Tehachapi City Council
April 6, 2026

11. East: Vacant
West: Single Family Residential

11. Correspondence in opposition:

Correspondence in favor:

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

Yes□
Yes□
No■
No■
All potential impacts can be mitigated to a level of insignificance. Mitigation measures to be implemented at the grading and project development stage through project design and conditions of approval.
111. PROJECT DESCRIPTION:

IV.

Tentative Tract Map No. 6507 represents a one (1) lot subdivision for condominium purposes. The development consists of 32 residential triplex structures each of which will accommodate three (3) dwelling units within each residential cluster for a total of 96 dwelling units on a 10.45 acre site, yielding a density of 9.18 dwelling units per acre.

LOCATION:

The subject site is located north and adjacent to the future extension of Pinon Street, west and adjacent to the future extension of Applewood Drive/Elm Street and east of Curry Street. Please see Attachment A (Vicinity Map) and Attachment B (Location Map) for details.

V. AREA DEVELOPMENT:

In terms of area development the subject site is located south and adjacent to Tract Map No. 4854 also known as the Applewood Estates. The Applewood Estates represents a small lot subdivision developed within the R-2 (Medium Density) zoning district. Lots within the Applewood Estates development are relatively small with a typical lot being 3,500 square feet in size. The Applewood Estates development yielding an overall density of 9.16 dwelling units per acre inclusive of the condominium component of the project which has yet to be constructed. To the south of the subject site are single family residential units on predominately 5,000 square foot lots located within Phase I of Tract Map No. 4843. To the east of the subject site are single family residential units on predominantly 6,000 square foot lots located within Tract Map No. 2775. Further to the north east of the subject site are several apartment complexes which are located south and adjacent to Cherry Lane. The subject site has an R-2 (Medium Density) zoning designation and properties to the immediate northeast and west of the subject site are also zoned R-2 but are currently undeveloped with the exception of the Applewood Estates Subdivision. In this regard the subject site is located within an area having an established pattern of mixed use small lot single CITY4COA 13814
Tentative Tract Map No. 6507
August 15, 2005

family and multiple family residential developments. In addition, in terms of established zoning the area possesses a relatively large and consolidated pattern of R-2 zoning. In this regard the project can be found to be compatible with the established pattern of area development. Further, this compatibility finding should be sustainable over the long term as the surrounding vacant R-2 parcels develop out over time.

VI. ZONING:

As previously indicated the subject site has an R-2 (Medium Density) zoning designation. The R-2 zoning district allows for a variety of residential product types including small lot single family, apartments, and multiple family dwelling units. R-2 residential projects are allowed up to one (1) dwelling unit per each three thousand six hundred thirty (3,630) square feet of land area. As indicated the subject site is 10.45 acres in size. As such based on the above density formula the subject site could support up to 125 dwelling units. The applicant is proposing 96 condominium units and therefore the project is consistent with the R-2 zoning criteria both in terms of the allowable uses and the proposed density. Please refer to Attachment C (Area Development and Zoning) for details.

VII. GENERAL PLAN:

The subject site has a Medium Density General Plan Designation. The Medium Density classification allows for a wide range of housing accommodations ranging from conventional single family units to mobile homes with density up to 12 dwelling units per acre. As indicated, the proposal is for the construction of 96 condominium units with a density of 9.18 dwelling units per acre. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan in terms of both the allowable product type and density.

The General Plan policies regarding residential uses in general requires that new proposals for residential developments be substantially contiguous to existing development. The purpose of the policy is to help reduce the unnecessary and premature removal of finite resources such as prime agricultural soils, reduce the cost of community services provided to the residents and to eliminate "leap frog" development patterns. This policy will also reduce, if not eliminate, the need to form assessment districts and the like by which to fund the extension of infrastructure to a proposed site that does not have infrastructure readily available to serve the development.

The subject tract can be characterized as being in compliance with the above referenced policy in that there are single family residential units contiguous to the north of the subject site and infrastructure is readily available and sized to accommodate the proposed development. Therefore, Tentative Tract Map No 6507 represents a logical extension of infrastructure and development. In this regard the project is consistent CITY4COA 13815
Tentative Tract Map No. 6507
August 15, 2005

with the General Plan policies regarding appropriate development patterns and infrastructure availability.

VIII. PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT (PRO) COMPONENTS:

Residential projects such as small lot single family residential, condominiums, town home and patio home product types are required to be processed as Planned Residential Developments or PRD's. The entitlement process for PRD's is distinguished from conventional single family developments in that the applicant is required to provide more information in the initial stages of the mapping process including but not limited to architecture, landscaping and open space details. In this regard PRD's can be characterized as a trade off in that the applicant is allowed to pursue a higher density than what can typically be achieved by a conventional subdivision. However, the applicant is required to commit to a higher level of detail and quality up front rather than differing some of these details to a later stage in the development process. With respect to the architectural elements, the applicant is proposing three (3) variations on an architectural theme that includes a significant usage of stone and timber within an architectural vocabulary that is reminiscent of French and English Tutor traditions. Please refer to Attachment D (Elevation Concepts) for details. Staff has evaluated the proposed architectural elements against the recently adopted Residential Architectural Design Guidelines and found the project to be consistent with the intent of the guideline. Each triplex accommodates a 1,488 square foot unit with four (4) bedrooms, a 1,700 square foot unit with 3 bedrooms and a den and a 1,480 square foot 2 bedroom carriage unit. Each unit will be provided with a two (2) car garage. The larger more conventional units will each have a small rear yard area and the carriage units will have a relatively large patio area located above the garages. Each of the three (3) units can be accessed from a private exterior entrance or from the individual garages. Please refer to Attachment E (Floor Plans and Footprints) for details.

In addition to the architectural elements the applicant is making a significant commitment to parameter landscaping along Pinon Street and Applewood Drive/Elm Street. The fifteen foot swath of landscaping will accommodate a meandering sidewalk and an informal massing of trees, shrubs and groundcover. In addition, the complex will be enclosed by a decorative community theme wall with pilasters at every 20 feet on center. The landscape buffer treatment along Pinon Street will be very similar to the Pinon Street landscape treatment approved for Tract 6216 located south of the subject tract. The project's main entrance will be significantly accentuated to give the project a strong sense of arrival. Additionally, each unit entry court will be accentuated with landscaping to include tree canopy and groundcover. In terms of open space, the project will include a centralized .78 acre park/open space amenity to include a pool and spa, tot lot, half court basketball and passive green belt/picnic area.

It should be noted that the parameter landscaping will be maintained by the City of Tehachapi through Tehachapi's Landscape and Lighting District and the interior landscaping and open space amenity will be maintained by a Home Owners CITY4COA 13816
Tentative Tract Map No. 6507
August 15, 2005

Association (HOA). Please refer to Attachment F (Conceptual Landscape Elements) for details.

IX MARKET READINESS
Although market readiness is typically not considered a planning issue per se. It is noteworthy that the Tehachapi real estate market is maturing and as such the City can anticipate seeing a variety of residential product types in response to this maturation process.

The subject tract is a case in point. The desirability and marketability of condominium and town houses are typically driven by two (2) primary market forces; housing costs and life style. With respect to housing cost, Staff is of the opinion that a single family detached home on a relatively large lot is still the product type most would be home owners aspire to.

However, with the median housing cost approaching $300,000 in the Tehachapi region many individuals are simply priced out of the market. Therefore higher density condominium and town house type products provide a more affordable alternative, particularly for the first time home buyer. In terms of the life style issue, there is also a considerable market in the Tehachapi region for households and individuals such as aging "baby boomers" looking to down size and simplify their life style. Projects of this variety provide that opportunity while still maintaining a quality life style. Therefore, Staff is of the opinion that this project is timely and will provide a much needed high quality relatively affordable owner occupied housing opportunity for the residents of Tehachapi.

X. CIRCULATION:

The proposed Tentative Tract Map is located approximately 1,000 feet west of Curry Street, north and adjacent to Pinon Street. west and adjacent to the future extension of Applewood Drive/Elm Street. The design of the tract achieves primary access off Applewood Drive to the east. Applewood Drive represents a north/south general local street which is the southerly extension of Elm Street within the City's hierarchy of streets. In addition there are two (2) emergency points of access, one located on Applewood Drive/Elm Street and the other off Pinon Street. These emergency access points will be gated and available to emergency vehicles and equipped with an Opticom system that will allow emergency responders such as the Fire Department to have the emergency gates opened remotely and in advance of their arrival. Internally each of the units will be accessed by a system of interconnect private streets. There is only one internal street that terminates onto a cul-de-sac. However, said cul-de-sac has an adequate radius to accommodate a City of Tehachapi and/or County of Kern Fire apparatus for turn around purposes.

In addition to the conventional traffic impacts and mitigation analysis, Staff also evaluated the potential of Applewood Drive/Elm Street becoming a defacto collector street once the subject street is extended through to Pinon Street. Eventually Pinon Street will be extended from Curry Street westerly to Tucker Road and provide area circulation with an east/west secondary arterial. Once this is accomplished traffic generated in the area of the subject development will be adequately distributed. However, in the interim Staff was concerned that once Elm Street was extended through to Pinon Street that said street might provide residence with an alternate north/south route to Valley Boulevard and points and beyond. In CITY4COA 13817
Tentative Tract Map No. 6507
August 15, 2005

this regard staff was concerned that Elm Street in the near term might inadvertently carry traffic volumes that are at or near collector road thresholds. This issue was evaluated by Crenshaw Traffic Engineering as an addendum to the convention traffic study. Crenshaw Engineering concluded that less than five (5) percent of area traffic would use the Applewood Drive/Elm Street route as a would be collector. Therefore, it was concluded that Applewood Drive/Elm Street would not carry traffic that approaches collector street volumes and as such Applewood Drive/Elm Street should continue to function as a general Local Street. Please see Attachment G (Crenshaw Engineering Correspondence Dated August 16, 2005) for details.

The daily traffic volumes associated with the build out of 96 dwelling units on a 10.45-acre site have been estimated based on data obtained from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation, 7
th Edition dated January 2000. At full build out the 96 dwelling units (condominiums) could generate up to 563 vehicle trips per day. Crenshaw Traffic Engineering prepared a Traffic Impact Study dated March 23, 2005 enclosed in the Negative Declaration as Appendix 8. Project mitigation will be achieved per the traffic study.

The traffic study was required to determine the project's contribution to existing and future traffic volumes (cumulative) and the project's fare share or pro-rata contribution in terms of mitigation.

The following intersections will be directly impacted by this development and the project's fare share or pro-rata contribution in terms of mitigation in the form of intersection signalization and off site improvements is as follows:

Intersections
Dennison Road and Tehachapi Blvd.

Curry Street and Valley Blvd.

Mt. View Ave. and Valley Blvd.

Valley Blvd. and Mill Street
Valley Blvd. and Dennison Road
Tucker Road and Tehachapi Blvd.

Tucker Road and Valley Blvd.

Valley Blvd. and Mt. View Ave.

Tehachapi Blvd. and Curry Street
Tehachapi Blvd. and Green Street
Tehachapi Blvd. and Mill Street
Highline Road and Curry Street
XI. DRAINAGE:

0.69%

2.24%

1.18%

1.53%

0.92%

0.10%

0.125%

0.118%

0.95%

0.90%

0.72%

0.15%
With regard to drainage, the subject site slopes in a predominantly northerly orientation in what can be characterized as a sheet flow condition and there are no well defined drainage courses traversing the subject site. The applicant is required to collect the storm water runoff in a storm drain system and convey the storm water run-off to an appropriate outlet. To that end the applicant will convey storm water run-off to an existing retention basin which has been sized and located to accommodate the collective run-off associated with the subject CITY4COA 13818
Tentative Tract Map No. 6507
August 15, 2005

tract and Tract Map No. 6216 located to the south of the subject tract. It should be noted that Tract Map No. 6216 has been graded, however to date no structures have been constructed.

XII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends to the Planning Commission that a recommendation to the City Council be made to adopt a Negative Declaration, based on a finding that all impacts can be mitigated to a level of insignificance and adopt a De Minimis Finding relative to biological resources and approve Tentative Tract Map No. 6507 subject to the attached conditions of approval.

XIII. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:

Recordation Conditions:

1. The subdivision shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act and to all applicable requirements of the Tehachapi Municipal Code.

2. This conditionally approved Tentative Map will expire two (2) years following the approval by the Tehachapi City Council original approval date, unless extended as provided by the extension of time process. Any action associated with a minor change and/or revised map request will not extend the limits of the tentative map.

3. The final map shall be prepared by a licensed land surveyor or registered civil engineer subject to all requirements of the California Subdivision Map Act and the Department of Real Estate.

4. Prior to the recordation of the final map all delinquent property taxes shall be paid to the Kern County Tax Collector's Office and a Tax Certificate shall be provided to the City of Tehachapi as verification.

5. Prior to the recordation of the final map the subdivider shall submit the following documents and fees to the Community Development Department for review, which documents shall be subject to the approval of said department, City Engineer and the City Attorney:
a. A signed and notarized declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions; and,
b. A sample document conveying title to the purchaser of an individual lot or unit, which provides that the declaration of covenants, conditions, and restrictions is incorporated therein by reference.

CITY4COA 13819
Tentative Tract Map No. 6507
August 15, 2005

c. A deposit in the amount of $1,000.00 for review of covenants, conditions and restrictions shall be submitted at the time the above documents are submitted to the Community Development Department for review.

The Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions submitted for review shall a. provide for a minimum term of 60 years;
b. provide for the establishment of a home owners' association comprised of the owners of each individual lot or unit as tenants in common; c. Provide for the ownership of the common area by either the homeowners association or the owners of each individual lot or unit as tenants in common; and
d. Contain the following provisions verbatim:
"Notwithstanding any provision in this Declaration to the contrary, the following provisions shall apply:

The homeowners association established herein shall manage and continually maintain the common areas, building elevations and roofs and on-site sewer and water facilities and shall not sell or transfer the common areas or any part thereof, absent the prior written consent of the Community Development Director or successor-in- interest.

The homeowners association shall have the right to assess the owners of each individual lot or unit for the reasonable cost of maintaining the common area and shall have the right to lien the property of any such owner who defaults in the payment of a maintenance assessment. An assessment lien, once created, shall be prior to all other liens recorded subsequent to the notice of assessment or other document creating the assessment lien.

This Declaration shall not be terminated, substantially amended or property deannexed therefrom absent the prior written consent of the Community Development Director or successor in interest. A proposed amendment shall be considered substantial if it affects the extent, usage or maintenance of the common area. In the event of any conflict between this Declaration and the Articles of Incorporation, the Bylaws or the property owners' association Rules and Regulation, if any, this Declaration shall control."

6. The developer shall install water lines, with provisions to maintain adequate pressure in accordance with the requirements of the City Engineer and Fire Chief. A pressure reducing station may be required.

CITY4COA 13820
Tentative Tract Map No. 6507
August 15,2005

7. Sewer collection system shall be installed in accordance with the requirements of the City Engineer.

8. All utilities shall be underground and streetlights shall be installed at locations having spacing as approved by the City Engineer.

9. The developer shall install street signs to City standards. Street names to be approved by the City Planning Department and Fire Department prior to recording final map.

10. The developer shall use diagonal corner cut-off within City rights-of-way to accommodate wheelchair ramps.

11. The developer shall pay fees to the City for checking plans and inspection of improvements. The City shall determine the amount of fees based upon estimated cost of improvements and said fees shall be paid in advance.

12. Quitclaim or abandonment of any easements or rights-of-way traversing lots and/or streets prior to recordation of final map.

13. Gas, electric, telephone and cable TV service shall be determined by the subdivider in consultation with the public utilities.

14. All poles and obstructions shall be relocated and/or removed from street rightof-way. This shall include, but is not limited to, quitclaim or subordination of rights to the City by all interest and easement holders having the right to place facilities or otherwise obstruct the free use of the road right-of-way. Where major facilities exist, a common use agreement may be allowed when determined necessary by the City Engineer.

15. The final subdivision map shall be in substantial conformance with the approved Tentative Map, subject to those changes required by the conditions of approval.

16. All easements shall be kept open, clear, and free from buildings and structures of any kind.

17. An Engineer's cost estimate of improvements shall be submitted to the City Engineer for approval prior to improvement plans being approved.

18. All related subdivision and off site improvements shall be in accordance with the requirements of City of Tehachapi Subdivision Ordinance.

19. The final subdivision map shall be in substantial conformance with the approved Tentative Map.

CITY 4COA 13821
Tentative Tract Map No. 6507
August 15, 2005

20. The acreage or square footage of land subdivided shall be shown on the final map.

21. The following certificates shall be on the final map:
a) Owner's Certificate
b) City Clerk's Certificate
c) Engineer's or Surveyor's Certificate
ct) Community Development Director's Certificate
e) City Engineer's Certificate
f) Recorder's Certificates

22. The land being subdivided shall be identified with a blue border.

23. Locations, names and widths of all streets and easements of all kinds shall be shown on the final map.

24. The applicant shall provide the City Engineer with a Subdivision Guarantee and Title Report Covering subject property.

25. A preliminary soils report shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval.

26. Improvement plans (streets, sewer, water and grading) shall be prepared, stamped and signed by the registered Civil Engineer and shall be submitted to and approved by the City prior to recording.

27. The subdivider shall comply with the standards, rules and regulations of the Kern County Health Department and the requirements of the City of Tehachapi regarding sewage disposal and water supply.

28. Prior to the recordation of a final map the applicant shall pay a pro-rata fee of $1,500.00 per dwelling unit towards the mitigation of traffic impacts unless the collection of said fee is deferred to the building permit stage as approved by the Community Development Director.

29. Prior to the recordation of the final map the applicant shall convey all underlying water rights equal to ½ acre-foot per dwelling unit. If no water rights are available or if the water rights are insufficient to meet the ½ acre foot requirement the applicant shall be required to pay an equivalent in lieu fee based on the fare market value of water rights at the time of CITY 4COA 13822
Tentative Tract Map No. 6507
August 15, 2005

purchase/conveyance. The fare market value to be determined and agreed upon between the City of Tehachapi and the applicant.

