TRACKING LDPCSD RESOLUTIONS CAN BE DIFFICULT
Especially for a “lay person” like me untrained in the intricacies of the annexation process, but here are a few things that made it difficult to follow what appears to be a meandering process fraught with missing paperwork, dead ends, and similar document designations.
For instance, the exact same RESOLUTION IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS regarding “VARIOUS ENTITY ACTIONS” are used by and between two different public agencies, the MARIPOSA COUNTY LAFCO and its special district creation, the LAKE DON PEDRO COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT. RESOLUTIONS with identical names were also not always related or concerned with LDPCSD annexations into the district. The bi-directional nature of these RESOLUTIONS consisted of, 1) Requests, or APPLICATIONS FOR ANNEXATION into the district service boundary the LDPCD sent MARIPOSA COUNTY LAFCO, and, 2) LAFCO ANNEXATION APPROVALS (often CONDITIONAL upon other events occurring first with instructions on how the LDPCSD should proceed with the annexation), or other related information.
NOT CONDITIONAL APPROVALS AGAIN?
OH KRAPA!
Not a conditionally approved action again?
(aka, IF “THIS” then “THAT”) as in,
IF within the Lake Don Pedro Subdivision, property is entitled to Merced River water service per WL11395.
Did we not just learn what apparently happened with a CONDITIONALLY APPROVED WL11395 DIVERSION OF Merced River water by the STATE WATER BOARD for the SOUTH SHORE CLUB (La Ventana) ANNEXATION PROJECT (off Bonds Flat Road between Hwy 59 and HWY 132) which proposed another residential subdivision and golf course complex in 1993?
That the project was abandoned for failing to meet specific STATE CONDITIONS FOR APPROVAL?
And that PETE KAMPA apparently obtained or was privy to a “shape file” of that project (likely while employed and involved with aspects of the project during his first LDPCSD employment tour between 1994-1997) documenting the PROPOSED POU (Place of Use) EXPANSION for MERCED RIVER WATER USE–
IF conditions were met and the development approved for construction?
And somehow, that 1993 “shape file” information which ONLY DOCUMENTED A PROPOSED POU BOUNDARY CHANGE (if conditions met), was entered into CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES official records as having been APPROVED in 1993 WITH A POU change – WHICH DID NOT OCCUR? Yet PETE KAMPA later relied upon that “shape file” to represent a POU change on the OFFICIAL LDPCSD WL11395 POU SERVICE AREA MAP created with a Board approved $35,000 digital mapping project, although the final product map doesn’t even mention or illustrate the legal POU for Merced River water per WL11395? Geez – will it ever end?
THE BIG QUESTION:
HOW DID A FAILED PROPOSAL FOR A POU CHANGE END UP IN OFFICIAL DWR RECORDS AS REPRESENTING AN APPROVAL WHICH WAS APPARENTLY LATER USED FOR A HOST OF ACTIVITIES INCLUDING GRANT APPLICATIONS TO THE STATE AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FOR EMERGENCY DROUGHT RELIEF?
Anyway…..
LDPCSD ANNEXATION NUMBERED REQUESTS FOR APPROVAL sent to LAFCO were also sometimes renamed by LAFCO with another system of identification during the approval process which further complicated later tracking within respective agency records (BUT PLEASE REMEMBER – I DO NOT POSSESS ALL THE ANNEXATION RECORDS YET – SO WHO KNOWS HOW THEY MAY EFFECT RECORDS ALREADY OBTAINED? (ie, Rescinded, modified, replaced, destroyed, etc.) For example, I read a resolution which rescinded a bunch of LAFCO rules and regulations of the past and replaced them with new policies, so without such information a researcher could mistakenly believe a particular violation had occurred during a certain year, when the rules governing that issue had actually been changed and, therefore, no violation occurred according to the new rules in affect.)
Some LDPCSD RESOLUTIONS are documented as definitely having taken place in LDPCSD Board Meeting Minutes with an approved motion for the Resolution creation and subsequent approval vote by the board of directors, yet the RESOLUTIONS themselves have completely disappeared from LDPCSD records!
Some LDPCSD REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION RESOLUTIONS referred to by LAFCO do not exist. The exact resolution name may exist but the LDPCSD resolution has nothing to do with annexations – so they are apparently also missing from records – or were simply “replaced” with a “Red Herring (bait to lead a questioning individual “off the trail”) to further obscure the record.
One particular LDPCSD RESOLUTION, 95-2, is apparently used twice as an accepted procedure for two separate property annexations into the LDPCSD.
Often LDPCSD RESOLUTIONS, especially in the 1990s, do not even identify the property to be annexed!
Many LDPCSD RESOLUTIONS also refer to an attached EXHIBIT which is rarely attached to the RESOLUTION DOCUMENT as stated. (The Resolution will not ID property but refers to EXHIBIT A for specific details…..but no Exhibit A is attached! Like a “JOKERS WILD” ANNEXATION FORM!)
The below LAFCO RESOLUTION OF ANNEXATION APPROVAL did not clearly identify the property either, except for a few letters of the project name which could be observed on the unnumbered second page of the resolution which had apparently suffered a severe “copy machine error” which distorted important information in this official document. Whose responsibility to make sure government records are copied and filed properly? What assurance is there that this particular page was originally contained in this particular document?
<<<<<<<INSERT?>>>>>>>>>
LINE 24 (above): Maybe it isn’t “Lake Shore Ranch” but “Big Whore Ranch” or “Pay More Ranch”, etc. ?
lol
Had a little study mishap
A foot high paper avalanche
With no page numbering its all mixed up
Is LDPCSD an annexed Modesto branch?
