of the initial publication of the Notice of Sale) reasonably estimated to be set forth below• The amount may be greater on the day of sale. Beneficiary may elect to bid less than the total amount due. Trustor(s): David R Roberts Sr And Aurora Cayoedo-Roberts husband and wife as joint tenants Recorded: 6/27/2007 as Instrument No. 2007-0005232 in book xxx, page xxx of Official Records in the office of the Recorder of Plumas County, Califomia; Date of Sale: 11/2/2010 at 11:00 AM Place of Sale: At the Main Street entrance to the County Courthouse, 520 Main Street, Quincy, CA 95971 Amount of unpaid balance and other charges: $268,023.99 The purported property address is: 155S Mill Creek Rd Quincy, CA 95971 Assessors' Parcel No. 116-224-003 The undersigned Trustee disclaims any liability for any incorrectness of the property address or other common designation, if any, shown herein. If no street address or other common designation is shown, please refer to the ref- erenced legal description for property loca- tion. In the event no common address or common designation of the property is pro- vided herein directions to the location of the property may be obtained within 10 days of the date of first publication of this Notice of Sale by sending a written request to OneWest Bank, FS8 2900 Esperanza Crossing Austin TX 78758. Pursuant to California Civil Code 2923.54 the under- signed, on behalf of the beneficiary, loan ser- vicer or authorized agent, declares as fob lows: [ 1 ] The mortgage loan servicer has not obtained from the commissioner a final or temporary order of exemption pursuant to Section 2923.53 that is current and valid on the date the notice of sale is filed; [ 2 ] The timeframe for giving nolice of sale specified in subdivision (a) of Section 2923.52 does apply to this notice of sale. If the Trustee is unable to convey title for any reason, the successful bidder's sole and exclusive remedy shall be the return of monies paid to the Trustee, and the successful bidder shall have no further recourse. If the sale is set aside for any rea- son, the Purchaser at the sale shall be enti- tled only to a return of the deposit paid. The Purchaser shall have no further recourse against the Mortgagor, the Mortgagee, or the Mortgagee's Attorney. Date: 10/4/2010 Quality Loan Service Corp. 2141 5th Avenue San Diego, CA 92101 619-645-7711 For Non Sale information only Sale Line: 714-730- 2727 or Login to: www.fidelityasap.com Reinstatement Line: (877) 908-4357 Quality Loan Service, Corp. If you have previously been discharged through bankruptcy, you may have been released of personal liability for this loan in which case this letter is intend- ed to exercise the note holder's rights against the real property only. This notice is sent for the purpose of collecting a debt. This firm is attempting to collect a debt on behalf of the holder and owner df the note. Any information obtaine d by or provided to this firm or the creditor will be used for that purpose. As required by law, you are hereby notified that a negative credit report reflecting on your credit record may be submitted tO a credit report agency if you fail to fulfill the terms of your credit obligations. ASAP# 3762734 10/13/2010, 10/20/2010, 10/27/2010 Published FRB Oct. 13, 20, 27, 2010 Service district applies for loan NOTICE OF INTENT The purpose of this notice is to inform the public of Quincy Community Services District's intent to file an application for Federal Assistance with the Rural Utilities Services. The Rural Utilities Services is administered by the United States Department of Agriculture, Rural Development• Quincy Community Services District is applying for a Rural Utilities Services loan for the purpose of replacement of the most sever old sewer pipes that have cracks, bad pipe, broken pipe joints, off set lateral connections, roots, root masses, grit accumulations and no slope that lead to blockages, sewer overflows and increased maintenance costs. For additional information, you may contact Larry Sullivan, General Manager Quincy Community Services District 900 Spanish Creek Rd. Quincy, CA 95971 (530) 283-0836 Published FRB Oct. 20, 27, 2010 Proposed emerQency vehicles hearing PUBLIC NOTICE ON OCTOBER 14, 2010, AT THE OFFICE OF THE QUINCY COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT, 900 SPANISH CREEK ROAD, QUINCY, CALIFORNIA, THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE QUINCY COMMUNI- TY SERVICES DISTRICT CONDUCTED A PUBLIC HEARING AND ADOPTED THE EMERGENCY VEHICLES ORDINANCE. Below is a summary of the' proposed ordi- nance. A copy of the full text of the proposed ordinance is posted at the District office and is also available for viewing on the website: www.quincycsd.com. PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 52 Title 8 Emergency Vehicles Chapter 1 Sections: 8-01.01 Objective of Ordinance 8-01.01 Objective of Ordinanca It is the intent and objective of the enactment of this ordinance to declare the 2002 Vactor Sewer Cleaning Truck as an emergency hazardous materials response team vehicle. State, Federal and County regulations require any sewage spill on to the street to be reported