Landscaping and Maintenance:

1. A landscaping maintenance district (maintenance district) shall be formed for the purpose of maintaining the common landscaped area along Pinon Street and Applewood Drive/Elm Street or alternatively the project shall be annexed into an existing maintenance district.

2. A Home Owners Association (HOA) shall be formed for the purpose of maintaining all interior common area landscaping and open space amenities in addition to addressing parking, maintaining architectural integrity and other regulatory functions as determined necessary by the Community Development Director. The applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director that the HOA mechanism is in place prior to the recordation of the subdivision.

3. A detailed landscaping plan for all interior and exterior landscape applications showing plant materials, sprinkler system and other information shall be submitted to the Community Development Director for approval prior to the issuance of a building permit. Landscape materials to use drought tolerant plant species and water conservation techniques to the greatest extent possible and to conform to the City of Tehachapi landscape guidelines dated February 1991.

4. The subdivider shall be responsible for the maintenance and upkeep of all landscaped area and irrigation systems until such time as those operations are the responsibility of a landscaping maintenance district (exterior landscape) and HOA (interior landscape) as approved by the Community Development Director.

General:

1. At the building permit stage the proposed structure shall substantially conform to the architectural rendering included in the PRO package.

2. The Pinon Street and Applewood Drive/Elm Street frontage improvements shall include a meandering sidewalk, decorative community theme wall with pilasters and landscape buffer treatment.

3. All construction shall comply with applicable requirements of the Tehachapi Zoning Code, the Planning Department, and the Fire Chief and the Kern County Building and Safety Department.

CITY 4COA 13823
Tentative Tract Map No. 6507
August 15, 2005

4. No building permits with the exception of a model home complex shall be issued for any construction within the subdivision until the final subdivision map is recorded and either:
a) All conditions of the tentative subdivision map have been fulfilled; or b) Those conditions unfulfilled at the time of an application for building permits shall be secured and agreements executed in a form and manner satisfactory to the City Attorney and City Engineer.

5. The developer shall be responsible to make his/her best efforts to acquire adequate off-site land, easements or rights-of-way in order to construct required improvements. Upon a satisfactory showing that the developer's attempts have failed but in no event later than thirty (30) days prior to filing of the final map for approval, the developer shall submit all property appraisals and other documentation necessary for the City to begin eminent domain proceedings to acquire the needed interest. Appraisals shall be in a form acceptable to the City Engineer and shall be done by an experienced condemnation appraiser who is competent and able to defend his/her work in any court proceedings.

6. All public improvements shall be constructed in a manner that does not damage existing public improvements. · Any damage shall be determined by and corrected to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

7. Sewer, water, traffic, public safety and other fees required by the City shall be paid at the time of map recordation or the issuance of a building permit as determined by the Community Development Director.

8. The developer shall be responsible for the payment of the school impact mitigation fees in affect at the time of the building permit issuance to the Tehachapi Unified School District.

9. The applicant shall comply with the Fire Department conditions/requirements stipulated in their memorandum dated May 24, 2055 and included herein as Attachment H.

Street Improvements and Traffic:

1. Public street improvements shall be constructed to City Standards as required by the Subdivision Ordinance in effect at the time of the tentative map approval and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Specific details, including final street improvement widths, right-of-way widths, concrete curbs and gutters, drainage, lighting, etc., shall be resolved to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

CITY 4COA 13824
Tentative Tract Map No. 6507
August 15, 2005

2. The address of each lot/dwelling unit shall either be painted on the curb or where curbs are not available, posted in such a manner that the address is visible from the street. In both cases, the address shall be placed in a manner and location approved by the City Engineer.

3. The developer will be required to provide a detailed detour and traffic control plan, for all construction within existing right-of-ways, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. This plan shall be approved prior to the issuance of an Encroachment Permit for construction within the public right-of-way.

4. The developer's engineer shall prepare a complete signing and striping plan for all improved roadways. Any removal of existing striping shall be at the expense of the developer including new signing and striping. The developer shall post a cash deposit with the City for any work to be done by City forces.

5. All utilities shall be underground and streetlights shall be installed as recommended by the Community Development Director.

6. Pinon Street shall be dedicated and receive full street improvements (center line of street to property line plus 10 feet north half ) for a 90-foot right-of-way and curb-to-curb distance of 68 feet based on a traffic index for pavement of

7.0 or as required by the City Engineer along the subject tracts entire frontage.

Improvements to Pinon Street to include striping of a Class 11 bike lane along the project frontage and an additional five (5) feet of parkway shall be included in the dedication for landscape installations.

7. Pinon Street to be provided with an additional 5-feet of pavement south of the property line to compensate for the pavement that was deferred within the Pinon Street improvements associated with Tract Map No. 6216.

8. Applewood Drive/Elm Street shall dedicated and receive full street improvements ( center line of street to property line plus 10-feet west half of street) for a 60-foot right-of-way and a curb-to-curb distance of 40-feet. An additional 5-feet of parkway shall be included in the dedication for landscape installations.

Grading:

1. A site grading and erosion control plan shall be approved by the City Engineer.

The first submittal of the grading plan shall be accompanied by four (4) copies of the preliminary soils/geotechnical report. The soils engineer will be required to indicate in the soils report that he/she has reviewed the grading design and found it to be in conformance with his/her recommendations.

2. Erosion control, including riprap, interim slope planting, sandbags, or other erosion control measures shall be provided to control sediment and silt from the CITY4COA 13825
Tentative Tract Map No. 6507
August 15, 2005

project. The developer shall be responsible for maintaining all erosion control facilities throughout the project and shall provide a copy of the Notice of Intent filed with the Regional Water Quality Control Board.

3. The developer shall be responsible for the recycling of all excavated materials designated as industrial recyclable (soil, asphalt, sand, concrete, land clearing brush and rock) at a recycling center or other location(s) approved by the City Engineer.

4. A general construction activity permit is required from the State Water Resources Board for all storm water discharges associated with a construction activity where clearing, grading and excavation results in a land disturbance of one (1) or more acres.

5. Lot drainage shall meet the requirements of current Tehachapi Design Standards and the City Engineer and shall include the construction of necessary brow ditches.

6. All existing wells shall be abandoned and capped, and all existing septic tanks shall be pumped and backfilled, per the Kern County Health Department requirements.

7. All lot lines shall be located at the top of slope unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer.

8. Hours for grading and general subdivision improvement construction for streets and public utilities installation shall be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. in order to maintain neighboring property owner's quality of life.

Drainage:

1. A drainage plan with calculations per the City Engineer's requirements shall be submitted to the City Engineer for approval. All storm water within tract boundary shall be conveyed in storm drains or drain into an on-site storm water retention basin sized per the hydraulic calculations and City standards.

Sewer:

1. All sewer main locations and sizing of mains shall be to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Required sewer main improvements include, but are not limited to, the construction of the following:
a) Onsite eight-inch sewer mains to service all the proposed lots/structures within the subdivision.

CITY 4COA 13826
Tentative Tract Map No. 6507
August 15,2005

2. Sewer utilities shall be extended to the project's boundary at such locations as required by the City Engineer.

Water:

1. Fire hydrant spacing and location must be approved by the Fire Department. A minimum of 500 GPM fire flow is required at 20 PSI residual. The number and timing of hydrants shall be coordinated with the Fire Chief.

2. Water distribution mains servicing the subject tract shall be installed, located and sized in conformance with the City of Tehachapi Development Standards and in a manner consistent with the City of Tehachapi General Plan (Public Facilities Element).

3. Water pressure may be higher at the subject site than usual therefore a pressure reducing valve may be required for residents.

4. Water system to be looped internally and connecting from Pinon Street to Applewood Drive/Elm Street.

Final Map - Easements and Dedications:

1. The developer shall obtain all necessary dedications for public right-of-ways and necessary permissions to do work on other private properties in order to improve the project.

2. All easements, both private and public, affecting subject property shall be shown and delineated on the final map.

3. Necessary public utility easements for sewer, water, storm drain, etc., shall be granted to the City on the Final Map. The minimum easement width is 20 feet.

Easements with additional utilities shall be increased accordingly.

4. The developer, through his/her engineer, shall verify the location of all public utility easements within this project and shall verify that public utilities are within these easements.

5. The applicant shall provide the City Engineer with a Subdivision Guarantee and Title Report covering subject property.

6. As surety for the construction of required off-site and/or on-site improvements, bonds and agreements in a form acceptable to the City Attorney shall be posted by the developer with the City of Tehachapi prior to the approval of the final Subdivision.

CITY 4COA 13827

EXHIBIT D
August 15, 2024
Pinon 96, LLC
Attn: Wade Lewis
P.O. Box 1025
Santa Paula, CA 93061
0TE
C����R��1
Uve Up.

RE: AD&SPR 2022-11- Tract 6507; Pinon 96 Architecture - Notice of Entitlement Status - Expired Dear Applicant:

This letter is to notify you that the entitlement under Architectural Development & Site Plan Review (AD&SPR) No. 2022-11 "Tract 6507; Pinon 96 Architecture" originally approved by the Tehachapi Planning Commission on June 27, 2022, has expired.

To move this project forward, a new AD&SPR application must be submitted.

Please reach me at [email protected] or (661) 822-2200 ext. 115 with any questions.

Sincerely,
John (Jay) Schlosser, P.E.

Development Services Director
CC: File
Applicant
www.liveuptehachapi.com City of Tehachapi Planning Department Page 1 of 1 CITY 4COA 13760

EXHIBIT E
0 TE c��\S�R��1
Live Up.

TEHACHAPI PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
June 13, 2022
TO: Chairperson Nixon and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Jay Schlosser, Development Services Director
SUBJECT: Architectural Design & Site Plan Review No. 2022-11- Pinon Town home Estates Architecture I. SUMMARY:

The Applicant has submitted a request for new architectural approval of 32 buildings, each containing three (3) units for a total of 96 units (Tract Map No. 6507). The site is approximately 10.45 acres and contains internal drives that access attached two-car garages for each unit and a central park/open space amenity to include pool and spa, tot lot, half-court basketball and green belt/picnic area. There will be associated on-site parking for guests, landscaping and exterior concrete walks, and site and pedestrian lighting. There is significant landscaping along Pinon Street and Applewood Drive.

The proposed project is located at the northwest corner of Pinon Street and Applewood Drive (see Figure 1).

Figure 1 - Project Location Map
CITY4COA 13740
Planning Commission Staff Report: AD&SPR No. 2022-11
Pinon Townhome Estates
II. REQUIRED APPLICATIONS/AUTHORIZATION/GUIDELINES:

Tehachapi Zoning Code (TZC) Sections 9.30.050 and 9.60.020 and Table 3.30.050 authorizes the Planning Commission to review and act on the following:
• Architectural Design and Site Plan Review permit - For review of structures erected to accommodate land uses listed in Article 3 (Specific to Zones), site plan, and conceptual landscaping plan The final determination by the Planning Commission on this application may be appealed to the City Council pursuant to the time periods and requirements established in the TZC for appeals.

Ill. PUBLIC NOTICE:

A Planning Commission meeting notice for this item has been posted on the City's website at www.liveuptehachapi.com.

IV. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

This project was approved in 2005 with the adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). No further environmental analysis is required.

V. PROJECT BACKGROUND:

Tentative Tract Map No. 6507 (see Figure 2) was approved on August 15, 2005, by the City of Tehachapi to develop 96 condominium dwelling units through a Planned Residential Development that included architectural renderings of residential structures, a conceptual landscaping plan, and open space elements.

The final tract map was recorded November 27, 2007 but never constructed due to local economic changes over the last 15 years.
-�· ,,, ..
- ··� ,,.,.,
r-:��:-·· -··--·-··Tn
:
,l;_ •
r .... ,---.. ..... I
i ---
i .::.-_--:
. l .
,, .

I: (
I
,
.
- -----·- ·--·-·-··---�-_J
' -
. � --==-=-
_,.,...
�1
,; , . . ,
-"f r
;tf_; ..
n•�
--""
\'I...,,...,. •Ill.
-::--·•-,-
Figure 2 - Tentative Tract Map Na. 6507
www.liveuptehachapi.com City of Tehachapi Planning Department ....
r
.. "L)''.!...ltll!
"t t' H . :;,.J· '
l..:..-:!J19.J:'
f tr �
-,��.!'
_. r
' I [� L -
---·-----
�1.•r.c.r�
'
.:u:c
01Y or rDl,.CHAPI ,.a, 1W£C75,: cnn crucvr AA"' ,r,w1� ,.-K, ,...., �T

Planning Commission Staff Report: AD&SPR No. 2022-11
Pinon Townhome Estates
Owner:

Applicant/Architect:

Property Location:

Property Address:

Circulation:

General Plan Land Use
Designation:

Zoning Classification:

APN:

Existing Conditions:

Surrounding Land Uses:

Previous
Applications/Entitlements:
www.liveuptehachapi.com
Pinon 96, LLC
c/o PO Box 1025
Santa Paula, CA 93061
Phone: 805-402-0533
Email: [email protected]
Michael Dhanens Architect
PO Box 82155
Bakersfield, CA 93380
Phone: 661-324-4141
Email: [email protected]
Northwest corner of Pinon Street and Applewood Drive (see Figure 1) TBD
Ingress and egress access to the townhomes will be achieved from one driveway on Applewood Drive
Southern Neighborhoods (4A)
Neighborhood General (T-4)
416-500-01
Vacant with Retention Basin
North: Single Family Residential
South: Single Family Residential
East: Vacant
West: Vacant
Planned Residential Development/ Tentative Tract 6507 adopted 9/6/2005 City of Tehachapi Planning Department
CITY4COA 1374� Page 3 o 14
Planning Commission Staff Report: AD&SPR No. 2022-11
Pinon Townhome Estates
VI. APPLICANT LETTER EXCERPT:

M
May l'l. 2022
Ms. Kim Burnell. Planner
DEVELOPMENT SERVTCES DEPARTJ\fENT

CITY OF TEHACHAPI
I I 7 So. Robinson Street
Tehachapi. Califorrua 93561
Re: Pinon Townbomc Estates

ARCHITECT
SWC Pinon Street and Applewood Ori\-·c
Tehachapi. CA
Ms. Burnell,
Parcel l; Parcel Map 65()7
AP '416-500--01
Please accepl the attached application for Architectural ReYiev.• for the referenced project.

Accompan}ing th.is leuer via email arc the foUowing: ooe copy of each application Md the indemnification Agreement, previously approved floor plans and new, proposed exterior elevlll:ions and renderings.

The existing approved project consisted of thirty-two buildings, each contaming three units for a total of 96 uoits. Th.e site is approximately I 0.45 acres and contains internal drives that access attached two-car garages for each unit and a central park/open space amenity to include pool and spa. tol lot, half-court basketooll o.nd green belt/picnic area There will be associated on-site parlciog for guesl!!, landscaping and ex1erior concrete walks and she and pedestrian lighting. There is significont landscaping alooll, Pinon Street and Applowood Drive. The unit floor plan laym1ts will remain unchanged.

While all previous!} outlined elements remain unchanged, it is requested tbai the Planning Commission approve new architectural elevations, colors ond materials for the buildings to replace those previously approved. Three variations Me proposed on a new archltectural theme based on a mountain modem concept. The primary distinctive fearures include: deeper overhangs with substantialJy wider fascias, lighter colored stone veneer used as a base material and for columnar elements, srucco colors that an: less rustic and more oootemporary, darker IIJ'Chitectural standing -m mM:il roof J)ftnf"ls. hocimot11I w(lrv! llitline Ann 11cr.ent<;, ��cief- window frames and trim. window wid door styles more horizontal in oanue and railin� usins horizontal members. The three variatioos unliz.c gable and hip roof elements and the roof pitches are shAJlow. There arc also three color schemes presented that can used interchangeably among the three elevation options.

See Attachment B for the full Applicant Letter.
www.llveuptehachap1.com City of Tehachapi Planning Department ITY4COA 1374f:

Page4 o
Planning Commission Staff Report: AD&SPR No. 2022-11
Pinon Townhome Estates
VII. ANAL VSIS:

General Plan Consistency, Land Use, and Zoning
At the time of approval in 2005, and at a density of 9.18 dwelling units per acre, the project was found to be consistent with the City's General Plan designation of Medium Density Residential, which allowed for density up to 12 dwelling units per acre. The project was also found to be consistent with the General Plan policy that stipulated that new development would be substantially contiguous to existing development to avoid leap frog development.

Furthermore, the project was deemed consistent with the Medium Density Residential (R-2) Zoning Designation, which allowed a variety of residential product types including small single family homes, apartments, and multiple family dwelling units. Under R-2 zoning, one dwelling unit is allowed per 3,630 square feet of land area. At 10.45 acres, the maximum number of dwelling units is 125 and the project includes 96 units.

Architectural Elements
In 2005, Residential projects, including condominium product types, were required to be processed as Planned Residential Developments. As such, the entitlement process required architecture, landscaping, and open space details.

The project was approved with three (3) variations on an architectural theme that included a significant use of stone and timber within an architectural concept that was reminiscent of French and English Tudor traditions (see Figure 3 and Attachment C). This highly embellished design was presented to the City from a prior developer (now bankrupt) and approved as part of the Tract Map approval process. -· .;;...-1.--.
an,,.ll<'i� It.•--•
Figure 3 - Original Approved Elevations
The development ownership has changed several times since that initial approval with the current project owner wishing to advance the project into construction. The new developer asked City Staff to consider changes to the approved architecture. In light of the original Planned Residential Development, project architecture was a component of the original approval and changes must be approved by the same legislative body (i.e. Tehachapi Planning Commission).
www.liveuptehachapi.com City of Tehachapi Planning Department Page 5 of 14 Planning Commission Staff Report: AD&SPR No. 2022-11
Pinon Townhome Estates
The applicant has presented new architecture (see Figure 4 and Attachment D) for consideration. The floor plans have remained the same. The new exterior architecture is a clean-lined craftsman style architecture boasting gabled, low-pitched roofs, stucco and stacked stone finish, with bold windows, select wood features, and subtle accent lighting. The proposed architecture also includes varied horizontal and vertical articulation.

