My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
SU0014986
Environmental Health - Public
>
EHD Program Facility Records by Street Name
>
H
>
HARNEY
>
13294
>
2600 - Land Use Program
>
PA-2200116
>
SU0014986
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/17/2022 3:24:28 PM
Creation date
6/8/2022 4:34:50 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
EHD - Public
ProgramCode
2600 - Land Use Program
RECORD_ID
SU0014986
PE
2622
FACILITY_NAME
PA-2200116
STREET_NUMBER
13294
Direction
E
STREET_NAME
HARNEY
STREET_TYPE
LN
City
LODI
Zip
95240-
APN
06326016
ENTERED_DATE
6/6/2022 12:00:00 AM
SITE_LOCATION
13294 E HARNEY LN
RECEIVED_DATE
6/1/2022 12:00:00 AM
P_LOCATION
99
P_DISTRICT
004
QC Status
Approved
Scanner
SJGOV\tsok
Tags
EHD - Public
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
28
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Unfortunately I am too late too oppose the previous splits of this original parcel (which ironically as a <br /> cattle ranch was flood irrigating and rotationally grazing helping to replenish our aquifer) but I don't <br /> understand how in good conscious with the water conservation district fee proposal you can <br /> approve this split which will lead to the need for more well drilling permits, of which there should be <br /> a moratorium until we can come up with solutions for our dwindling water resources. <br /> Although I know the zoning of this area allows for such a split on paper, those decisions were made <br /> before we were facing such drastic and quite scary concerns over water issues and drought. <br /> As a neighboring property owner, I oppose this split on environmental, sustainability, and quality of <br /> life grounds. I do not begrudge my neighbors effort to make money with the split and sale of his <br /> property but personal economic concerns do not take precedent over the drastic environmental <br /> concerns now facing this valley and county that we love. <br /> Also on another note, I don't understand how these parcels will be served by the private gravel <br /> Gallagher road (for firefighter access) when we weren't allowed to place our house (back in 1997) <br /> exactly where we wanted because the property access driveway needed to paved? <br /> If you have any questions or concerns or need any clarification please feel free to contact us. I've <br /> attached several links as evidence of the concerns I am detailing here. <br /> Sincerely, <br /> Rex& Ruth Clark et. al. <br /> 13257 N.Jack Tone Rd. <br /> Lodi, Ca. 95240. <br /> ralphallenclark(@yahoo.com <br /> 209-210-1488 <br /> Overview <br /> https://www.ppic.org/publication/water-and-the-future-of-the-san-Joaquin-vaIley/ <br /> This was a year ago and it's only gotten worse <br /> httl2s://www.lodinews.com/news/article_8ac73350-b3ac-11eb-8fe1-cf26f206f714.html <br /> San Joaquin is in a higher level of well failure than ALL our neighboring counties <br /> https://calmatters.org/environment/2021/08/california-groundwater-drys <br /> Unprecedented action <br /> htti2s://www.recordnet.com/story/news/state/2022/06/11/water-rights-cut-amid-california- <br /> drought-san-Joaquin-delta-watershed/7562085001/ <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.