to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Plumas County Environmental Health, Quincy Fire Department and State O.E.S. Any spillage over 1,000 gallons is considered a haz- ardous material spill and the fines are exten- sive, especially if sewage reaches a storm drain or receiving water way. The California Vehicle Code §2416, the Commissioner of the California Highway Patrol may issue authorized emergency vehicle permits... "Any vehicle owned and operated by an office or department of a city, county, or district which is designated by an ordinance adopted by the governing body of that local agency as a hazardous materials response team vehicle for response to haz- ardous materials emergencies•" Published FRB Oct. 27, 2010 "Petitioner's objective is not really to obtain additional analysis or information in the EIR. Petitioners instead seek to stop or delay the project approved by voters by any means possible. Petitioners have publicly acknowledged this faa." Lassen County's response to Dyer Mountain lawsuit While the county argues the petitioners are attempt- ing to portray Westwood, a • small community near the proposed resort site, as "an idyllic mountain town with endless prosperity and eco- nomic well-being" the county contends that portrayal "is simply untrue." The county notes the high unemployment rate in Westwood and the lack of economic opportunities and maintains the project would "greatly increase the finan- cial base of the surrounding areas, thereby creating em- ployment and economic opportunities for the resi- dents of Westwood. Thus, the project will act to revive the community of Westwood rather than 'dwarf' it as contended by petitioners." The county also argued the petitioners' filing does not meet the standards necessary to stop the project. According to the county, "... petitioners' opening brief is rife with distortions of the record. Ultimately, peti- tioners' case cannot over- come the California Environ- mental Quality Act's (CEAQ) axiomatic principle that the county's project approvals will not be disturbed where, as here, the county's deter- minations are supported by substantial evidence in the record, regardless of conflict- ing evidence. Applying the relevant standards of review governing this action, the petition for writ of mandate should be denied in its entirety." The county also contends the petitioner "must lay out the evidence favorable to the other side and show why it is lacking," and the petitioners have not met that burden. According to the county, "Courts are 'not to determine whether the EIR's ultimate conclusions are correct, but only where they are supported by substantial evidence in the record and whether the EIR is sufficient as an informational docu- ment,'" and "CEQA requires an EIR to reflect a good faith effort at full disclosure; it does not mandate per- fection, nor does it require an analysis to be exhaus- tive." Specific plans for much of the project have yet to be developed and the county pointed out that when such plans come to fruition, they are subject to county ap- proval and the developer agreement does not grant any entitlements to the developer that would allow construc- tion to proceed without approval by the county. "Neither the development concept plan nor the develop- ment agreement identify the location, timing or the exact amount or type of structures to be built in any phase of the project," the county wrote. "The aspects of the project described in the developer agreement have not been ap- proved and will be subjected to further environmental review." The county disputed the petitioners' allegation that the CEQA process requires the county to examine in de- tail every potential environ- mental impact of the project. The county contends those reviews will be made during the second tier of the project. The county argued, "The EIR provides ample informa- tion to foster informed deci- sion making and public participation," regarding population growth in the area. The county also contended its determ.ination that a ban on wood burning stoves would not be economically feasible is correct and that such a ban would be "an abuse of discretion." The county also defended the EIR's conclusions regard- ing vehicle traffic and main- tained, "no feasible mitiga- tion measures have been identified to reduce the amount of vehicle miles traveled." The county denied the peti- tioners' allegations regarding the project's effect on climate change, noting, "The FEIR recognized that a great deal of uncertainty existed regard- ing how the project's emis- sions might influence actual physical effects of global climate change. The FEIR concluded that project leyel greenhouse gas emissions would have a less-than-signif- icant impact on global climate change." In any case the county was not required to recirculate the FEIR to address that issue because there was no significant new information available and no legal standards existed on that subject at the time the EIR was certified. "Petitioners have failed to carry their burden of proof and persuasion, whether by failure to cite all relevant evidence, mischaracteriza- tion of the administrative record or misapplication of precedent," the county wrote. "Under all applicable stan- dards of review, the board of supervisors' exercise of discretion met legal require- ments. Accordingly, respon- dents respectfully request that the court deny the petition for writ of mandate." Trouble,00! history of Dye:00 project The following information was obtained from Lassen County's response filed Thurs- day, Oct. 14, in Lassen County Superior Court opposing a writ of mandate filed by Mountain Meadows Conser- vancy, the Sierra Club and Sierra Watch and from stories published in the Lassen County Times. 