Figure 4 - Proposed Elevations
The City ofTehachapi has adopted a set of Architecture Design Guidelines that aim to promote high quality architectural designs that enhance the Mountain Town character of the City. Neighborhood developments are expected to utilize styles that complement each other when grouped together, with building form and articulation expressed across all styles.

City Staff believes the proposed architecture is an attractive representation of what is desired in the Guidelines.
www.liveuptehachapi.com City of Tehachapi Planning Department C ITY4COA 1374� Page 6 o 14
Planning Commission Staff Report: AD&SPR No. 2022-11
Pinon Townhome Estates
Landscaping
The original Conceptual Landscaping Plan (see Attachment E) remains in place. The applicant will provide an updated final version of this plan, compliant with current standards, for construction.

Variance Request
None.

VIII. REQUIRED FINDINGS:

1. The project is consistent with the goals and policies of the City's General Plan and meets applicable district development standards.

The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan designation for this site. The use is compliant with the zoning and the architecture is consistent with the City Architectural Guidelines.

2. The project meets the minimum applicable requirements of this title and is in compliance with all other applicable laws, ordinances, and regulations of the City of Tehachapi and the State of California.

The project substantially conforms to the development regulations of the zone. The applicant will be required to submit construction plans that comply with the State of California Building Code prior to issuance of Building Permit and Certificate of Occupancy.

3. The project will not be materially detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of the public or to property and residents in the vicinity.

The proposed project is compliant with the TZC which includes numerous codes and regulations related to health, safety, and welfare.

4. The project complies with the terms and provisions of any prior zone change approval or Conditional Use Permit.

The project seeks to modify the previously approved Planned Residential Development for this site and so this action complies with this underlying approval.

5. The project adequately and safely provides for vehicular or pedestrian safety, both on and off site, by reason of properly arranged vehicular or pedestrian ingress and egress and internal circulation, or that excessive traffic congestion will not be created.

The proposed action related to project architecture does not modify the previously approved traffic circulation.

6. The project makes adequate provision to protect adjoining properties and structures from excessive and unreasonable nuisances, including for example, noise, vibrations, gases or odors, which might interfere with the use and enjoyment of surrounding properties.

The proposed action related to project architecture does not modify the previously approved project layout or amenities and so no unreasonable nuisances will be created by this action.

7. The project is consistent with the applicable provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. www.liveuptehachapi.com City of Tehachapi Planning Department Planning Commission Staff Report: AD&SPR No. 2022-11
Pinon Townhome Estates
The previous project approval is compliant with the applicable provisions of CEQA considered at that time.

8. The proposed land use, site and architecture promote a design consistent with and appropriate for the location, and consistent with the intended physical environment of the zoning district.

IX. RECOMMENDED ACTION:

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEHACHAPI, APPROVING ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN AND SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 2022-11, PINON TOWN HOME ESTATES ARCHITECTURE, SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL (ATTACHMENT A).

X. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:

Approval: If the Planning Commission intends to approve this proposal, the Commission should approve a motion to approve AD&SPR 2022-11 stating that the proposal satisfies the requisite findings and adopting the attached Resolution that incorporates the requisite environmental and AD&SPR permit findings and the conditions of approval, or as modified by the Commission.

Denial: If the Planning Commission intends to deny this proposal, the Commission should approve a motion to deny AD&SPR 2022-11 stating that the finding(s) of the proposal does not satisfy with reasons based on the record, and direct staff to prepare a resolution for adoption at the next meeting that incorporates the Commission's decisions and specific findings.

Continuation: If the Planning Commission intends to continue this proposal, the Commission should approve a motion to continue AD&SPR 2022-11 to the next Planning Commission hearing, and direct staff to work with the applicant to revise the proposal in the meantime.

If any Planning Commissioner or other interested party has any questions or comments regarding this matter prior to the June 13, 2022 hearing, please contact Jay Schlosser, at 661-822-2200 ext. 115, or by email at [email protected].

Approved:

Jay Schlosser
Development Services Director
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Attachment A
Attachment B
Attachment C
Attachment D
Attachment E
www.liveuptehachapi.com
Project Location Map
Tentative Tract Map No. 6507
Orignal Elevations
Proposed Elevations
Proposed Resolution
Applicant Letter
Original Architecture
Proposed Elevations/ Architecture
Existing Conceptual Landscaping
City of Tehachapi Planning Department
Attachment A
Proposed Resolution
CITY4COA 13748
Attachment B
Applicant Letter
CITY4COA 13749
Attachment C
Original Architecture
CITY4COA 13750
Attachment D
Proposed Updated Elevations/ Architecture
CITY4COA 13751
Attachment E
Existing Conceptual Landscaping
CITY 4COA 13752

EXHIBIT F
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
Andrea A. Matarazzo, SBN 179198
Daniel A. King, SBN 258524
Kathryn L. Patterson, SBN 266023

PIONEER LAW GROUP, LLP
1122 S Street
Sacramento, CA 95811
Telephone: (916) 287-9500
Facsimile: (916) 287-9515
Email: [email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Attorneys for Petitioner TEHACHAPICUMMINGS COUNTY WATER DISTRICT f I LED/ENDORSED
APR 2 4 2023
By .. --'i:"G . �-=----.J Galaviz

EXEMPT FROM FILING
FEE [GOV. CODE §6103)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

TEHACHAPI-CUMMINGS COUNTY
WATER DISTRICT, a California water
district,
Petitioner,
vs.

CITY OF TEHACHAPI, a California
municipal corporation; and DOES I through
20, inclusive,
Respondents.

GREENBRIAR CAPITAL CORPORATION,
a British Columbia corporation;
GREENBRIAR CAPITAL HOLDCO, INC., a
Delaware corporation;
GREENBRIAR CAPITAL (U.S.), LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company;
JEFFREY CIACHURSKI, an individual; and
DOES 21 through 40, inclusive
CASE NO.: 34-2022-80003892-CU-WM-GDS

SECOND AMENDED PETITION

FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

AND COMPLAINT FOR

DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE
RELIEF
California Environmental Quality Act
("CEQA"), Pub. Resources Code, §21000 et
seq.; Code Civ. Proc.,§§ 1085, 1094.5, 1060,
526.)
Judge: The Honorable Stephen Acquisto
Dept.: 36
Petition filed September 16, 2021
26 Real Parties in Interest.
27 28
00067566.1
Second Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate and Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief 2 I. INTRODUCTION
Petitioner TEHACHAPI-CUMMINGS COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
3 ("District") is a county water district organized and existing under the California County Water 4 District Law, Division 12 (commencing with § 30000) of the Water Code and the court-appointed 5 Watennaster for. three adjudicated groundwater basins within its service area, Tehachapi Basin, 6 Bite Basin and Cummings Basin. As a county water district, the District supplies imported State 7 Water Project ("SWP") water to a variety of municipal, agricultural and industrial customers 8 within its service area, including the Respondent CITY OF TEHACHAPI ("City") located within 9 the Tehachapi Basin. (See Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein [true 10 and correct copy of Figure 2-1, 2015 Regional Urban Water Management Plan, p. 52, generally 11 illustrating District Service Areas and Groundwater Basins].) As the court appointed 12 Watennaster, the District is responsible for administering the Tehachapi Basin Judgment, 13 monitoring groundwater levels to ensure a stable, reliable, and safe supply of groundwater to 14 stakeholders within the Basin. In light of the District's mission, regional responsibilities, and key 15 role in relation to the City's public water system, state law expects the City to coordinate closely 16 with the District regarding large development proposals to ensure informed decision-making, 17 with adequate consideration of water resources and water supply, water supply impacts, and 18 mitigation for those impacts. As discussed below, the City failed to do so. 19 2. The City approved a large scale 138-acre development including nearly 1,000 20 residential units known as Sage Ranch Development Project ("Sage Ranch" or "Sage Ranch 21 project'') without engaging the District in any meaningful way. Land use decisions are the City's 22 to make, and the District takes no position as to the merits of Sage Ranch. But, the District is 23 concerned about the impacts Sage Ranch will have on the limited water supplies within the 24 District and the Basin, and those who currently depend on those limited supplies. The City 25 approved the Sage Ranch project without an adequate water supply and without first meeting its 26 obligation to inform itself, as well as other governmental agencies and the public generally, of the 27 environmental impacts of the Sage Ranch project.
28 I I I
00067566.1 2
Second Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate and Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief "!

3. The District brings this action because the City has made, and continues to make, 2 land use decisions of significant local and regional importance without accounting for a water 3 supply and the resulting project impacts on the environment, including the water supply of others. 4 4. Whether to approve or disapprove projects that will attract thousands of new 5 residen� with attendant water supply impacts among other environmental consequences, are 6 decisions the City cannot properly make unless and until it has complied with state law by 7 acknowledging all significant environmental impacts of proposed new development and requiring 8 feasible mitigation to address those adverse environmental consequences. 9 5. As the City's surface water supplier and Watermaster for the Tehachapi Basin, the 10 District has a legal duty and public trust responsibility to ensure that the water resources within its 11 jurisdiction are allocated in accordance with state law and local policy. Particularly since 12 California's communities are suffering from the devastating effects of a historic drought, it is 13 imperative that California's public agencies act responsibly to ensure that their actions address 14 environmental consequences and protect water resources. The City, in reviewing and approving 15 land uses and development projects, including Sage Ranch, failed to meet these mandates. 16 Indeed, the City has publicly asserted that it need not concern itself with local water supply issues 17 because it overlies the regional resources of the Tehachapi Basin and therefore is, in its view, 18 "drought proof." (https://www .tehachapinews.com/news/city-counci 1-acts-on-sage-ranch-cell19 tower-signs-and-granny-units/article 8a85302c-l 351-l I ec-9cca20 930e2c0d95 I e.htm l?fbclid=lwAR 1 dPo0pmARUiVBF7N0Fbdjh7vqj V5TOlwldekxeDXSwCOO 21 KZnPUFwy3D0g r"(a]s to the local water supply," the City Development Services Director said 22 there is "350,000 acre-feet of water under the city right now. I'd go so far as to call it drought23 proof because of management"].) These representations are false and demonstrate a fundamental 24 misunderstanding of water supply issues, including over-estimating the amount of water available 25 in the basin by 90,000 acre-feet.
26 6. Because the City has not complied with its mandatory and public duties under the 27 California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), the Water Code, the Government Code, or its 28 own policies before making decisions to approve expansive growth, the District brings this action 00067566.1 3
Second Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate and Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief to enforce the City's obligations under applicable state and local laws, policies, ordinances, and 2 regulations. The issues in this action are issues of public right and the object of the action is to 3 enforce public duties to protect the public interest. 4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 IS
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 II. PARTIES

7. Petitioner TEHACHAPI-CUMMINGS COUNTY WATER DISTRICT is a public entity and legal subdivision of the State of California fanned and existing pursuant to the County Water District Law (Wat. Code, § 30000 et seq.) to provide an imported water supply, water resource management, and flood control protection to the agricultural, municipal, and industrial customers within the District's boundaries. The District is located in the Tehachapi Mountains, east of the southern San Joaquin Valley in the County of Kem and encompasses approximately 266,000 acres. The District brings this action on behalf of itself and in the interests of the individuals, communities, and agricultural lands it serves who are adversely affected by the City's actions in approving the Sage Ranch project and engaging in a pattern and practice of violation of applicable laws, including inadequate environmental review of Sage Ranch pursuant to CEQA, the Water Code, and the Government Code.

8. Respondent CITY OF TEHACHAPI is a political and geographical subdivision of the State of California with its principal offices located in Kem County, California. As lead agency for the Sage Ranch project and the local agency responsible for land use decisions within its boundaries, the City has the discretion to approve, disapprove, or condition development projects, including the Sage Ranch project, to avoid or substantially lessen, to the extent feasible, the environmental harm the projects will cause, and is responsible for compliance with the requirements ofCEQA, the Water Code, and the Government Code before approving such projects. The City is responsible for the acts described in this petition and complaint.

9. Public Resources Code section 21152 requires the City, in filing a "Notice of 25 Determination" for an approved project, to identify the project applicant/recipient of the project 26 approval for purposes of identifying the real parties in interest. (See also Pub. Resources Code, § 27 21167.6.5.) The City's Notice of Detennination for the Sage Ranch project filed with the County 28 // /
00067S66. I 4
Second Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate and Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief acquire additional water without identifying any likely source or giving any reasoned indication 2 that the water will be available. (Gov. Code, § 66473. 7; Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible 3 Growth, supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 433; see Draft EIR, pp. MMRP-12, 3.10-18, 3.19-21; Final EIR, 4 pp. 3.10-30, 3.19-32; Updated WSA, July 2021, p. 26.) 5 120. The City violated its mandatory duties under the Government Code by failing to 6 require, as a condition of approval of the Sage Ranch project, a water supply verification prior to 7 finalizing the subdivision map as required by SB 221. (Gov. Code,§§ 65867.S(c); 66473.7.) 8 D.
9 Fourth Cause of Action - City's Pattern and Practice of CEOA Violations 121. The District hereby realleges and incorporates by reference each and every IO allegation set forth above, inclusive.
11 122. An actual controversy has arisen and now exists between the District and the City 12 concerning their respective rights and duties in that the District contends the City engages in a 13 pattern and practice of CEQA violations in its analysis, review, and approval of land use and 14 development projects with potentially significant adverse cumulative environmental effects, 15 including but not limited to significant adverse effects related to water resources and water 16 supply, whereas the City disputes these contentions and contends that it has complied with 17 CEQA. These development projects are listed on Exhibit D, attached hereto, which the City 18 represents are the total outstanding projects in the City as of September 12, 2022. The specific 19 CEQA violations are set forth in the First Cause of Action above, and include, without limitation:
20 a. The City's pattern and practice of violating CEQA Guidelines, section 15124(c), 21 by failing to include in its project descriptions the required accurate and complete description of 22 "supporting public service facilities" as to the sources and availability of water supplies to service 23 development projects under CEQA review. The City has a pattern and practice of 24 misrepresenting the nature of the water supplies for the various development projects in its 25 environmental and planning documents by (1) incorrectly asserting that the District has agreed to 26 provide State Water Project water to the City of Tehachapi in perpetuity under the CityffCCWD 27 Tenn M&I Agreement; (2) incorrectly asserting that the contract between the City and the 28 District prioritizes new municipal water users above existing water users in the District; (3) 00067S66.I 40
Second Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate and Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief excluding descriptions of the variable hydrology and rapidly changing circumstances affecting 2 water supply in the State; and (4) failing to disclose the inconsistencies between the development 3 projects under review and the applicable regional plans. 4 b. The City's pattern and practice of failing to accurately analyze the cumulative 5 impacts related to water resources and water supply prior to approving development projects, is in 6 violation ofCEQA Guidelines, sections 15064(d), 15126.2(a), 15130, 15355, and 15358. In 7 particular, the City has a pattern and practice of ignoring the maximum limit of "wet water" 8 supply to the City from the District, taking into account the District's annual SWP Table A 9 amount of 19,300 AFY, the long tenn reliability of SWP Table A supplies, the District's 10 maximum annual pumping capacity of 10,000 AFY (about 41.5% of the District's Table A JI amount) and the City's inability to take direct delivery of District water due to lack of water 12 treatment facilities, and limitations on the amount of water the District can recharge in a given 13 year for the benefit of the City. The City's environmental documents overstate the amount of 14 water available to the District, and the City and ignore the potential impact on the District's other 15 customers and the environment. As discussed in Paragraph I 13, supra, even if the District was 16 able to provide the City with I, 153 AFY, which is the maximum available under the Term M&I 17 Agreement, the City is still short an estimated 407 AFY over the 20-year horizon, and the City's I 8 demand for water will exceed their claimed maximum supply by 2034. (Updated WAA, July 19 2021, p. 25.) The overstatement of available water is even greater than the theoretical availability 20 of water supply to the Project in this best-case scenario associated with the maximum pumping 21 capacity and maximum SWP allocation, because the City's water analysis fails to consider the 22 reality of the extreme drought conditions that persist in this State. The EIR and WSA compound 23 the failure to properly analyze the water supply for the Sage Ranch project, because the EIR and 24 WSA understate the environmental consequences of each project cumulatively. To the extent 25 there is uncertainty about the availability of identified future water supplies, the City, in further 26 violation of the CEQA Guidelines cited above in this paragraph, has a pattern and practice of 27 failing to examine possible alternative sources of water and environmental consequences of using 28 such alternative resources, including the significant impacts on other District water users. 00067566.1 41
Second Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate and Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief Similarly, the City has a pattern and practice of failing to analyze the cumulative impacts caused 2 by substantially increasing its groundwater pumping on non-City wells within the Tehachapi 3 Basin.
4 c. The City's pattern and practice of subverting the letter, as well as the intent of 5 CEQA, in addition to SB 610 and SB 221, �y failing to consult in good faith with the District 6 regarding water supply analysis in the EIRs and WSAs for the projects under review for City 7 approval, and disregarding the District's concerns regarding the uncertainty of, and impacts 8 associated with, supplying water to the various development projects under City review. 9 123. The District desires a judicial detennination and declaration that the City has 10 engaged in a pattern and practice of approving projects without the legally required analysis of 11 the resulting cumulative impacts, in violation of CEQA. As described above, in paragraph 122, 12 the City represents that the projects listed on Exhibit D. attached hereto, are the total outstanding 13 projects in the City as of September 12, 2022. In each of these instances, the City failed to 14 adequately disclose the planned source of the water supply, consult with the District regarding 15 water supply, failed to analyze the project's environmental impacts, including cumulative impacts 16 to water resources, and made or intends to make land use decisions approving new development 17 projects that merely assume they will acquire additional water without identifying any likely 18 source or giving any reasoned indication that the water will be available, all in violation of 19 CEQA.
20 124. A judicial resolution of this controversy is necessary and appropriate. 21 (Californians/or Nalive Salmon Etc. Ass'n v. Dep't of Forestry (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 1419.) 22 The City's pattern and practice of ignoring the incremental water supply impacts of individual 23 land use and development projects in the cumulative context has created a situation where the 24 District is unable to serve the needs of existing water users. 25 125. The City apparently believes, and its management has publicly stated, that the 26 local water supply is "drought-proof because of management," and continues to approve 27 additional entitlements with substantial new water demands without proper CEQA review, thus 28 compounding water shortages and environmental impacts with each project approval. 00067566.1 42
Second Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate and Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief 126. The City has thereby demonstrated a pattern and practice of ignoring its mandatory 2 CEQA duties to genuinely analyze the water needs and sources of supply of each project. and to 3 approve development projects without regard to the realities of the mathematically ascertainable 4 maximum limits of available water, such that this has become the City's policy. The City's 5 policy of failing to adequately revic� the water supply impacts of development projects violates 6 CEQA, including the specific CEQA Guidelines identified above, and undermines the core 7 purposes of CEQA to fully disclose, analyze, and mitigate the significant direct, indirect, and 8 cumulative environmental consequences of such projects. 9 127. The City's de facto policy of flouting CEQA requirements and approving projects 10 without properly assessing water availability for these projects and the environmental impacts of 11 supplying the water to these projects has created a very significant possibility of future harm, 12 particularly as to the inability of the relevant government agencies and the public at large to 13 intelligently serve in their vital roles of providing infonned and intelligent comments based on 14 verifiable data, and to assist the City in making its own informed decisions about approving 15 proposed projects. The City's de facto policy of preparing legally deficient CEQA documents 16 and relying on those deficient CEQA documents in its approvals, has created the additional very 17 significant possibility of future harm to the District in its likely inability to service all of its I 8 customers with the ongoing approval of projects for which no real water has been identified. 19 128. Judicial economy is best served by issuing a declaration of rights in this case, 20 because, absent such declaration, the District will be forced to bring a multiplicity of actions 21 against the City challenging each and every project in the pipeline and not yet in the pipeline on 22 the same grounds as alleged herein.
23 129. Because no plain and speedy administrative remedy exists to correct these 24 violations, the District seeks declaratory and injunctive relief from this Court to halt the City's 25 unlawful pattern and practice. This includes but is not limited to: (1) declaring that the City has 26 no power to approve development projects without first demonstrating the availability of an 27 adequate and reliable wet water supply that does not harm or impair the rights of other lawful 28 water users; (2) requiring the City to identify and disclose the source and environmental impacts 00067566.1 43
Second Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate and Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief of each development project's reliable supply of wet water prior to project approval; and/or (3) 2 requiring the City to disclose and evaluate the impacts, including impacts on other lawful water 3 users, of permitting development projects to proceed without the availability of an adequate and 4 reliable water supply.
5 PRAYER FOR RELIEF
6 WHEREFORE, the Petitioner prays for judgment as follows:
7 I. For a writ of mandate or peremptory writ issued under the seal of this Court and 8 directing Respondent to:
a.
b.

