WAIT A SECOND “APPLICATION No. 28” was first mentioned in LAFCO 95-2, not 95-1,
and LAFCO 95-1 referenced LDPCSD 94-1 which does not exist as a LDPCSD annexation resolution.
Here, 95-5 is apparently fluttering from resolution to resolution like an “ANNEXATION HUMMINGBIRD” picking up desirable hindsight “ANNEXATION INFO POLLEN” from a missing 94-1 LDPCSD annexation along with information and/or terms from annexations where the property is not even identified/less than adequately identified, in order to have this 95-5 resolution approved by LAFCO?
WHERE ARE THE OTHER LAFCO/LDPCSD ANNEXATION RESOLUTIONS?
Has LAFCO approved LDPCSD annexations for all 36 properties outside the WL11395 POU identified in the SWRCB September 28, 2017 Notice of Violation to the LDPCSD and LDPCSD outside POU reports?
COINCIDENCES happen – such as a former LAFCO Commissioner with the same last name RICHARDSON approving some of the resolutions, but for the record: that Commissioner is of no known family relation to me, however, I could not help but notice the LAFCO Commissioner last name of ERICKSON.
Is there any family relation to the ERICKSON RANCH PROPERTIES LAFCO ultimately annexed into the LDPCSD and used for the construction of the new LAKE DON PEDRO WASTE WATER TREATMENT FACILITY next to the golf course on Ranchito Drive that must be operated with groundwater substitution since it is also OUTSIDE THE POU FOR MERCED RIVER WATER PER WL11395? So, essentially, MR WECs are subsidizing that sewer system as well, yeah?
Has the “T-Corners project” paperwork been confused with paperwork from another annexation project?
Has the “L….ore Ranch” paperwork been commingled with paperwork from another annexation?
Other than the “L….ore Ranch” (apparent copy machine error) on page two of LAFCO 95-2, THERE IS NO OTHER PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION IN THE RESOLUTION FOR LAKE SHORE RANCH and the “inserted Exhibit”, a metes and bounds survey, has clearly been removed from some other document and placed in the 3 page 95-2 resolution as the pages are numbered 13 – 16!
Have portions of other LAFCO and LDPCSD RESOLUTIONS been “cannibalized” (mixed and matched due to no page numbering or other ID) to create an apparent approval for a proposed 900 acre residential subdivision across the street from the LDPCSD that directors back then, and 20 years later, did not know was supposedly LAFCO annexed in 1995?
Was this LAKE SHORE RANCH 900 ac SUBDIVISION actually approved in 1995 and then kept a complete secret from the public and certain board members for over twenty years?, or, more likely,
did “Kampa operatives” have the LAKE SHORE RANCH DESIGNATION CHANGED FROM SOI TO BEING WITHIN THE DISTRICT based on a SEMI-CLOSED PUBLIC MEETING BETWEEN LAFCO and LDPCSD OFFICIALS WHERE A NEW LDPCSD SERVICE AREA BOUNDARY MAP WAS ESTABLISHED? (The LAFCO meeting I was denied access to by the LDPCSD GM and Board President although I had studied the issue for years and was going to catch a ride from Lake Don Pedro to Mariposa with the acting civilian commissioner on the Board! I believe this is where the project jumped from legitimate SOI status to being surreptitiously recognized as being annexed approved in 1995. Where are the other documents?
Was such “bad paperwork” already in respective agency files and positioned for “re-interpretation” by the original perpetrator Pete Kampa who returned in 2014 to finish his annexation work in providing the “Alternate Source water” required for these LAFCO ANNEXATIONS through misappropriation of government grants intended to assist existing customers through an emergency state wide drought?
How could there be another BOUNDARY CONTRARY TO WHAT LAFCO ITSELF HAD REPRESENTED FOR MANY YEARS IN MAPS AND DOCUMENTS when DECLARING LAKE SHORE RANCH WAS IN THE SOI (Sphere of Influence)?
Does a 20ac piece of property (95-1) get “set up for magical transformation” into a 900ac proposed subdivision (95-2) by KAMPA & KOMPANY IN 95-5 for actual implementation after 2014 when Kampa would return make the “alternate source” available thanks to government grants?
Did Kampa leave in 1997 after being involved in a massive annexation process apparently without board direction or approval and later directed to write a letter of apology to a county planning director for “misrepresenting” district plans and objectives outside the POU of WL11395?
KAMPA APOLOGY RE ANNEXATION PLAN
KAMPA BUSY WITH PROPOSED ANNEXATIONS
Notice also LAFCO SUPPOSEDLY AUTHORIZED THE TERMS
“NO NOTICE AND HEARING AND WITHOUT AN ELECTION” –
yet 95-1 and 95-2
both reference
PROPER NOTICE and the CONDITION OF SERVING ALL FUTURE DEVELOPMENT IN TERRITORY!
How did that get turned around ass backwards?