1968 Lassen County's General Plan identifies four possible locations for skiing facilities in the county -- including Dyer Mountain. 1991 Lassen County conducts a feasibility study on Dyer Mountain and finds the site could be developed into an exceptional and economically feasible ski facility. Spring 2000 Local residents circulate an initiative petition to modify the Lassen County General Plan and the Lassen County Zoning Ordinance to desig- nate the Dyer Mountain site for development as a four- season resort. November 2000 Nearly 63 percent of local voters approve the initiative modifying the county's general plan and the county's zoning ordinance to authorize the development of Dyer Mountain. April 2005 Lassen County issues a draft environmental impact report, dividing the project site into 13 parcels of varying size. The first-tier assessment analyzed 88 impacts and found 71 could be reduced through mitiga- tion measures. The remaining 17 impacts were found to be "significant and unavoidable" even after mitigation mea- sures had been taken. The county extends the deadline to allow more public comment, and then issues a recirculated draft environmental impact report specifically addressing impacts on existing transporta- tion infrastructure, local and regional air quality and cultural resources. June 2007 Lassen County issues a final environmental impact report. July 2007 Lassen County Planning Commission holds public hearings and recommends the Lassen County Board of Super- visors approve the FEIR, developer agreement and conditionally approve a tentative subdivision map for the project. Supervisors hold a public hearing and direct staff to prepare documents necessary to move the project forward. September 2007 Supervisors adopt a resolu- tion certifying the FEIR and adopting the other requested documents. October 2007 Oct. 9, the board holds a public hearing and adopts an ordinance approving the de- veloper agreement and related documents. Oct. 23, environ- mental groups file a petition for writ of mandate challeng- ing the adequacy of the EIR and the county's findings. January 2008 Petitioners amend the peti- tion of writ of mandate to in- clude a second cause of action, alleging the developer agree- ment invalidly amended the initiative by locking the plan- ning and zoning process for an additional 30 years. March 2008 Dyer Mountain Associates file a petition initiating federal bankruptcy proceedings. The court granted an automatic stay, but during the proceed- ings, Dyer Management, LLC, acquires ownership of the project site. December 2009 Supervisors approve an assumption agreement requir- ing Dyer Mountain's new owners to file a written repay- ment plan with the county " within six months describing how it plans to settle its back tax debt and allowing the new entity to assume all the rights and obligations regard- ing the proposed project. June 2010 Michael Chew, a Dyer Management, LLC's principal, cites the slump in the real estate market and offers no plan to repay the $1.6 million in back property taxes, penal- ties and interest owed to Lassen County since 2008. The county could seize the property through tax lien proceedings in 2013. August 2010 Mountain Meadows Conser- vancy, the Sierra Club and Sierra Watch file the opening. brief in the lawsuit Thursday, Aug. 26. October 2010 Lassen County files its initial response to the environmental groups Thursday, Oct. 14. DISH Network Offem HD Ir For Ufe Over 120 Top Channels including local Channels $3g.ga/fno 12 months 1 mont.h oor arid Ft)a HD quir ;S*rrtonth Agreement ad AutoPay vth Perleu BUling. SIGN UP TODAY AND ALSO GET: liD DVR DVR Is leased, ($6/mo DVR Service fee applles) Installation tn up to 6 rooms Satscan Electronics 530-283-3800 PO Box 209 Quincy, CA 95971 NETWORK. AJI/TIIIIBIG[ED llAl[fl glgt Imo/uedaO= plm ukm N-I em= and udlt quelililm, If sDrvi is n,|t Icz' e md  agreele acaclan fee of $17,50( morllh  =pp Plng msdltl  during S,  12 monlhs. =t  140 add<m f  for li of curr'r ac¢our rqu-'m 24 -mordh mmi   Pqdm Nlkzg. m oOr n.qpnm AuPay dth l4edm= B=ng: ct=d apply during ll fit 3 n'l:m'h ($T2 t,s); cuenw nut dovmtd or Itmt ii llplla. RNlmli cmnuous i,om iq J, ad Fapedsss Illi.  Standlm:l; Pmf, imkld Inofeltm1m I, Id'-"- b=s ml  m   mmb¢ d r'eombw'm  priori, #ms  'ogm,mmir zb= o  wiWlout rtot. LIII d'mnmL mzy not be asltabb h all IIB, Addtt dldCtlmll   Rnlt-tq 01Sbl  cttsteme- 0n. Offer ds 1/3t/11 Hec e zmd related omells and 3endc¢ mt are 0  o( Need help NG CONSTRUCTION SINCE 1984 General Building Contractor Calif. Lic. #453927 (530) 283-2035