C.

Void and set aside Respondent's approval and/or adoption of the EIR and associated mitigation reporting or monitoring program, findings, and associated actions and approvals;
Void and set aside any and alt other discretionary approvals pertaining to the Sage Ranch project and any contracts entered into pursuant to the project; and
Refrain from granting any further approvals, authorities, or pennits for the Sage Ranch project unless and until Respondent complies fully with the requirements ofCEQA, the Water Code, and the Government Code;

2. For a judgment detennining and declaring that the approval of the Sage Ranch 9 IO
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
project does not comply with applicable law and therefore is null and void;

3. For a judgment detcnnining and declaring that the City's pattern and practice of 21 failing to analyze incremental and cumulative project impacts on water resources does not comply 22 with applicable law and therefore is null and void, including but not limited to: (I) declaring that 23 the City has no power to approve development projects without first demonstrating the 24 availability of an adequate and reliable wet water supply that does not harm or impair the rights of 25 other lawful water users; (2) requiring the City to identify and disclose the source and 26 environmental impacts of each development project's reliable supply of wet water prior to project 27 approval; and/or (3) requiring the City to disclose and evaluate the impacts, including impacts on 28 / //
00067566.1 44
Second Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate and Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief other lawful water users, of pennitting development projects to proceed without the availability of 2 an adequate and reliable water supply;
3 4. For a temporary restraining order, a preliminary injunction, and a permanent 4 injunction, restraining Respondent and Real Parties in Interest from engaging in any project 5 activity or activities �d Respondent from implementing its policy of refusing to analyze 6 incremental and cumulative project impacts on water resources; 7 8

5. 6.

For its costs of suit;
For reasonable attorneys' fees, including but not limited to fees authorized W1der 9 Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5 and/or Government Code section 800; and 10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 7. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

DATE: March _lu_, 2023
00067566.l

PIONEER LAW GROUP, LLP
By:� A'.�MATARAZZO
DANIEL A. KING
KATHRYN L. PATTERSON
Attorneys for Petitioner TEHACHAPICUMMINGS COUNIY WATER DISTRICT 45 Second Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate and Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

EXHIBIT D
City Project list (Exhibit A) • 09/12/22
lot Count f If TotaJ Demand
Project Name (AFY· Best Case Bulldout (Vear) applicable) Resldentlal
Pump.able)
Tract 6216 Alta Estates (Tehachapi HIiis)
Start End
252 84.00 2023 2027
Tract 6248 30 10.00 2023 2024
Tract 6668 18 6.00 2023 2024
Tract 6714 74 24.67 2025
Tract 7363 (The Address)1
2027
Tract 7366 {Sage Ranch) 795 350.00 2024 2030
Tract 7403 (unapproved) 80 26.67 2025 2028
Sherwood Condos 34 9.33 2023 2024
Hodls Condos 1 25.60 2023 2025
Pinon Condos1 2 9.60 2024 2025
Tehachapi/Hayes Mixed Usel 1 7.00 2024 2024
Minor Residential N/A 5.00 2022 2026
Commerdal/lndustrlal
Capital Hills Commercial 1 1.72 2022 2024
Red Apple PavlllonJ
Marriott Sutt�• 1 7.93 2022
Magellan Gas Station 1 3.00 2023 2024
Industrial Parkway Mini-Storage 1 0.50 2023
Tehachapi Mini-Storage & RV 1 13.20 2024
Mountain Top Storage 1 1.09 2023
East Tehachapi Mini-Storage 1 0.50 2024
Chlpotle 1 1.76 2022
FIELD He;adquarters 1 0.63 2023
J Street Commerce Center 1 1.76 2023 2027
Village Collective• 1 2.10 2022
Minor Commercial/Industrial N/A 5.00 2022 2024
GrouDe!Mnd: 597.06
City Conservation Projects
WWTP Recycled Water Pump Station• -75.00 2022
landscaping Conservation Projects -8.00 2022 2024
Keene transferred rights5 -22.00 2022
Water Rights Acquisition
Acquired or ln-process1 -118.00 2022
Development Dependent7 -175.00 2024 2027
Net Demand: 199.06
Notes:

1. Project Is expected to expire ln November. Project deadline Is 12/13/22 for Issuance of the first Bulldlng Permit. To date, no Improvement plans nor any building plans have been approved and most have not been submitted. Appfant Informs us of his plan to scrap the current project and pursue a new concept at some later date.

2. Project was entitled since last repon.

3. Project has formally expired since lilst report.

4. Open and operational.

5. Annual amount adjusted by actual use.

6. Compl'ehend (46.7 AF), MPUD (SOAF), TVHD (18.7 AF), Misc (2-3 AF)

7. H-Starthrough Sage Ranch

EXHIBIT G
From: Jay Schlosser
Sent: Tuesday, December 7, 2021 4:2 l :30 PM
To: Wade Lewis
Cc: Tim Finnigan; Jay Schlosser
Subject: RE: [External] Tr 6507, 96 Condos Paid Fees
Sensitivity: onnal
Wade,
Our Finance department has researched this issue and found no record of the pre-payment of traffic or water entitlement fees within 6 months of the date of recordation of the Final Map (either before or after). We also have many Finance staff members who were around back then and no one believes that prepayment occurred. Furthermore, prepayment was made for some components of Tract 6216 (Alta Estates) to the south of this Tract and we found those records showing that payment in mid-2007.

Together, we are confident in saying that prepayment did not occur. If Tower has evidence to the contrary, I will review it.

John (Jay) H. Schlosser, P.E.

Development Services Director
City of Tehachapi
Office: 661-822-2200 ext 115
From: Wade Lewis <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, December 6, 20215:08 PM
To: Jay Schlosser <[email protected]>
Cc: nm Finnigan <[email protected]>
Subject: [External] Tr 6507, 96 Condos Paid Fees
EXTERNAL MESSAGE Use caution when cl 1cki ng Ii nks or attachments Jay,
Follow up to conversation to check status of Fees paid at time of map recordation. • Condition# 28 Traffic Impact Fee
• Condition #29 Water rights- Were the underlying water rights sufficient to meet the 1/2 acre per dueling unit requirement, if not were equivalent in lieu fees paid at recordation of map? Best,
Wade Lewis, P.E.

Robert William Co.
805-402-0533 C
[email protected]
ROBERT WILLLI\M COMPANY LLC
PLANNING & LAND USE SERVICES• GENERAL ENGINEERING & BUILDING CONTRACTORS l'H.(805) 525-6400 • F 805-933-8040
LIC. NO. 716695 • 917 RAILROAD AVE. I P.O. BOX 1025, • SANTA PAULA CA 93061 [Rwc]
CITY 4COA 13738

EXHIBIT H
,0-TE��,S�/��!
Live Up.

City of Tehachapi
6 th Cycle Housing Element
March 2025 REVISED DRAFT 2
6 th Cycle Housing Element Update
Contents
Section I Introduction .............................................................................................................. 1 I.A Community Context .................................................................................................. 1 I.B Housing Element Purpose ........................................................................................ 1 I.C Organization of the Housing Element ....................................................................... 2 I.D Data Sources and Methods ...................................................................................... 4 I.E Summary of Public Participation ............................................................................... 4 I.F Consistency with Other General Plan Elements ....................................................... 7 I.G Other Statutory Requirements .................................................................................. 8 Section II Projected Housing Need ........................................................................................... 9 II.A Introduction/Overview of Kern COG Methodology .................................................... 9 I1.B Kem County Income Limits ...................................................................................... 9 I1.C Regional Housing Needs Allocation .......................................................................... 9 Section Ill Housing Plan ........................................................................................................... 11 Ill.A Goals, Policies, and Programs ................................................................................ 11 Policy 1: Promote green building and energy efficiency by encouraging the development of high-quality and energy-conscious housing ........................................................................ 12 Policy 2: Preserve and improve existing housing by maintaining existing affordable and market-rate housing stock and promoting programs for rehabilitation . ............................... 13 Policy 3: Assist in the development and attainment of diverse and high-quality housing to meet the needs of all segments of the community .............................................................. 17 Policy 4: Meet equal housing opportunity needs for all resident groups - regardless of their economic, social, familial, or cultural background ............................................................... 22 Policy 5: Increase development certainty through zoning and relegating more permitting to administrative decisions ..................................................................................................... 25 I11.B Quantified Objectives .............................................................................................. 28 Appendix A: Housing Needs Assessment
Appendix B: Sites Inventory and Methodology
Appendix C: Housing Constraints
Appendix D: Existing Programs Review
Appendix E: Public Participation Summaries
Appendix F: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Assessment Appendix G: Housing Resources
Section I Introduction
I.A Community Context
Known for its rural atmosphere, the City of Tehachapi is located at the southern terminus of the Sierra Nevada mountain range in the Tehachapi Range, west of the Mojave Desert and east of the Central Valley. The City is in close proximity to Bakersfield, the Palmdale/Lancaster area, and in commuting distance to Los Angeles (100 miles).

Tehachapi grew with the rail line owned by the Western Development Company, a subsidiary of the Southern Pacific Railway (currently Union Pacific). Incorporated in 1909, the community expanded through the subdivision of surrounding ranches. The City's population grew to about 11,000 by the end of the century, then further increased by approximately 31 percent between 2000 and 2010. It should be noted that this figure includes both permanent City residents and the institutionalized population at the California Correctional Institute (CCI). As of 2022, the City's total population has steadily decreased to 12,375, the causes of which are described in greater detail in Appendix A, Section A.2.1 (Population).

This Housing Element will focus exclusively on the City of Tehachapi, also referred to as "the City" or "Tehachapi." The City is surrounded by many unincorporated communities, the majority of which are located to its west and depend on Tehachapi for goods and services. The communities of Bear Valley Springs, Stallion Springs, and Golden Hills account for the greatest number of these residents. This "Greater Tehachapi" area is otherwise excluded from the Housing Element's data, analyses, and policies unless explicitly noted.

I.B Housing Element Purpose
The State of California has stated that the availability of decent and suitable housing for every California family is "a priority of the highest order" (Government Code Section 54220). This objective has become increasingly urgent in recent years as communities across the State struggle to meet the housing needs of all their residents. State Housing Element Law, established in 1969, recognizes the vital role local governments play in the supply and affordability of housing and requires all cities and counties in California establish a long-range plan to meet their fair share of regional housing needs. Cities are charged with planning for the welfare of their citizens, including ensuring that the existing and projected demands for housing are adequately met.

High housing costs - and related housing instability issues - increase health care costs (for individuals and the State), decrease educational outcomes (affecting individuals, as well as the State's productivity), and make it difficult for California businesses to attract and retain employees.
- State of California 2025 Statewide Housing Assessment 2023-2031 Housing Element City ofTehachapi 11
The Housing Element is the primary tool used by the State to ensure local governments are appropriately planning for and accommodating enough housing across all income levels. This Housing Element covers the planning period 2023-2031. The Housing Element is a mandatory part of a jurisdiction's General Plan, but it differs from other General Plan elements in two key aspects. The Housing Element must be updated every eight years for jurisdictions within a metropolitan planning organization (MPO) on a four-year regional transportation plan (RTP) cycle, such as the Kern Council of Governments (Kern COG). This is the "6th Cycle" of Housing Element updates in California, thus this Housing Element is also referred to the "6th Cycle Housing Element update" throughout this document. The Housing Element must also be reviewed and approved (i.e., certified) by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to ensure compliance with statutory requirements. Certification also ensures that the City remains eligible for various State and federal funding programs.

In practical terms, the Housing Element provides the City of Tehachapi with an opportunity to assess its housing needs and to develop policies and actions that effectively respond to those needs. Amongst other groups, the Housing Element affects teachers in the schools, employees in local businesses, older residents on fixed incomes, parents and their adult children who want to remain in or return to Tehachapi, and young persons wishing to live in the community.

Ultimately, the supply and cost of housing affect the entire Kern County economy as well as people's quality of life in the region.

LC Organization of the Housing Element
Pursuant to California Government Code Sections 65580-65589, a Housing Element must consist of the following components:
• Existing Programs Review: An evaluation of the results of the goals, 0 policies, and programs adopted in the previous Housing Element that �­ compares projected outcomes with actual achieved results. D■D • Housing Needs Assessment: An analysis of the existing and projected housing needs of the community. It provides a profile of socio-demographic information, such as population characteristics, household information, housing stock, tenure, and housing affordability. The assessment also considers local special housing needs, such as seniors, farmworkers, homeless, large households, and female-headed households. • Sites inventory and Methodology: An inventory listing adequate sites that are suitably zoned and available within the planning period to meet the City's fair share of regional housing needs across all income levels. 21 City of Tehachapi 2023-2031 Housing Element
Section II Projected Housing Need
II.A Introduction/Overview of Kern COG Methodology
State Housing Element law (Government Code Sections 65580-65589) requires regional councils of governments to identify for each member jurisdiction its "fair share allocation" of the RHNA provided by HCD. In turn, each city and county must demonstrate the capacity to accommodate their local share of regional housing needs in the community's housing element. Each jurisdiction's responsibility for meeting the overall regional housing need is established as a RHNA.

Kern COG, the council of governments for Kern County, adopted its final 6 th Cycle RHNA Plan in
July 2022. Adjustments to correct for rounding errors were adopted in January 2023, with no impact on the City of Tehachapi's RHNA allocation. The final RHNA Determination indudes adjustments for vacancies, replacement, overcrowding, and cost burden as required by State law.

11.B Kern County Income Limits
The projected housing needs are broken down by income category based on definitions in the California Health and Safety Code Section 50079.5. HCD calculates six income categories (or "limits") and publishes these at the county level annually. Kern County's 2022 income limits for households of one to eight persons are shown in Table 11-1.

Table 11-1: Kem County 2022 Annual Income Limits by Household Size Number of Persons in Household: I 1 2 I 3 4 5 6 7 B
Acutely Low $8,450 $9,650 $10,850 $12,050 $13,000 $14,000 $14,950 $15,900 Extremely Low $16,350 $18,700 $23,030 $27,750 $32,470 $37,190 $41,910 $46,630 Kern County Area Very Low Income $27,300 $31,200 $35, 100 $38,950 $42,100 $45,200 $48,300 $51,450 Median Income:
$80,300 Low Income $43,650 $49,850 $56,100 $62,300 $67,300 $72,300 $77,300 $82,250 Median Income $56,200 $64,250 $72,250 $80,300 $86,700 $93,150 $99,550 $106,000 Moderate Income $67,450 $77,100 $86,700 $96,350 $104,050 $111,750 $119,450 $127,200 Source: HCD, 2022
Regional Housing Needs Allocation
The RHNA for the City of Tehachapi is shown in Table 11-2. The City has a total allocation of 902 units for the 2023 - 2031 planning period.
2023-2031 Housing Element City of Tehachapi 19
Table 11-2: 6th Cycle RHNA
Total 902 100% 57,650 100%
Extremely Low and Very Low 1 188 21% 14,658 25%
Low 119 13% 9,328 16%
Moderate 164 18% 9,299 16%
Above Moderate 431 48% 24,365 42%
'•Extremely Low" included in "Very Low" Category, assumed to be 50% of the Very Low allocation.

Source: Kem COG
The City is not responsible for the actual construction of these units. The City is, however, responsible for creating a regulatory environment in which the private market could build the unit types reflected in the RHNA. This includes the creation, adoption, and implementation of General Plan policies, zoning standards, and/or economic incentives to encourage the construction of various types of units.
10 I City ofTehachapi 2023-2031 Housing Element
neighborhoods on parcels zoned either T -4 or R-1. All parcels are well-suited for infill development which aligns with other Housing Element programs (see Programs 3.2, 3.4, 3.9, 4.4, and 5.5).