LOL
Seriously though, I had a whole stack of these LDPCSD and LAFCO ANNEXATION RESOLUTIONS on my desk and when walking by accidentally brushed against them and to the floor they went. What a (*&^%$ mess! As I was “putting the stack back together” I realized it was impossible without page identification. Rather like that Pringles commercial and the different clip flavors — “You just created Bar-B-Que spicy PRINGLES!” or whatever….interchangeable! Take page one of RES -01, page 3 of RES-04, and page 4 of RES -05 and create a brand new annexation resolution of approval on paper! Add another unrelated “EXHIBIT A” and any location is a potential annexed property into the LDPCSD! Not so lol when unscrupulous special interests are concerned. .
CONSIDER: How many times have I harped on the issue of PETE KAMPA failing to properly notice “SURPRISE” “SANDBAGGED” information interjected into otherwise properly noticed (per Brown Act) information at monthly meetings or the concern about the unnumbered pages of official documents or pages in the agenda packet? These Resolutions fall under the same principle because without clear identifying information as to what PROPERTY IS ACTUALLY BEING CONSIDERED on the face of the application or in an “ATTACHED EXHIBIT A”—-
ANY PROPERTY COULD LATER BE INSERTED
INTO THAT “STREAM OF MEANDERING and APPROVING INFORMATION”.
(Perhaps an “Exhibit A” bar napkin agreement and sketch for a Mars Annexed Development (MAD) was quietly slipped into the stream so the LDPCSD (MR WECs) will be required to obtain AVAILABLE GOVERNMENT GRANTS for the funding of a Polar Water Thawing Project per MARS RESOLUTION LDPCSD 2038-2xlol)
HEY! I KNOW…let’s follow one of these LDPCSD RESOLUTIONS and see where it goes – hopefully. (Of course it may turn out to be a similar exercise as attempting to explain in writing how to tie a boot lace without demonstrating or providing graphical assistance – very difficult. In fact, I have been using large 2’x4’ pieces of drafting paper in order to layout some of these resolutions to follow their progression as they “hip hop” from “Resolution title to Resolution title” and refer to Resolutions that do not exist and attached exhibits that are not attached. (Scotch taping legal pad sheets together didn’t work out so well.)
I will tell you this, I believe this RESOLUTION PROCESS and RESULTING MEANDERING PAPER TRAIL was intentionally created to make any future annexation confirmation process difficult.
Sorry, but I call that pure deceit and this mid 1990s garbage looks similar to the garbage produced since 2014 by Pete Kampa. What a frigg ‘n coincidence, yeah? I don’t thing so.
READY? HERE WE GO! Let’s start with LDPCSD RESOLUTION 95-4.
Prior to jumping right into the meat of LDPCSD RES 95-4, (May 15, 1995 – oh yeah, reminds me, — and the timing of some of these resolutions is very interesting as well) viewers should be aware this resolution also happens to be the last one posted on the MARIPOSA COUNTY LAFCO WEBPAGE, UNDER THE TOP LEFT LINK HEADING: LAFCO RESOLUTIONS.
You can check this out yourself with the below link:
INDEX OF LAFCO RESOLUTIONS ON COUNTY WEBSITE
At the risk of repetition – (BIG lol, right?)
LDPCSD RES 95-4 is the last resolution posted on the MARIPOSA COUNTY LAFCO WEBPAGE, under the top left link title: LAFCO RESOLUTIONS.
“But why would an LDPCSD Resolution be the last and only “outside LAFCO resolution” posted under a heading for LAFCO resolutions only?” an observant and curious viewer might reasonably ask.
“Excellent question”, I would reply just before beginning another torturous blah blah blah long and drawn out explanation like –
I’m not sure but have mentioned this fact to Mariposa County PLANNING/LAFCO officials in one of my “reminders about the public information request” but considering they have ignored these requests while simultaneously failing to offer any explanation as to why the information cannot be furnished – I suspicion County Counsel for one legal reason or another has instructed them not to respond.
(loud crying) whhhaaaaah, waahaaaaah,……the….the…the…they….don’t……li…..li……li…….ike me!……wahaaaaa !
—-boo hoo hoo.hoo……the, eh ehy won’t ta ta ta talk o to or re re re spond to to to ma ma ma my requessssssssstssss….wahhh….whhaaaaaaaaaa……
That’s OK, I don’t care much for their lack of respect for citizens and failure to obey their own rules either.
ANYWAY, so the first question is, why is the below LAKE DON PEDRO CSD RESOLUTION THE LAST POSTING UNDER LAFCO RESOLUTIONS ON THE MARIPOSA COUNTY WEBSITE?
READ THIS CAREFULLY – ANYTHING “JUMP OUT AT YOU” that just doesn’t seem right?
<<<insert>>>>
I am seriously wondering if LDPCSD RES 95-4 (ABOVE) was posted by the County as plausible deniability and suggested evidence as to the identity of the actual responsible parties for what certainly appears to be wrongful activity. Think about that for a moment.
What if the County did lay out a conditionally approved annexation procedure – yet LDPCSD officials ignored those preconditions and “JUMPED STRAIGHT TO ANNEXATION” – in addition to previously providing incorrect information in the original application to LAFCO?
When I first saw the statement above in 95-4 I even asked Planning/LAFCO officials about it and they were surprised as well.
Tell you what, I have things outside that I have ignored for days and need to address – why don’t you check out that LAFCO WEBSITE and Resolution page (link above) , and I’ll pick up here on the next post? I’ve got to get away from this monitor as well my eyes are tired.
My best to you and yours, Lew