Responsible Body: Development Services Department, City Council Funding Source: General Fund
Timeframe: Outreach to religious properties with a letter informing them of AB 1851 or other relevant new laws related to housing on religious properties (July 2025 and July 2027).

Quantified Objective: Five units entitled or constructed in collaboration with religious institution sites during the planning period.

Geographic Targeting: Neighborhoods which contain religious institution sites, especially in and adjacent to Downtown.

Program 3.9: Enhanced Density Bonus for Senior Housing (NEW] To incentivize the development of senior housing, the City will develop a local density bonus program that supplements State Density Bonus Law and helps developers achieve densities that improve project feasibility. If adopted, the City will inform developers of this unique local density bonus opportunity shortly after adoption to increase the likelihood of the development of senior housing during the planning period. The City will include information on the number of additional units possible and the opportunity for waivers and concessions that may be available to make the additional units economically feasible.

Responsible Body: Development Services Department, City Council Funding Source: General Fund
Timeframe: Development of Enhanced Density Bonus for senior housing by June 2025.

Consider for adoption with one year of development.

Program 3.10: Water Supply for New Development [NEW]
As the City's water operations have neared a point of equilibrium, it has sought additional sources of water to support growth. The City has and will continue to take proactive steps within its control to maintain and expand its water supply during the planning period, targeting a 30 acre-feet increase per year (cumulative). This will be achieved by a combination of the following actions:
• Purchase of available native water rights;
• Secure native water right leases;
• Secure imported water supply from the Tehachapi-Cummings County Water District (TCCWD); and
• Conservation of water through irrigation conservation projects that either replace highconsuming water uses with lower-consuming uses (e.g., replace turf with drought-tolerant 2023-2031 Housing Element City of Tehachapi I 21
plants), or transfer portions of irrigated property within the City from the City's potable water network to TCCWD's agricultural supply, freeing up City supplies for other uses.

Responsible Body: Development Services Department, Public Works Department, City Council
Funding Source: General Fund
Timeframe: Coordinate with Public Works Department annually to increase City water supply.

Quantified Objective: Increase City's potable water supply by 30 acre-feet per year.

Policy 4: Meet equal housing opportunity needs for all resident groups - regardless of their economic, social, familial, or cultural background.

Program 4.1: Fair Housing
The City shall refer violations of the Fair Housing Act and discrimination complaints to the Fair Housing Council of Central California and aid in resolving complaints. The City shall provide, biannually, information on Fair Housing Policy. Information will be mailed to property owners, property managers, and tenants; available on the City's website; available at the counter at the Community Development office; and included in water bill leaflets twice a year. Additionally, the City shall prepare a formal fair housing complaint form and processes as exists for ADA complaints.

The City shall also continue to transfer a portion of its CDBG funds to the County's Fair Housing Services program, which provides educational and referral services, the taking of complaints concerning housing discrimination, and includes testing, mediation, and audits.

Responsible Body: Development Services Department
Funding Source: General Fund
Tlmeframe: Twice annual inclusion of fair housing information in water bill leaflets; enforcement throughout the planning period; formal fair housing complaint form/processes prepared by June 2024.

Quantified Objective: Sixteen total distributions of fair housing information.

Program 4.2: Persons with Disabilities
The City shall explore different models to encourage the creation of housing for persons with disabilities, including developmental disabilities. Such models could include the following:
22 I City of Tehachapi 2023-2031 Housing Element
Appendix B: Housing Capacity Analysis
and Methodology
Contents
Section B.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................... 1 B.1.1 Overview and Purpose ......................................................................................... 1 B.1.2 Regional Housing Needs Allocation ..................................................................... 1 B.1.3 Data ..................................................................................................................... 2 Section B.2 Future Residential Development Potential ........................................................... 2 B.2.1 Accessory Dwelling Units ..................................................................................... 2 B.2.2 Entitled and Proposed Developments .................................................................. 3 B.2.3 Density and Capacity Assumptions ...................................................................... 5 B.2.4 Methodology ........................................................................................................ 8 Section B.3 Adequacy of Residential Sites in Meeting RHNA ................................................. 9 B.3.1 Summary ............................................................................................................. 9 B.3.2 Housing Sites Table ........................................................................................... 10 B.3.3 Housing Sites Map ............................................................................................. 13 From 2018 through 2022, the City issues an average of less than one (0.6) ADU building permits per year. The City is conservatively estimating that ADUs will be produced at the same rate throughout the eight-year planning period, resulting in five ADUs.

To account for changes to State ADU Law that became effective January 1, 2022 and January 1, 2023, the Housing Element includes Program 3.5 to update the Zoning Code to ensure ADUs and JADUs are allowed by-right in appropriate zones and with development standards permitted by State law.

B.2.2 Entitled and Proposed Developments
Because the RHNA projection period for the 2023-2031 Housing Element begins on June 30, 2022, housing developments that are proposed or received entitlement and were not issued a certificate of occupancy before July 1, 2022 but are expected to be completed before the end of the planning period (January 31, 2031) can be credited toward the RHNA. Error! Reference source not found. lists those projects that meet those criteria and can be credited toward the 6th Cycle RHNA. No entitled or proposed developments are dependent on an infrastructure schedule that would result in construction after January 2031.

Appendix B: Housing Capacity Analysis and Methodology City of Tehachapi I B-3 Tehachapi/Hayes 040-470-22, 040-470-23 Mixed Use
Tract 7403 -
223-500-01 Dennison
Tract 6248 - Holly 415-012-18
Tract 6668 - Fig 416-120-02, -03
Tract 6507 -
416-120-07 Pinon 96
Curry North 416-120-20
Tract 4854
Sherwood 416-422-01 - -35
Condos
Tract 7366 - Sage 417-012-01, 417-012-
Ranch 24, -25, -27, -28
Pinon South 417-011-23
Tract 6216 - K Multiple (subdivision) Hovnanian
Table 8-3: Units Approved, Permitted, and/or Built
Entitled
in entitlement process, not yet
approved
Entitled, public improvements
under construction
Entitled, public improvements
under construction
Entitled, in building plan
check
Entitled, in building plan
check
Entitled, in building plan
check
Entitled, Engineering and
Precise Planning Underway
Entitled, in building plan
check
Under construction, future
phases to come
Subtotal
Net New Total
LOW Low
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
�
- -
Moderate
-
-
-
-
-
-
- I
-
-
-
L
- -·- _.. --
-
1 No projects are located on parcels with existing residential units where the existing residential units will be demolished.

Source: City of Tehachapi
Appendix B: Housing Capacity Analysis and Methodology
7 7 n/a
83 83 I n/a
30 30 n/a
18 18 n/a
96 I 96 n/a
18 18 n/a
34 34 n/a
995 995 n/a
19 19 n/a
259 259 n/a
1,599 1,599 -
1,599 1,599
City ofTehachapi I B-4
Entitled and proposed developments would result in 1,599 above moderate-income units during the planning period, exceeding the City's 431 above-moderate income RHNA for the 6 th Cycle.

There are no known barriers to the completion of entitled and proposed developments in the City.

As shown in Table B-3, entitled and approved projects are proceeding to construction and completion. The historic completion rate in Tehachapi indicates that projects in the development pipeline are very likely to be completed within the planning period.

B.2.3 Density and Capacity Assumptions
Table 8-4 identifies the maximum allowed densities for zones that allow residential uses. Density in explicitly residential zones ranges from a maximum 1 unit per parcel in the Estate and R-1 zones to 12 units per acre in the R-2 zone and 16 units per acre in the R-3 zone. Maximum densities in the transect zones vary by building type, resulting in a density range of 0.1 du/ac for Estates in the T-2 Zone to 84 du/ac for Rowhouse (House) in the T-5 Zone.

Table B-4: Maximum Density Ranges for Zones that Allow Residential Development Zone Max Density Range
Agricultural and Resource
A Agricultural
Residential Zones
Estate
Zones -
-
E - R-1
R-2
R-3
MHP
Low Density S
Medium Dens
ingle-Family Residential
ity Multiple-Family Residential ---
High Density M
J Mobile Home
ultiple-Family Residential
Park (MHP)
Commercial Zones
C-1
C-2
C-3
RP
Neighborhood
I Central Comm
.

General Comm
I Residential Pr
Commercial
ercial
ercial
ofessional
Transect Zones
T-2 Rural Edge
-T-2-.-5--
4 ,-Ru--ral General
T-3
T-4
T-4.5
Neighborhood
I Neighborhood
-�'�N_eighborhood
-
Edge
General
Center
Appendix B: Housing capacity Analysis and Methodology
-
-
r -

0.1 du/ac
-
1 unit/parcel
1 uniUparcel --
12 du/ac
-- -
16 du/ac
-
8 du/ac
-

5.8 du/ac
-

5.8 du/ac

5.8 du/ac --

5.8 du/ac - .
-

0.1 to 7 du/ac -

0.4 to 7 du/ac -
2 to 21 du/ac
11 to 40 du/ac
11 to 43 du/ac
City ofTehachapi I B-5
Appendix C, Table C-5). This results in a capacity assumption of 11.2 units per acre (or 70 percent of maximum capacity) in the R-3 zone. Similarly, although there are no recent development trends in the T-3, T-4.5, or SD-2.1 transect zones, the form-based standards associated with transect zones and building types are sufficiently comparable. Thus, a capacity assumption ranging from three to 11.8 units per acre is applied in these zones, all of which represent no greater than 70 percent maximum capacity for the allowed building type with the highest maximum density in each zone.

Table B-6: Realistic Residential Development Capacity Assumptions 1 Projects Approved, Permitted, Average Development R 1. . C . Zone ea 1stic apacIty A ssumpt1on and/or Built Trends Capacity R-1
R-2
R-3
T-3
T4
T4.5
T-5
SD-2.1
-Tract 6216 - K Hovnanian . .
(2.1 du/ac; above moderate income) n/a (max density 1 unit/parcel) 1 unit/parcel -Curry North (12.3 du/ac; above
moderate income)
- Pinon South (11.9 du/ac; above
moderate income) 14 du/ac (116% max density) 70% max density (8.4 du/ac) -Tract 4854- Sherwood Condos
(17.7 du/ac; above moderate
income)
n/a
n/a
-Tract 7366- Sage Ranch (7.2
du/ac; above moderate income)
-Tract 6507 - Pinon 96 (9.2 du/ac;
above moderate income)
-Tract 6668 - Fig (3.5 du/ac; above
moderate income)
-Tract 6248 - Holly (4 du/ac; above
moderate income)
-Tract 7403 - Dennison (4.2 du/ac;
above moderate income)
n/a
-Tehachapi/Hayes Mixed Use (14
du/ac; above moderate income)
n/a
n/a
n/a

5.6 du/ac (14% highest
density allowed by building
type)
n/a
14 du/ac (17% highest density
allowed building type)
n/a
70% max density (11.2 du/ac)
14% max density (3.0 du/ac)
14% max density (5.6 du/ac)
14% max density (6 du/ac)
14% max density (11.8 du.ac)
14% max density (9.8 du/ac)
1 No housing sites are located in the A, E, R-1, R-2, MHP, C-1, C-2, C-3, RP, T-2, T-2.5, or T-5 zones.

Source: City of Tehachapi
In the previous planning period, the City received six applications for development within its transect zones (on average one development application annually). One of these applications proposed 100% commercial uses. This demonstrates strong market demand for residential uses within these zones. Furthermore, with the declining trend of brick-and-mortar retail/commercial coupled with COVID-19 pandemic impacts (e.g., the increasing prevalence of working from home, Appendix B: Housing Capacity Analysis and Methodology City ofTehachapi I B-7 Phase 4: Parcels in Prior Housing Elements
Vacant parcels from both the 4th and 5th Cycles and non-vacant parcels from the 5th Cycle can be reused in this Housing Element {the 6th Cycle) to accommodate lower-income housing, but they must be rezoned to allow projects with at least 20 percent of the units affordable to lower income households to be by-right.

All parcels identified in the City's 6
th Cycle sites inventory (Table 8-9) are vacant and were identified in the 5
th Cycle {but not 4
th Cycle) planning period. Sites which accommodate a portion of the housing need for lowering-income households allow multi-family housing at the appropriate densities (i.e., 20 unit/acre - see Table 8-5) based on the City's General Plan and Zoning Code pursuant to GC 65583.2(c)(3)(8). Therefore, the City's 6 th Cycle sites inventory is adequate
pursuant to Government Code Section 65583.2(c) and no new rezoning program is required.

Section 8.3 Adequacy of Residential Sites in Meeting RHNA B.3.1 Summary
Table 8-8 summarizes the City's methods for satisfying its RHNA and outlines the City's unit capacity based on projected ADUs, approved/entitled projects, and available housing sites (described above in Tables 8-1 and 8-3 and below in Table B-9). Based on these sources, the City has excess capacity in all income categories.

Table B-8: Residential Development Potential and RHNA
I Extremely Low I Very Low I Low I Moderate I Above Moderate I Total RHNA SHVe,yLow 188 119 164 431 902
ADUs 1 2 5
Approved/Entitled Projects 1,559 1,559
Sites Inventory 537 759 9 1,304
Surplus/ (Shortfall} 252 596 1,139 1,966
Source: City of Tehachapi, LWC
The City will monitor development during the 6
th Cycle planning period (2023-2031), and will
identify additional sites for housing development, if needed, to maintain availability of adequate sites.

AB 725 requires at least 25 percent of the above moderate income RHNA be met on sites that allow four or more units, and at least 25 percent of the moderate income RHNA be met on sites that allow four or more units, but not more than 100 units per acre. The City's residential potential through the entitled/proposed projects and sites inventory complies with these requirements.

Appendix B: Housing Capacity Analysis and Methodology City of Tehachapi I B-9 B.3.2 Housing Sites Table
Table B-9 lists the parcels in the City's housing sites inventory by zone with unit capacity listed by income category.

B-10 I City of Tehachapi Appendix B: Housing Capacity Analysis and Methodology APN General
Plan Zoning
Max
Density
(du/ac) ■
R-3 (High Density Multiple-Family Residential)
417-120-05 R-3 R-3 16 0.28
417-120-06 R-3 R-3 16 0.28
T-3 (Neighborhood Edge)
416-110-06 T-3 T-3 21 1.3
416-110-08 T-3 T-3 21 8.22
.
416-110-09 T-3 T-3 21 9.78
416-110-16 T-3 T-3 21 2.41
416-110-17 T-3 T-3 21 3.15
416-110-18 T-3 T-3 21 3.15
t
417-011-31 T-3 T-3 21 57.04
417-012-37 T-3 T-3 21 59.63
T -4 (Neighborhood General)
415-012-14 T-4 T-4 40 28.75 • ..
415-020-14 T-4 I T-4 40 3.95
i
415-020-16 T-4 T-4 40 10.34
� �
416-010-25 T-4 I T-4 40 11.37
..
416-110-14 T-4 T-4 40 9.35
416-120-01 T-4 l T-4 40 5.36
r
416-120-05 T-4 T-4 40 9.88
416-120-08 T-4 T-4 40 10.45
416-120-21 T-4 T-4 t 40 4.83
+- i
417-020-07 T-4 T-4 40 8.44
-
Appendix B: Housing Capacity Analysis and Methodology
Table B-9: Housing Sites Inventory by Zone
Site
A (0.56 ac)
A (0.56 ac)
B (9.52 ac)
B (9.52 ac)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-

7.5 ac
-
-
-
-
-
-
Existing
Use
Vacant
Vacant
Vacant
Vacant
Vacant
Vacant
Vacant
Vacant
Vacant
Vacant
Vacant
Vacant
Vacant
Vacant
Vacant
Vacant
Vacant
Vacant
Vacant
Vacant
-Infrastructure
Yes (5th) Current
Yes (5th) Current
Yes (5th) Current
Yes (5th) Current
Yes (5th) Current
Yes (5th) Current
Yes (5th) Current
Yes (5th) Current
Yes (5th) Current
Yes (5th) Current
Yes (5th) Current
Yes (5th) Current
Yes (5th) Current
Yes (5th) Current
Yes (5th) Current
Yes (5th) Current
Yes (5th) Current
Yes (5th) Current
Yes (5th) Current
Yes (5th) Current
'
r
f
Publicly
Owned
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
,
Income Capacity
Max Realistic�----,----,----,--
Capacity Capacity Lower Mod ���e Total
4 3 - 3 - 3
� -
4 3 - 3 - 3
R-3 SUBTOTAL - 6 - 6
27 4 4 - - 4
173 24 24 - - 24
r 205 29 29 - - 29
51 7 7 - - 7 l ..
66 ' 9 9 - 9
I �
66 9 9 - - 9
1,198 168 - 168 - 168
1,252 175 - 175 - 175
T-3 SUBTOTAL 82 343 - 425
1,150 161 - 161 - 161
158 22 22 - - 22
414 58 - 58 - 58
300 42 42 - - 42
- +
374 52 52 - - 52
214 30 30 - - 30
395 55 55 - - 55
418 59 - 59 - 59
193 27 27 - - 27
..- -
338 47 47 - - 47
T-4 SUBTOTAL 276 277 - 554
City ofT ehachapi I B-11
Table B-9: Housing Sites Inventory by Zone
T -4 / SD-2.1 (Tehachapi Blvd. West)
T-4 T-4 40 4 ac Yes (5th) Current No 160 22 22 - - 22
415-130-21 9.35 Vacant
SD-2.1 SD-2.1 70 5.35 ac Yes (5th) Current No 375 52 52 - T - 52 lT-4 T-4 40 7.5 ac Yes (5th) Current No 300 42 42 - I - 42 I 415-130-25 10.12 Vacant SD-2.1 SD-2.1 70 2.62 ac Yes (5th) Current No 183 26 26 - I - 26 T-4 T-4 40 3.5 ac Yes (5th) Current No 140 20 20 -
t
- 20
415-130-27 4.48 Vacant
SD-2.1 SD-2.1 70 0.98 ac Yes (5th) Current No 69 10 10 - - 10 T-4 I SD-2.1 SUBTOTAL 172 - - 172
T -4.5 (Neighborhood Center)
040-060-14 T-4.5 T-4.5 43 0.17 Vacant Yes (5th) Current No 7 1 - - 1 •
040-060-15 T-4.5 T-4.5 43 0.17 C (0.6 ac) Vacant Yes (5th) Current No 7 040-060-16 T-4.5 T-4.5 43 0.26 Vacant Yes (5th) Current No 11 2 - - 2 2 � � --+- - 040-090-14 T-4.5 T-4.5 43 0.17 - Vacant Yes (5th) Current No 7 1 - - 1 040-090-19 T-4.5 T-4.5 43 0.17 Vacant Yes (5th) Current No 7 D (0.34 ac) ' r
040-090-20 T-4.5 T-4.5 43 0.17 Vacant Yes (5th) Current No 7 +
040-140-01 T-4.5 T-4.5 43 0.35 - Vacant Yes (5th) Current I No 15 2 - - 2 2 415-012-21 T-4.5 T-4.5 43 21.92 - Vacant Yes (5th) Current No 943 132 - 132 - 132 -
415-020-13 T-4.5 T-4.5 43 1.07 - Vacant Yes (5th) Current No 46 6 6 - - 6 I T-4.5 SUBTOTAL 6 132 9 147
SITES INVENTORY TOTAL 53
Source: City of Tehachapi, Kem County Assessor-Recorder, LWC B-12 I City ofTehachapi Appendix B: Housing Capacity Analysis and Methodology

EXHIBIT I

APPROVAL WITH RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY

COUNCIL
WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 575 of the City of Tehachapi authorizes the Planning Commission to review and advise the City Council regarding subdivisions; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Tehachapi held a public hearing on November 25, 2003 on Tentative Tract Map No. 6216; and WHEREAS, Tentative Tract Map No. 6216 represents a request to develop a 122. 7 acre subdivision consisting of 384 single-family lots; and WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was adopted by the Planning Commission and mitigation measures were included with the Negative Declaration and findings were adopted in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Tehachapi that the foregoing recitals are true and correct. Be it further resolved that Tentative Tract Map No. 6216 therefore submitted to the City, is hereby recommended for approval subject to the minimum requirements of Chapter 17.22 of the City of Tehachapi and to the following conditions:

Becordatioo Conditions·

1. The subdivision shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act and to all applicable requirements of the Tehachapi Municipal Code.

2. This conditionally approved Tentative Map will expire two (2) years following the approval by the Tehachapi City Council original approval date, unless extended as provided by the extension of time process. Any action associated with a minor change and/or revised map request will not extend the limits of the tentative map.

3. The final map shall be prepared by a licensed land surveyor or registered civil engineer subject to all requirements of the California Subdivision Map Act and the Department of Real Estate.

4. Prior to the recordation of the final map all delinquent property taxes shall be paid to the Kern County Tax Collectors Office.

5. The developer shall install water lines, with prov1s1ons to maintain adequate pressure in accordance with the requirements of the City Engineer and Fire Chief.

A pressure reducing station may be required.

6. Sewer collection system shall be installed in accordance with the requirements of the City Engineer.

7. All utilities shall be underground and streetlights shall be installed at locations having spacing as approved by the City Engineer.

11. Prior to the issuance of a building permit the subdivide shall dedicate the Neighborhood Park site and linear open space park to the Tehachapi Valley Recreation and Parks District for recreational purposes consistent with the provisions of Chapter 17.42 et. seq. of the Tehachapi Subdivision Ordinance.

12. Quitclaim or abandonment of any easements or rights-of-way traversing lo and/or streets prior to recordation of final map.

13. Gas, electric, telephone and cable TV service shall be determined by the subdivider in consultation with the public utilities.

14. All poles and obstructions shall be relocated and/or removed from City street rightof-way. This shall include, but is not limited to, quitclaim or subordination of rights to the City by all interest and easement holders having the right to place facilities or otherwise obstruct the free use of the road right-of-way. Where major facilities exist, a common use agreement may be allowed when determined necessary by the City Engineer.

15. The final subdivision map shall be in substantial conformance with the approved Tentative Map, subject to those changes required by the conditions of approval.

16. All easements shall be kept open, clear, and free from buildings and structures of any kind.

17. An Engineer's cost estimate of improvements shall be submitted to the City Engineer for approval prior to improvement plans being approved.

18. All related subdivision and off site improvements shall be in accordance with th_ requirements of City of Tehachapi Subdivision Ordinance.

19. The final subdivision map shall be in substantial conformance with the approved Tentative Map.

20. The acreage or square footage of land subdivided shall be shown on the final map.

21. The following certificates shall be on the final map:
a) Owner's Certificate
b) City Clerk's Certificate
c) Engineer's or Surveyor's Certificate
d) Community Development Director's Certificate
e) City Engineer's Certificate
f) Recorder's Certificates

22. The land being subdivided shall be identified with a blue border.

23. Locations, names and widths of all streets and easements of all kinds shall b shown on the final map.

24. The applicant shall provide the City Engineer with a Subdivision Guarantee and Title Report Covering subject property.

25. A preliminary soils report shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and aooroval.
the Community Development Directors approval.

29. Prior t� the recordation of the final map the applicant shall convey all underlying water rights equal to ½ acre-foot per dwelling unit. If no water rights are available or if the water rights are insufficient to meet the ½ acre foot requirement the applicant shall be required to pay an equivalent in lieu fee based on the fare market value of water rights at the time of purchase/conveyance. The fare market value to be determined and agreed upon between the City of Tehachapi and the applicant.

Street Improvements - Required·

1. Pinon Street - full street improvements (center line to property line) for a 90-foot right-of-way and curb-to-curb distance of 68 feet based on a traffic index for pavement of 7.0 or as required by the City Engineer from Highland Orchard Parkway to the subject tracts westerly boundary. Development is required to install ½ street improvement. Improvements to Pinon Street to include striping of a Class II bike lane along the project frontage and an additional five (5) feet of parkway for landscape installations.

2. Pinon Street. -. full street improvements (center line to property line) for a 90 foot right-of-way and curb-to-curb distance of 68 feet based on a traffic index of 7 or as required by the City Engineer from Curry Street to the eastern edge of Tract 4843.

Right-of-way does not exist. Applicant to procure necessary right-of-way to achieve the desired improvements.

3. Curry Street -. Full street improvements (center line to property line south half) for a 110-foot right-of-way and a curb-to-curb distance of 90 feet based on a traffic index for pavement of 7.0 or as required by the City Engineer. Development is required to install ½ street improvements, which may include the reconstruction of the existing Curry Street improvements. Improvements to Curry Street to include an additional five (5) feet of parkway for landscape installations.

4. Highline Road.-.dedication of an additional 25 feet of right-of-way along the subject tracts southerly boundary. No improvements to Highline Road required other than a westbound acceleration lane, eastbound deceleration lane and east bound turn pocket at the project entry. Details to be approved by the City Engineer.

5. Interior Loop Road (Alder Avenue) - full street improvements for a 76-foot right-ofway and a curb-to-curb distance of 56 feet. Street improvements to be based on a traffic index of 7.0 or as approved by the City Engineer. Applicant to improve entire street within the dedicated right-of-way. Improvements to include landscaped parkway strip, pedestrian orientated sidewalk, and class II bike lane per Attachment C.

6. Interior Streets - full street improvements for a 60-foot right-of-way and a curb-tocurb distance of 40-feet. Development to improve entire street within the dedicated right-of-way.

Landscaping and Maintenance·

1. A landscaping maintenance district (maintenance district) shall be formed for the purpose of maintaining the common landscaped areas including but not limited to Curry Street and Pinon Street, the neighborhood park site the linier park and the parkway area within the loop road. Alternatively the project could be annexed into NO. 6248 SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SOUTH ROBINSON STREET
AND EAST "0" STREET
VVHEREAS, the City Council held a noticed public hearing on December 15, 2003 on Tentative Tract Map No. 6248; and
VVHEREAS, Tentative Tract Map No. 6248 represents a request to develop a Single Family Subdivision on 7.5 acres yielding density of 4.0 dwelling units per acre; and
VVHEREAS, a Negative Declaration was adopted by the Planning Commission; and
VVHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended to the City Council approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 6248 based on its findings and conditions.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Tehachapi that the foregoing recitals are true and correct; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Tentative Tract Map No. 6248 therefore submitted to the City, is hereby approved subject to the minimum requirements of Chapter 17.22 of the City of Tehachapi and the follewing conditions:
8ec0cdatJ0O Condjtjons·

1. The subdivision shall .comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act and to all applicable requirements of the Tehachapi Municipal Code.

2. This conditionally approved Tentative Map will expire two (2) years following the approval by the Tehachapi City Council original approval date, unless extended as provided by the extension of time process. Any action associated with a minor change and/or revised map request will not extend the limits of the tentative map.

3. The final map shall be prepared by a licensed land surveyor or registered civil engineer subject to all requirements of the California Subdivision Map Act and the Department of Real Estate.

4. Prior to the recordation of the final map all delinquent property taxes shall be paid to the Kern County Tax Collector's Office.

5. The developer shall install water lines, with provisions to maintain adequate pressure in accordance with the requirements of the City Engineer and Fire Chief.

A pressure reducing station may be required.

6. Sewer collection system shall be installed in accordance with the requirements of the City Engineer.

7. All utilities shall be underground and streetlights shall be installed at locations having spacing as approved by the City Engineer.
- - -·· . ·--- - - - - - - .... ·r . - . - . - - - - . -- -· . - - -· . - .. .. . .

11. Prior to the issuance of a building permit as a condition of approval, the subdivider shall pay a fee (Quimby fees) for park or recreational purposes consistent with the provisions of Chapter 17.42 et. seq. of the Tehachapi Subdivision Ordinance.

12. Quitclaim or abandonment of any easements or rights-of-way traversing lots and/or streets prior to recordation of final map.

13. Gas, electric, telephone and cable TV service shall be determined by the subdivider in consultation with the public utilities.

14. All poles and obstructions shall be relocated and/or removed from street right-ofway. This shall include, but is not limited to, quitclaim or subordination of rights to the City by all interest and easement holders having the right to place facilities or otherwise obstruct the free use of the road right-of-way. Where major facilities exist, a common use agreement may be allowed when determined necessary by the City Engineer.

15. The final subdivision map shall be in substantial conformance with the approved Tentative Map, subject to those changes required by the conditions of approval.

16. All easements shall be kept open, clear, and free from buildings and structures of any kind.

17. An Engineer's cost estimate of improvements shall be submitted to the City Engineer for approval prior to improvement plans being approved.

18. All related subdivision and off site improvements shall be in accordance with the requirements of City of Tehachapi Subdivision Ordinance.

19. The final subdivision map shall be in substantial conformance with the approved Tentative Map.

20. The acreage or square footage of land subdivided shall be shown on the final map.

21. The following certificates shall be on the final map:
a) Owner's Certificate
b) City Clerk's Certificate
c) Engineer's or Surveyor's Certificate
d} Community Development Director's Certificate
e) City Engineer's Certificate
f} Recorder's Certificates

22. The land being subdivided shall be identified with a blue border.

23. Locations, names and widths of all streets and easements of all kinds shall-be shown on the final map.

24. The applicant shall provide the City Engineer with a Subdivision Guarantee and Title Report Covering subject property.

25. A preliminary soils report shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval. (Please refer to letter submitted by the City Engineer, dated October 23, T-•�•-- .--• -••-•••• •.;, -•••• •-••-•-- •••- ••••-o--•-•• -• ••-•••- ••••r----•- -•••--- -••- collection of fees is deferred to the building permit phase as approved by the Community Development Director.

29. Prior to the recordation of the final map the applicant shall convey all underlying water rights equal to ½ acre-foot per dwelling unit. If no water rights are available or if the water rights are insufficient to meet the ½ acre foot requirement the applicant shall be required to pay an equivalent in lieu fee based on the fare market value of water rights at the time of purchase/conveyance. The fare market value to be determined and agreed upon between the City of Tehachapi and the applicant.

Street Improvements- Required;

1. Interior Streets - full street improvements for a 60-foot right-of-way and a curb-tocurb distance of 40-feet. Development to improve entire street within the dedicated right-of-way.

2. Robinson Street - ½ street improvements with in a 44-foot right-of-way dedication, improvements to include 26' of paving, curb and gutter, a 9' meandering sidewalk/landscape buffer treatment, in addition to a 9' landscaped drainage swale.

3. Holly Street-½ street improvement, 40-foot right-of-way dedication, 26' of paving, curb, gutter and a 5' sidewalk, in addition to a 3' landscaped strip.

Landscaping and Maintenance;

1. A landscaping maintenance district (maintenance district) shall be formed for the purpose of maintaining the common landscaped area along "D" Street and Robinson Street or alternatively the project shall be annexed into an existing maintenance district.

2. A detailed landscaping plan showing plant materials, sprinkler system and other information shall be submitted to the Community Development Director for approval prior to the issuance of a building permit. Landscape materials to use drought tolerant plant species and water conservation techniques to the greatest extent possible and to conform �o the City of Tehachapi landscape guidelines dated February 1991.

3. The subdivider shall be responsible for the maintenance and. upkeep of all landscaped area and irrigation systems until such time as those operations are the responsibility of a landscaping maintenance district as approved by the Community Development Director.

General·

1. The subdivider shall be responsible for the maintenance and upkeep of all landscaped area and irrigation systems until such time as those operations are th responsibility of a landscaping maintenance district as approved by the Community Development Director.

2. The "D" Street frontage improvements shall include a decorative block wall, landscape buffer zone, sidewalk, curb and gutter. To achieve this design effect the applicant will work with Staff on reducing the pavement width on D Street and establishing a narrower curb-to-curb width, and relocating the curb and gutter and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Tehachapi held a public hearing on September 18, 2006 on Tentative Tract Map No. 6668; and WHEREAS, Tentative Tract Map No. 6668 represents a request to develop a 18 single-family residential subdivision on 5.1 acres; and WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was adopted by the Planniny Commission and mitigation measures were included with the Negative Declaration and findings were adopted in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Tehachapi as follows:

1. That the foregoing recitals are true and correct.

2. That Tentative Tract Map No. 6668 therefore submitted to the City, is hereby approved subject to the minimum requirements of Chapter 17.22 of the City of Tehachapi and to the following conditions:

Recordatlon Conditions:

1. The subdivision shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act and to all applicable requirements of the Tehachapi Municipal Code. -

2. This conditionally approved Tentative Map will expire two (2) years following thtt approval by the Tehachapi City Council original approval date, unless extended as provided by the extension of time process. Any action associated wtth a minor change and/or revised map request will not extend the limits of the tentative map.

3. The final map shall be prepared by a licensed land surveyor or registered civil engineer subject to all requirements of the California Subdivision Map Act and the Department of Real Estate.

4. Prior to the recordation of the final map all delinquent property taxes shall be paid to the Kem County Tax Collector's Office and a Tax Certificate shall be provided to the City of Tehachapi as vertfication.

5. Prior to the recordation of the final map, the subdivider shall submit the following documents and fees to the Community Development Department for review, which documents shall be subject to the approval of said department, City Engineer and the City Attorney;
a. A signed and notarized declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions; and, -
b. A sample document conveying title to the purchaser of an individual lot or uni . which provides that the declaration of covenants, conditions. and restrictions is Incorporated therein by reference.
c. A deposit in the amount of $1,000.00 for review of covenants, conditions and M!drirlinn!'; ,::h:.11 hP. i::11hmittArl At thP. timP. thA ::1hnvP. rlnrJnTlAnts ::trA submitted to

8. All utilities shall be underground and streetlights shall be installed at locations having spacing as approved by the City Engineer.

9. The developer shall install street signs to City standards. Street names to be approved by the City Planning Department, Fire Department and 911 coordinator prior to recording final map.

10. The developer shall use diagonal comer cut-off to accommodate wheelchair ramps.

11. The developer shall pay fees to the City for checking plans and inspection of improvements.

12.Prior to the issuance of a building permit as a condition of approval, the subdivider shall pay a mitigation fee of $2,137.00 per dwelling unit per Resolution No. 11-06 for park or recreational purposes.

13.Quitclaim or abandonment of any easements or rights-of-way traversing lots and/or streets prior to recordation of final map.

14. Gas, electric, telephone and cable TV service shall be detennined by the subdivider in consultation with the public utilities.

15.AII poles and obstructions shall be relocated and/or removed from street right•ofway. This shall include. but Is not limited to, quitclaim or subordination of rights to the City by all Interest and easement holders having the right to place facilities or otherwise obstruct the free use of the road right-of-way. Where major facilities exist, a common use agreement may be allowed when detennined necessary by the City Engineer.

16. The final subdivision map shall be in substantial conformance with the approved Tentative Map, subject to those changes required by the conditions of approval.

17.AII easements shall be kept open, clear, and free from buildings and structures of any kind.

18.An Engineer's cost estimate of improvements shall be submitted to the City Engineer for approval prior to improvement plans being approved.

19.Afl related subdivision and off site improvements shall be in accordance with the requirements of City of Tehachapi Subdivision Ordinance.

20. The final subdivision map shall be in substantial conformance with the approved Tentative Map.

21. The acreage or square footage of land subdivided shall be shown on the final map.

22. The following certificates shall be on the final map:
a) Owner's Certificate
b) City Council's Statement
c) Ctty Clerk's Certificate
d) Engineer's or Surveycr's Certificate

25. The applicant shall provide the City Engineer with a Subdivision Guarantee and Title Report Covering subject property.

26. A preliminary soils report shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval. -

27. Improvement plans (streets, sewer, water and grading} shall be prepared, stampt and signed by the registered Civil Engineer and shall be submitted to and approved by the City prior to recording.

28. The subdivider shall comply with the standards, rules and regulations of the Kem County Health Department and the requirements of the City of Tehachapi regarding sewage disposal and water supply.

29. Prior to the recordation of a final map the applicant shall pay a pro-rata fee (or an impact fee if the City develops such a fee on a community wide basis) per dwelling unit towards the mitigation of traffic Impacts unless the collection of fees is deferred to the building permit phase as approved by the Community Development Director.

It should be noted that on July 3, 2006 the City Council adopted a Regional Traffic Impact Mitigation Fee per Resolution No. 37-06. Said fee will go into effect within 60 days of adoption. Any building permits not issued subsequent to the fee going into effect, the applicant will pay the regional fee amount rather than the pro-rata share fee determined by the Crenshaw Engineering study referenced herein.

30. Prior to the recordation of the final map the applicant shall convey all underlying water rights equal to ½ acre-foot per dwelling unit. If no water rights are available � if the water rights are insufficient to meet the ½ acre foot requirement the applica shall be required to pay an equivalent in lieu fee based on the fare mar1<et value water rights at the time of purchase/conveyance. The fare market value to be detennined and agreed upon between the City of Tehachapi and the applicant.

Street Improvements - Required:

1. Interior Streets - full street improvements for a 60-foot right-of-way and a curb-tocurb distance of 40-feet. Development to improve entire street within the dedicated right-of-way.

2. Pinon Street shall be dedicated and receive full street improvements ( center line of street to property line north half) for a 90-foot right-of-way and curb-to-curb distance of 68 feet based on a traffic index for pavement of 7.0 or as required by the City Engineer along the subject tracts entire frontage. Improvements to Pinon Street to include an additional five (5) feet of par1<way or easement for landscape installations.

3. Fig Drive - The development shall be required to tie into the exiting Fig Drive improvements established per Tract Map No. 4985 and complete ½ street improvements on the west side of Tract Map No. 6668. -

4. Street MA" - Full street improvements (center line to property line) within dedicatE right-of-way for a 60-foot right-of-way and curt>-to-curb distance of 40-feet based e,,, Traffic index of 5.0. Development is required to Install ½ street improvements plus 10 feet.

5. Laurel Drive - Full street improvements (center line to property line) within dedicated -!.-&..• -� ••-•· �-- _on�--• -:-L..� -� .,.-... __ .., .-.. •• � ♦,... -••* ,,.,,i.,....,....,.,,_," ,...f Al\_4.ao♦ k�i0-01'4 l"\f""\ Ten c aE
·•
RtJ/)Utt•'!f'Our f'Rft" PUIN\i,,g,Ow· T«AV&

TEHACHAPI PLANNING COMMISSION

STAFF REPORT
Title:

Date of Report:

Tentative Tract Map No. 6507
August 15, 2005
I. GENERAL INFORMATION;

1. Applicant:

2. Engineer:

3. Architect:

4. Specific Request:

5. Project Location:

6. APN:

7. Existing Zoning:

8. Present Land Use:

Empire Land, LLC
190 Sierra Court, Suite C-12
Palmdale, CA 93550
Forma Engineering
9310 Topanga Canyon Blvd., Suite B
Chatsworth, CA 91311
Robbins & Brown
14955 Califa Street
Van Nuys, CA 91411
Subdivide 10.45 acres into 96 condominium units,
yielding density of 9.18 dwelling units per acre
North and adjacent to Pinon Street and west and
adjacent to the future extension of Applewood
Drive/Elm Street
416-120-07
R-2
Vacant and retention basin

9. General Plan Designation: Medium Density Residential

10. Surrounding Land Use:

North: Single Family Residential
South: Grades lots and single family residential
CITY 4COA 13813
Tentative Tract Map No. 6507
August 15, 2005

tract and Tract Map No. 6216 located to the south of the subject tract. It should be noted that Tract Map No. 6216 has been graded, however to date no structures have been constructed.

XII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends to the Planning Commission that a recommendation to the City Council be made to adopt a Negative Declaration, based on a finding that all impacts can be mitigated to a level of insignificance and adopt a De Minimis Finding relative to biological resources and approve Tentative Tract Map No. 6507 subject to the attached conditions of approval.

XIII. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:

Recordation Conditions:

1. The subdivision shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act and to all applicable requirements of the Tehachapi Municipal Code.

2. This conditionally approved Tentative Map will expire two (2) years following the approval by the Tehachapi City Council original approval date, unless extended as provided by the extension of time process. Any action associated with a minor change and/or revised map request will not extend the limits of the tentative map.

3. The final map shall be prepared by a licensed land surveyor or registered civil engineer subject to all requirements of the California Subdivision Map Act and the Department of Real Estate.

4. Prior to the recordation of the final map all delinquent property taxes shall be paid to the Kern County Tax Collector's Office and a Tax Certificate shall be provided to the City of Tehachapi as verification.

5. Prior to the recordation of the final map the subdivider shall submit the following documents and fees to the Community Development Department for review, which documents shall be subject to the approval of said department, City Engineer and the City Attorney:
a. A signed and notarized declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions; and,
b. A sample document conveying title to the purchaser of an individual lot or unit, which provides that the declaration of covenants, conditions, and restrictions is incorporated therein by reference.

CITY4COA 13819
Tentative Tract Map No. 6507
August 15,2005

c. A deposit in the amount of $1,000.00 for review of covenants, conditions and restrictions shall be submitted at the time the above documents are submitted to the Community Development Department for review.

The Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions submitted for review shall a. provide for a minimum term of 60 years;
b. provide for the establishment of a home owners' association comprised of the owners of each individual lot or unit as tenants in common; c. Provide for the ownership of the common area by either the homeowners association or the owners of each individual lot or unit as tenants in common; and
d. Contain the following provisions verbatim:
"Notwithstanding any provision in this Declaration to the contrary, the following provisions shall apply:

The homeowners association established herein shall manage and continually maintain the common areas, building elevations and roofs and on-site sewer and water facilities and shall not sell or transfer the common areas or any part thereof, absent the prior written consent of the Community Development Director or successor-in- interest.

The homeowners association shall have the right to assess the owners of each individual lot or unit for the reasonable cost of maintaining the common area and shall have the right to lien the property of any such owner who defaults in the payment of a maintenance assessment. An assessment lien, once created, shall be prior to all other liens recorded subsequent to the notice of assessment or other document creating the assessment lien.

This Declaration shall not be terminated, substantially amended or property deannexed therefrom absent the prior written consent of the Community Development Director or successor in interest. A proposed amendment shall be considered substantial if it affects the extent, usage or maintenance of the common area. In the event of any conflict between this Declaration and the Articles of Incorporation, the Bylaws or the property owners' association Rules and Regulation, if any, this Declaration shall control."

6. The developer shall install water lines, with provisions to maintain adequate pressure in accordance with the requirements of the City Engineer and Fire Chief. A pressure reducing station may be required.

CITY4COA 13820
Tentative Tract Map No. 6507
August 15, 2005

7. Sewer collection system shall be installed in accordance with the requirements of the City Engineer.

8. All utilities shall be underground and streetlights shall be installed at locations having spacing as approved by the City Engineer.

9. The developer shall install street signs to City standards. Street names to be approved by the City Planning Department and Fire Department prior to recording final map.

10. The developer shall use diagonal corner cut-off within City rights-of-way to accommodate wheelchair ramps.

11. The developer shall pay fees to the City for checking plans and inspection of improvements. The City shall determine the amount of fees based upon estimated cost of improvements and said fees shall be paid in advance.

12. Quitclaim or abandonment of any easements or rights-of-way traversing lots and/or streets prior to recordation of final map.

13. Gas, electric, telephone and cable TV service shall be determined by the subdivider in consultation with the public utilities.

14. All poles and obstructions shall be relocated and/or removed from street rightof-way. This shall include, but is not limited to, quitclaim or subordination of rights to the City by all interest and easement holders having the right to place facilities or otherwise obstruct the free use of the road right-of-way. Where major facilities exist, a common use agreement may be allowed when determined necessary by the City Engineer.

15. The final subdivision map shall be in substantial conformance with the approved Tentative Map, subject to those changes required by the conditions of approval.

16. All easements shall be kept open, clear, and free from buildings and structures of any kind.

17. An Engineer's cost estimate of improvements shall be submitted to the City Engineer for approval prior to improvement plans being approved.

18. All related subdivision and off site improvements shall be in accordance with the requirements of City of Tehachapi Subdivision Ordinance.

19. The final subdivision map shall be in substantial conformance with the approved Tentative Map.

CITY 4COA 13821
Tentative Tract Map No. 6507
August 15, 2005

20. The acreage or square footage of land subdivided shall be shown on the final map.

21. The following certificates shall be on the final map:
a) Owner's Certificate
b) City Clerk's Certificate
c) Engineer's or Surveyor's Certificate
d) Community Development Director's Certificate
e) City Engineer's Certificate
f) Recorder's Certificates

22. The land being subdivided shall be identified with a blue border.

23. Locations, names and widths of all streets and easements of all kinds shall be shown on the final map.

24. The applicant shall provide the City Engineer with a Subdivision Guarantee and Title Report Covering subject property.

25. A preliminary soils report shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval.

26. Improvement plans (streets, sewer, water and grading) shall be prepared, stamped and signed by the registered Civil Engineer and shall be submitted to and approved by the City prior to recording.

27. The subdivider shall comply with the standards, rules and regulations of the Kern County Health Department and the requirements of the City of Tehachapi regarding sewage disposal and water supply.

28. Prior to the recordation of a final map the applicant shall pay a pro-rata fee of $1,500.00 per dwelling unit towards the mitigation of traffic impacts unless the collection of said fee is deferred to the building permit stage as approved by the Community Development Director.

29. Prior to the recordation of the final map the applicant shall convey all underlying water rights equal to ½ acre-foot per dwelling unit. If no water rights are available or if the water rights are insufficient to meet the ½ acre foot requirement the applicant shall be required to pay an equivalent in lieu fee based on the fare market value of water rights at the time of CITY 4COA 13822
Tentative Tract Map No. 6507
August 15, 2005

purchase/conveyance. The fare market value to be determined and agreed upon between the City of Tehachapi and the applicant.

Landscaping and Maintenance:

1. A landscaping maintenance district (maintenance district) shall be formed for the purpose of maintaining the common landscaped area along Pinon Street and Applewood Drive/Elm Street or alternatively the project shall be annexed into an existing maintenance district.

2. A Home Owners Association (HOA) shall be formed for the purpose of maintaining all interior common area landscaping and open space amenities in addition to addressing parking, maintaining architectural integrity and other regulatory functions as determined necessary by the Community Development Director. The applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director that the HOA mechanism is in place prior to the recordation of the subdivision.

3. A detailed landscaping plan for all interior and exterior landscape applications showing plant materials, sprinkler system and other information shall be submitted to the Community Development Director for approval prior to the issuance of a building -permit. Landscape materials to use drought tolerant plant species and water conservation techniques to the greatest extent possible and to conform to the City of Tehachapi landscape guidelines dated February 1991.

4. The subdivider shall be responsible for the maintenance and upkeep of all landscaped area and irrigation systems until such time as those operations are the responsibility of a landscaping maintenance district (exterior landscape) and HOA (interior landscape) as approved by the Community Development Director.

General:

1. At the building permit stage the proposed structure shall substantially conform to the architectural rendering included in the PRO package.

2. The Pinon Street and Applewood Drive/Elm Street frontage improvements shall include a meandering sidewalk, decorative community theme wall with pilasters and landscape buffer treatment.

3. All construction shall comply with applicable requirements of the Tehachapi Zoning Code, the Planning Department, and the Fire Chief and the Kern County Building and Safety Department.

CITY 4COA 13823
RESOLUTION NO. 22-07

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY

OF TEHACHAPI APPROVING ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN AND SITE
PLAN REVIEW NO. 2022-11 PINON TOWNHOME ESTATES

ARCHITECTURE, SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
WHEREAS, the applicant, Michael Dhanens Architect, filed an application (the "Application") with the City of Tehachapi (the "City") for an Architectural Design and Site Plan Review Permit, seeking architecture approval of 96 units within Pinon Townhome Estates (Tract Map No. 6507); and
WHEREAS, on June 13, 2022, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the Project, considered all public testimony as well as all materials in the staff report and accompanying documents for Architectural Design and Site Plan Review No. 2022-11; Pinon Townhome Estates Architecture, which hearing was publicly noticed by an agenda posting, and to persons requesting public notice; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission makes the following findings (the "Findings"):

1. The project is consistent with the goals and policies of the City's General Plan and meets applicable district development standards.

2. The project meets the minimum applicable requirements of this title and is in compliance with all other applicable laws, ordinances, and regulations of the City of Tehachapi and the State of California.

3. The project will not be materially detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of the public or to property and residents in the vicinity.

4. The project complies with the terms and provisions of any prior zone change approval or Conditional Use Permit.

5. The project adequately and safely provides for vehicular or pedestrian safety, both on and off site, by reason of properly arranged vehicular or pedestrian ingress and egress and internal circulation, or that excessive traffic congestion will not be created.

6. The project makes adequate provision to protect adjoining properties and structures from excessive and unreasonable nuisances, including for example, noise, vibrations, gases or odors, which might interfere with the use and enjoyment of surrounding properties.

7. The project is consistent with the applicable provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines.

8. The proposed land use, site and architecture promote a design consistent with 1 CITY 4COA 13784
and appropriate for the location, and consistent with the intended physical environment of the zoning district.

NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Tehachapi resolves and orders as follows:

1. That the foregoing recitals and Findings are true and correct.

2. Architectural Design and Site Plan Review No. 2022-11; Pinon Townhome Estates Architecture, is approved subject to conditions of approval in "Exhibit A" attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Tehachapl at its regular meeting thereof held on the 2Jlh day of June 2022.

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

NIXON, CHRISTENSEN, HAMBLIN, WHITE
NONE
NONE

HOLLINSWORTH
ON, Chairperson
of the Planning Commission of the
City of Tehachapi
ATTEST:

TORI MARSH, CMC
Administrator of the Planning Commission
Of the City of Tehachapi
I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Tehachapi at a regular meeting thereof held on June 27, 2022.
:ttrh �

TORI MARSH, CMC
Administrator of the Planning Commission
Of the City of Tehachapi
2 CITY 4COA 13785

EXHIBIT A

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Statutory Conditions of Approval

1. These Conditions of Approval are intended to supplement the Conditions of Approval that govern the initial project approval from August 2005. In the case where original Conditions conflict with the below Conditions, the stricter Condition shall apply at the discretion of the Development Services Director.

2. The project approval is conditional and shall be valid for a period of two (2) years from the date of the Planning Commission or Director approval unless substantial progress in the implementation phase of the project has been achieved. "Substantial progress" is determined at the sole discretion of Development Services Director.

3. All contractors and/or subcontractors shall be required to procure a business license prior to commencement of any work on the subject development.

4. Permits and approvals must be obtained from other governmental agencies (i.e. Kern County Environmental Health, Kern County Fire Department, Caltrans, etc.) for this project. It is the responsibility of the applicant to seek and receive said permits/approvals prior to the start of business. The City reserves the right to withhold its approval of this project if the applicant fails to receive necessary and related approvals from other agencies.

5. The Developer/Applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless, the City and any agency or instrumentality thereof, and/or any of its officers, employees and agents (collectively the "City") from any and all claims, actions, demands, and liabilities arising or alleged to arise as the results of the applicant's performance or failure to perform under this Architectural Design & Site Plan Review or the City's approval thereof, or from any proceeding against or brought against the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of their officers, employees and agents, to attack, set aside, void, annul, or seek monetary damages resulting from an action by the City or any agency or instrumentality therefor, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning this Architectural Design & Site Plan Review.

6. Property owners are responsible for the continual maintenance of all landscaped areas on-site, as well as contiguous planted areas within the public right-of-way. All landscaped areas shall be kept free of weeds and debris and maintained in a healthy, growing condition, and shall receive regular water, fertilizing, mowing or trimming.
3 CITY 4COA 13786
Design Conditions of Approval

7. All vehicle parking and maneuvering areas shall be surfaced with a minimum of two-inches of A.C. paving and 4
H base or material of higher
quality as may be required by the City Engineer.

8. Standard vehicle parking spaces shall be 10' X 20' or larger in size and shall be designated by white painted stripes.

9. All utilities shall be placed underground.

10. Non-reflective paint and construction material shall be used for the project.

11. The City will provide and support up to two water meters for the site: one meter for potable service and one meter for landscaping service. Water meters and appropriate appurtenances shall be installed in accordance with applicable City standards.

12. A wall mounted internally illuminated address is required to assist public safety providers.

13. Roof or ground mounted mechanical equipment shall be screened from public view. This equipment includes air conditioning, heating, ventilation ducts and exhaust vents, refuse storage areas, and utility services, electrical transformers, gas meters, etc.

14. The Applicant shall improve the public right-of-way in accordance with City standards along the project frontage (Pinon Street and Applewood Place). Improvements shall include, but not be limited to, sidewalks, fire hydrants, streetlights, and drive approaches.

Prior to Building Permit Issuance Conditions of Approval

15. The Applicant is required to pay water/sewer connection fees, traffic impact fees, public safety fees, engineering fees, school fees, building permit fees, landscape application fee and other fees in place prior to the issuance of a building, grading or encroachment permit.

16. Prior to Building Permit issuance, the developer shall submit complete landscaping plans, prepared in compliance with•State regulation prepared by the properly licensed professional for review and approval by the City Development Department prior to issuance of a related Building Permit.

These plans will be accompanied by a separate landscape review application. Application fees in place at such time shall apply and must be paid at the time of submittal. The plan must comply with City Standards in addition to the State Water Conservation in Landscaping Act AB 1881.

Trees shall be a minimum of 24n box or 15 gallons in size, shrubs shall be a minimum of 5 gallons on size, and groundcovers shall be a minimum of 1 gallon in size at time of planting.

17. The Applicant shall submit complete building plans prepared in accordance with the California Building Code by a licensed professional for review and approval by the City Building Department (including 4 CITY 4COA 13787
mechanical, plumbing, and electrical plans) and Kern County Fire Department prior to permit issuance.

18. The Applicant shall separately submit improvement plans (grading, drainage, surface improvements, and utility layout) in accordance with the Subdivision and Development Standards for review and approval by the office of the City Engineer.

19. Kern County Fire Department and the City Engineer shall approve fire protection facilities and all Fire Department requirements prior to the issuance of building permits. The Applicant is required to make a separate submittal to the Kern County Fire Department as part of Building Permit application. The City of Tehachapi does not provide this service. The address for the Kern County Fire Department is 5642 Victor Street, Bakersfield, CA 93308.

20. The Applicant shall submit final colors and material specifications to the Planning Department for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits.

21. Prior to Final Inspection, all public landscaping shall be installed and shall be in a viable growth condition and in substantial conformance with the approved landscape plan.

Construction Phase Conditions of Approval

22. The project site shall be watered during grading or the use of soil binders to prevent fugitive dust.

23. The Applicant shall comply with the East Kern Air Pollution Control District construction requirements.

24. Grading shall be halted when winds reach 20mph or greater in a two (2) or more hour time period.

Prior to Final Inspection

25. All public improvements including those conditioned and those agreed upon are required to be constructed and accepted prior to building final inspection.

26. A qualified landscape contractor shall be retained by the property owner for the ongoing maintenance and upkeep of all common area landscaping. landscaping shall be in viable growth condition at all times. The contractor shall be required to procure a business license prior to the commencement of any work.

27. The property owner shall submit the name and contact information for the landscape contractor responsible for ongoing maintenance of common area landscaping to the Planning Department at
[email protected]. It is the property owner's responsibility to ensure that the information on file with the Planning Department is current at all times.
5 CITY 4COA 13788

EXHIBIT J
State Water Project
Historical Table A Allocations
Water Years 1996-20261

WATER YEAR DATE ALLOCATION
1996 12/1/1995 75%
3/4/1996 90%
3/8/1996 100%
1997 12/2/1996 70%
2/11/1997 100%
1998 12/1/1997 40%
1/26/1998 60%
2/11/1998 80%
3/11/1998 100%
1999 11/24/1998 55%
2/10/1999 60%
3/10/1999 100%
2000 11/30/1999 50%
2/25/2000 70%
3/10/2000 100%
4/20/2000 90%
2001 12/1/2000 40%
1/31/2001 20%
3/6/2001 25%
3/15/2001 30%
5/4/2001 33%
5/17/2001 35%
8/16/2001 39%
2002 11/30/2001 20%
1/11/2002 45%
3/22/2002 55%
3/28/2002 60%
5/14/2002 65%
8/23/2002 70%
1 WATER YEAR DATE ALLOCATION
2003 12/3/2002 20%
1/16/2003 45%
3/26/2003 50%
4/24/2003 70%
5/16/2003 90%
2004 12/1/2003 35%
1/15/2004 50%
3/1/2004 65%
2005 12/1/2004 40%
1/14/2005 60%
4/1/2005 70%
4/21/2005 80%
5/27/2005 90%
2006 11/22/2005 55%
12/14/2005 65%
1/17/2006 70%
3/23/2006 80%
4/18/2006 100%
2007 11/30/2006 60% 2
2008 11/21/2007 25%
2/1/2008 35%
2009 10/29/2008 15%
3/18/2009 20%
4/15/2009 30%
5/20/2009 40%
2010 11/30/2009 5%
2/23/2010 15%
3/30/2010 20%
4/22/2010 30%
5/3/2010 40%
5/20/2010 45%
6/22/2010 50%
2011 11/22/2010 25%
12/16/2010 50%
1/20/2011 60%
3/15/2011 70%
4/20/2011 80%
2 WATER YEAR DATE ALLOCATION
2012 11/18/2011 60%
2/21/2012 50%
4/16/2012 60%
5/23/2012 65%
2013 11/29/2012 30%
12/21/2012 40%
3/22/2013 35%
2014 11/19/2013 5%
1/31/2014 0%
4/18/2014 5%
2015 12/1/2014 10%
1/15/2015 15%
3/2/2015 20%
2016 12/1/2015 10%
1/26/2016 15%
2/24/2016 30%
3/17/2016 45%
4/21/2016 60%
2017 11/28/2016 20%
12/21/2016 45%
1/18/2017 60%
4/14/2017 85%
2018 11/29/2017 15%
1/29/2018 20%
4/24/2018 30%
5/21/2018 35%
2019 11/30/2018 10%
1/25/2019 15%
2/20/2019 35%
3/20/2019 70%
6/19/2019 75%
2020 12/2/2019 10%
1/24/2020 15%
5/22/2020 20%
2021 12/1/2020 10%
3/23/2021 5%
2022 12/1/2021 0%3
1/20/2022 15%
3/18/2022 5%
3 WATER YEAR DATE ALLOCATION
2023 12/1/2022 5%
1/26/2023 30%
2/22/2023 35%
3/24/2023 75%
4/20/2023 100%
2024 12/1/2023 10%
2/21/2024 15%
3/22/2024 30%
4/23/2024 40%
2025 12/2/2024 5%
12/23/2024 15%
1/28/2025 20%
2/25/2025 35%
3/25/2025 40%
4/29/2025 50%
2026 12/1/2025 10%
1 Presents all allocation announcements for water years 1996 to the present. Data for earlier years can be found in Bulletin 132 or the 1967-1995 summary. Water year is October through September.
2 The 11/29/06 initial allocation of 60% for 2007 remained unchanged for that year, as documented in Notice to Contractors (NTC) 07-06.
3 The 2022 initial allocation was 0% of Table A, but with water to supply contractor unmet minimum health and safety needs, per NTC 21-07.

Allocations following 2013 settlement agreements
As an outcome of the 2013 settlement agreements, which resulted in water supply contract amendments, Solano County Water Agency, Napa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, City of Yuba City, and County of Butte have special provisions in their respective water supply contracts. In certain years they receive a higher allocation of SWP water than the other contractors.

The following table details Table A allocations for the four affected contractors, beginning 2014.
4 Water Date Butte Solano OtherSWP
Year Napa Contractors
Yuba
2014 11/19/2013 5% 5% 5%
1/31/2014 0% 0% 0%
4/18/2014 5% 5% 5%
2015 12/1/2014 ~is% 10% 10%
1/15/2015 ~rn% 25% 15%
3/2/2015 ~22% 25% 20%
2016 12/1/2015 ~1s% 15% 10%
1/26/2016 ~18% 20% 15%
2/24/2016 60% 40% 30%
3/17/2016 75% 60% 45%
4/21/2016 100% 75% 60%
2017 11/28/2016 ~22% 25% 20%
12/21/2016 75% 55% 45%
1/18/2017 100% 85% 60%
4/14/2017 100% 100% 85%
2018 11/29/2017 ~18% 20% 15%
1/29/2018 ~22% 40% 20%
4/24/2018 60% 40% 30%
5/21/2018 65% 50% 35%
2019 11/30/2018 ~1s% 20% 10%
1/25/2019 ~18% 20% 15%
2/20/2019 65% 40% 35%
3/20/2019 100% 85% 70%
6/19/2019 100% 85% 75%
2020 12/2/2019 ~1s% 20% 10%
1/24/2020 ~18% 25% 15%
5/22/2020 ~22% 30% 20%
2021 12/1/2020 ~1s% 15% 10%
3/23/2021 ~11% 5% 5%
2022 12/1/2021 0% 0% 0%
1/20/2022 ~18% 25% 15%
3/18/2022 ~11% 15% 5%
2023 12/1/2022 ~11% 15% 5%
1/26/2023 60% 40% 30%
2/22/2023 65% 45% 35%
3/24/2023 100% 85% 75%
4/20/2023 100% 100% 100%
2024 12/1/2023 ~1s% 15% 10%
2/21/2024 ~18% 30% 15%
3/22/2024 60% 50% 30%
4/23/2024 70% 65% 40%
5 Water Date Butte Solano OtherSWP
Year Napa Contractors
Yuba
2025 12/2/2024 ~11% 10% 5%
12/23/2024 ~18% 25% 15%
1/28/2025 ~22% 35% 20%
2/25/2025 65% 55% 35%
3/25/2025 70% 60% 40%
4/29/2025 80% 70% 50%
2026 12/01/2025 ~15% 20% 10%
120125
6 EXHIBIT K
Table 2. Reductions in Long-Term Average Table A Deliveries due to Subsidence (TAF/year)
Metric Baseline 2043, 50%
(2023) LOC
OCR 2023 Long-Term Average Table A Deliveries 2,202 1,921 (TAF) Long-Term Average Table A Deliveries under 2,125 1,797 Subsided conditions (TAF) Reductions in Long-Term Average Table A
Deliveries relative to the Same Climate -3%1 -6%1
Conditions in OCR 2023 (%)
Reductions in Long-Term Average Table A -3%2 -18%3
Deliveries relative to OCR 2023 Baseline(%)
TAF: thousand acre-feet

1. These values could be interpreted as "reductions due to potential subsidence alone". 2043, 75%
LOC
1,812
295
-84%1
-87%3

2. This value, and its calculation is identical to the value and calculation above it. It is included for completeness.

3. These values could be interpreted as "reductions due to potential subsidence and potential future climate change".

The largest impact is seen in months where the SLC and Aqueduct would typically operate at or near their design capacity. These months typically occur during wet years where allocations are high. Due to the lower hydraulic conveyance capacity due to subsidence, the capability of the SLC and Aqueduct to deliver water to meet demands is diminished in these months. Said another way, the ability of the SWP to fully utilize the water available in wet periods is reduced due to the "bottleneck" created by the diminished capacity of the SLC and Aqueduct.

Additionally, the operational flexibility of the SLC and Aqueduct is reduced in these wet years. In order to meet annual demands in these years, the subsided SLC and Aqueduct tends to operate at capacity later into the year.

This reduces the ability of the SLC and Aqueduct to carry other flows, or to change the timing of deliveries.

As previously mentioned, like the DCR main report this analysis does not include any adaptation actions. As such, this analysis does not change the water demand patterns to accommodate for these lower capacities. Said another way: demand patterns in the model are assumed to follow historical trends, but the actual patterns could change in the future to accommodate reduced operational flexibility. Future studies could evaluate the impact of altered demand and delivery patterns under subsidence conditions.

Table 3 shows the range of estimated SWP Table A deliveries under 2023 conditions for both the DCR 2023 main report (which assumed design capacity) and 2023 subsidence scenarios.

3.8 DCR 2023 I Impacts of Subsidence Addendum May 6, 2025 Table 3. Deliveries of Table A Water under 2023 Conditions Long-Term Maximum Single Minimum Single
Scenario Average Table A Year Table A Year Table A
Deliveries lTAF) Deliveries lTAF) Deliveries CTAF)
OCR 2023 Baseline 2,202 3 904 184
OCR 2023 Baseline with 2,125 3,674 2101
2023 levels Subsidence

1. The increase in minimum delivers is due to an Increase in SOD storage in most years. Since delivery capability decreases in these scenarios, water tends to stay in storage more often than In the nonsubsidence scenarios. Since the SLC and Aqueduct are capacity constrained, more water stays in San Luis.

This a!lows for higher deliveries in subsequent years. This is discussed in more detail In later sections.

Table 4 and Table 5 show the range of SWP Table A deliveries under potential future climate change and subsidence conditions. The DCR 2023 Baseline, which assumed design capacity is also included in these tables for reference.

It should be noted that the impacts to long-term average Table A deliveries due to climate change without considerations of subsidence are smaller than the impacts of climate change when subsidence is also considered. Said another way, including subsidence in the analysis further reduces the delivery capability of the SWP. The impact of subsidence and climate change is also much larger than that of climate change alone, especially in the "2043, 75% LOC, 75% NESP" scenario.

3.9 OCR 2023 I Impacts of Subsidence Addendum May 6, 2025 Table 4. Deliveries of Table A Water under Potential 2043 Conditions, so0.1o Level of Concern Scenario
Long-Tenn Average
Scenario Table A Deliveries
(TAF)
DCR2023 2,202 Baseline
2043, 50% LOC 1,9211
2043, 50% LOC 1,7972
with 50% NESP

1. This Is 281 taf lower than the OCR 2023 Baseline.

2. This is 405 taf lower than the OCR 2023 Baseline.

Maximum Single Minimum Slngle
Year Table A Year Table A
Deliveries (TAF) Dellverles (TAF)
3,904 184
3,848 75
3,368 1763

3. The increase in minimum delivers is due to an Increase in SOD storage in most years. Since delivery capability decreases in these scenarios, water tends to stay in storage more often than in the nonsubsidence scenarios. Since the SLC and Aqueduct are capacity constrained, more water stays In San Luis.

This allows for higher deliveries in subsequent years. This is discussed in more detail in later sections.

Table 5. Deliveries of Table A Water under Potential 2043 Conditions, 75% Level of Concern Scenario
Long-Tenn Average
Scenario Table A Deliveries
(TAF)
DCR2023 2,202 Baseline
2043, 75% LOC 1,8121
2043, 75% LOC 2952
with 75% NESP

1. This is 390 taf lower than the DCR 2023 Baseline.

2. This is 1,907 taf lower than the DCR 2023 Baseline.

Maximum Single Minimum Single
Year Table A Year Table A
Deliveries (TAF) Deliveries (TAF)
3,904 184
3,834 97
6023 1994

3. Table A deliveries include water that is not conveyed through the SLC and Aqueduct. Deliveries reported here include water conveyed through the North and South Bay Aqueducts, as well as water withdrawn from storage facilities in Southern California, such as Lake Perris, Castaic Lake, and Pyramid Lake. The value of 602 TAF/year is larger than capacity of the SLC and Aqueduct for this scenario. In this scenario, the SLC and Aqueduct delivered 362 TAF In 1983, which is equivalent to a continuous 500 ds.

4. The increase in minimum deliveries is due to an increase in SOD storage in most years. Since delivery capability decreases in these scenarios, water tends to stay in storage more often than in the nonsubsidence scenarios. Since the SLC and Aqueduct are capacity constrained, more water stays in San Luis.

This allows for higher deliveries in subsequent years. This is discussed in more detail in later sections.

Note that a quantitative analysis cannot be done for the 95% NESP scenario.

Under that subsidence scenario the SLC and Aqueduct cannot be operated using the 2020 SOO. As such HCC cannot be estimated by the CASP models.

Due to this, no Ca1Sim3 model can be constructed either. The locations and characteristics of these limits are described in the "Subsidence and HCC Information for Use in the Climate Adaptation Study" report.

In the absence of a quantitative estimate of the impacts to delivery capability, the following information should be kept in mind. The spatial locations with the highest levels of subsidence are similar under the 50% NESP, 75% NESP, and 95% NESP scenarios. Additionally, the magnitude of

3.10 OCR 2023 I Impacts of Subsidence Addendum May 6, 2025 subsidence in the 95% NESP is larger than both the 50% NESP and 75% NESP scenarios. The actual magnitudes of subsidence for each scenario are presented in the "Subsidence and Hydraulic Conveyance Capacity Information for Use in the Climate Adaptation Study" report. It is expected that larger magnitudes of subsidence would further reduce the delivery capability of the SWP. It is then expected that the impacts of the 95% NESP subsidence levels would be greater than an 87% reduction in long-term average Table A deliveries.

Impacts of 2023 Levels of Subsidence on Delivery Capability The cumulative effects of 2023 levels of subsidence reduce the delivery capability of the SWP. As discussed in Section 2, DWR monitors actual subsidence rates along the alignment of the SLC and Aqueduct. Those measurements were used to develop the 2023 level of subsidence scenarios discussed below. Estimated impacts to both SWP Table A and Article 21 deliveries are presented below. For definitions of Table A and Article 21 deliveries, see the DCR 2023.

Estimates of SWP Table A Water Deliveries
The likelihood of different levels of Table A deliveries is presented in Figure

6. Impacts of subsidence in 2023 reduce the likelihood of the highest deliveries. In these high allocation years, the lowered HCC of the SLC and Aqueduct limits the operations of the SWP. This lower HCC also alters the monthly pattern of deliveries. Figure 7 shows that the SLC and Aqueduct operate at their highest co_mbined delivery capacity later into the year. Even when water is available in high allocation years, the SLC and Aqueduct lack the capacity to convey that water to users. Instead, that water remains in storage in San Luis Reservoir. These reduced deliveries in sequential wet or above normal years leads to higher beginning-of-year storage in San Luis Reservoir at the end of those periods. This higher storage also reduces the amount of water exported from the Delta because less water is needed to meet the storage targets in San Luis Reservoir. As a result, additional water may be stored north of the Delta in Oroville. The operational response to subsidence is that high deliveries happen less frequently due to capacity limits and average storage levels increase as a result. This in turn leads to fewer years with low allocations. Figure 6 shows this effect in the reduced likelihood of low deliveries. Figure 8 and Figure 9 show the corresponding increases in San Luis and Oroville Storage.

3.11 OCR 2023 I Impacts of Subsidence Addendum May 6, 2025 CI TY Of
0TEC��S�/��! APPROVED

COUNCIL REPORTS
MEETING DATE: March 16th, 2026 AGENDA SECTION: POLICE DEPARTMENT TO:

FROM:

DATE:

SUBJECT:

BACKGROUND

HONORABLE MAYOR JOAN POGON-CORD AND COUNCIL MEMBERS

SHELDON SHERMAN, CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER
MARCH 10TH
, 2026
EMERGENCY ABATEMENT AT 802 KELTON STREET, TEHACHAPI, CA 93561 Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 1.16.065M, emergency abatements may be conducted by the city when appropriate. This code also requires a hearing before the city council following any such abatement to determine whether the Code Enforcement Officer's abatement actions were appropriate.

On August 20th
, 2025, the property located at 802 Kelton Street was inspected based on a complaint of dead and overgrown vegetation and trash constituting a fire hazard. During the inspection of the property, we located multiple municipal code and a zoning code violation. A Notice of Violation was mailed to the legal owner of record.

Over the next seven months, Officer Bonelli and I made multiple attempts to contact the homeowner and/or property owner which included writing seven administrative citations. We were unable to contact anyone at the location or locate the homeowner due to the fact that the house was vacant and the homeowner had passed away.

On March 5
th
, 2026, a warrant was served to abate the violations on the property. Through the use of a private contractor the dead and overgrown vegetation and trash were removed from the property. The trash was removed, and open door/windows were secured.

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommend that the City Council approves emergency abatement actions conducted by Code Enforcement at 802 Kelton Street.

----