TEHACHAPI POLICE DEPARTMENT
EMERGENCY OPERATIONS CENTER
220 WEST C STREET
AGENDA
TEHACHAPI CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING,
TEHACHAPI REDEVELOPMENT SUCCESSOR AGENCY REGULAR MEETING,
TEHACHAPI PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY REGULAR MEETING, AND
TEHACHAPI CITY FINANCING CORPORATION REGULAR MEETING
MONDAY, APRIL 6, 2026 - 6:00 P.M.
Persons desiring disability-related accommodations should contact the City Clerk prior to the meeting for the accommodation. A copy of any writing that is a public record relating to an open session of this meeting is available at City Hall, 115 South Robinson Street, Tehachapi, California.
Pursuant to G.C. Section 54957.5(b)(2) the designated office for inspection of records in connection with the meeting is the Office of the City Clerk, City Hall, 115 S. Robinson Street, Tehachapi, CA. Any items distributed to the City Council after posting of the Agenda Packet will be available for inspection at the Office of the City Clerk at City Hall. If you would like additional information on any item appearing on this agenda, please contact the Office of the City Clerk at (661) 822-2200.
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
INVOCATION
Participation in the invocation is strictly voluntary. Each city councilmember, city employee, and each person in attendance may participate or not participate as he or she chooses.
PLEDGE TO FLAG
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT REPORTS
1. 2026 Tehachapi’s Extraordinary Women Recognition – PRESENTATION
2. Mayor to present a proclamation to Jim Gordon from One Legacy for Donate Life Month -
PRESENTATION
3. Mayor to present a proclamation to the Tehachapi Police Department Dispatchers for National Public Safety Telecommunicators Week, April 12 - 18 – PRESENTATION
4. Caltrans Public Presentation on the Keene Pavement & 58 Truck Climbing Lanes – PRESENTATION
TEHACHAPI CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING,
TEHACHAPI REDEVELOPMENT SUCCESSOR AGENCY REGULAR MEETING,
TEHACHAPI PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY REGULAR MEETING, AND
TEHACHAPI CITY FINANCING CORPORATION REGULAR MEETING
MONDAY, APRIL 6, 2026 - 6:00 P.M. - PG. 2
CONSENT AGENDA
All items listed with an asterisk (*) are considered to be routine and non-controversial by city staff.
Consent items will be considered first and may be approved by one motion if no member of the council or audience wishes to comment or ask questions. If comment or discussion is desired by anyone, the item will be removed from the consent agenda and will be considered in listed sequence with an opportunity for any member of the public to address the city council concerning the item before action is taken. Staff recommendations are shown in caps.
AUDIENCE ORAL AND WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
The City Council welcomes public comments on any items within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Council. We respectfully request that this public forum be utilized in a positive and constructive manner.
Persons addressing the Council should first state their name and area of residence, the matter of City business to be discussed, and the organization or persons represented, if any. To ensure accuracy in the minutes, please fill out a speaker’s card at the podium. Comments directed to an item on the agenda should be made at the time the item is called for discussion by the Mayor. Questions on non-agenda items directed to the Council or staff should be first submitted to the City Clerk in written form no later than 12:00 p.m. on the Monday preceding the Council meeting; otherwise, response to the question may be carried over to the next City Council meeting. No action can be taken by the Council on matters not listed on the agenda except in certain specified circumstances. The Council reserves the right to limit the speaking time of individual speakers and the time allotted for public presentations.
5. Public comment
CITY CLERK REPORTS
ALL ORDINANCES SCHEDULED FOR INTRODUCTION OR ADOPTION AT THIS MEETING SHALL BE READ
BY TITLE ONLY
Tehachapi City Council Unassigned Res. No. 03-26
Tehachapi City Council Unassigned Ord. No. 26-02-786
Tehachapi Redevelopment Successor Agency Unassigned Res. No. 02-26 Tehachapi Public Financing Authority Unassigned Res. No. 01-26 * 6. Minutes for the Tehachapi City Council, Tehachapi Redevelopment Successor Agency, Tehachapi Public Financing Authority, and the Tehachapi City Financing Corporation regular meeting held on March 16, 2026 – APPROVE AND FILE
FINANCE REPORTS
* 7. Disbursements and bills for March 12, 2026, through March 25, 2026 – AUTHORIZE PAYMENTS
TEHACHAPI CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING,
TEHACHAPI REDEVELOPMENT SUCCESSOR AGENCY REGULAR MEETING,
TEHACHAPI PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY REGULAR MEETING, AND
TEHACHAPI CITY FINANCING CORPORATION REGULAR MEETING
MONDAY, APRIL 6, 2026 - 6:00 P.M. - PG. 3
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT REPORTS (CONT.)
* 8. City of Tehachapi Community Event Street Closures – APPROVE THE STREET CLOSURES FOR THE TEHACHAPI FARMER’S MARKET, GREEN STREET GET DOWN, TEHACHAPI HOMETOWN CHRISTMAS AND ALL-AMERICAN 4TH OF JULY CELEBRATION, SUBJECT TO STAFF CONDITIONS AND CITY MANAGER
APPROVAL
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REPORTS
9. Mojave and Snyder Well Transmission Main Intertie Project Rebid – AWARD THE MOJAVE AND SNYDER
WELL TRANSMISSION MAIN INTERTIE PROJECT TO WEST VALLEY CONSTRUCTION IN THE AMOUNT OF $994,325.00 AND AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO APPROVE ANY NECESSARY CHANGE ORDERS UP TO A MAXIMUM OF 20% OF THE ORIGINAL CONTRACT (OR $198,865.00) * 10. Contract amendments to engineering services agreements with AECOM Technical Services – APPROVE
AND AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO SIGN TWO AMENDMENTS TO THE EXISTING ENGINEERING SERVICE
AGREEMENTS BETWEEN THE CITY OF TEHACHAPI AND AECOM TECHNICAL SERVICES, INCORPORATED
PLANNING DEPARTMENT REPORTS
11. PUBLIC HEARING – Pinon 96 Architectural Design and Site Plan Review (AD&SPR) Appeal A. OPEN HEARING
B. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING AND CORRESPONDENCE
C. STAFF REPORT
D. RECEIVE PUBLIC COMMENT
E. CLOSE HEARING
F. COUNCIL COMMENTS
G. STAFF RECOMMENDATION – DENY THE APPEAL BY THE TEHACHAPI CUMMINGS-COUNTY WATER DISTRICT REGARDING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO APPROVE AD&SPR NO. 2025-06 PINON 96 ARCHITECTURE ON JANUARY 12, 2026, AND FIND THAT THE PLANNING
COMMISSION MET ALL REQUIRED FINDINGS IN RENDERING THAT DECISION AND ADOPTING RESOLUTION NO. 2026-02
POLICE DEPARTMENT REPORTS
* 12. Emergency abatement at 802 Kelton Street – APPROVE EMERGENCY ABATEMENT ACTIONS CONDUCTED BY CODE ENFORCEMENT AT 802 KELTON STREET
CITY MANAGER REPORTS
13. Report to Council regarding current activities and programs – VERBAL REPORT
TEHACHAPI CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING,
TEHACHAPI REDEVELOPMENT SUCCESSOR AGENCY REGULAR MEETING,
TEHACHAPI PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY REGULAR MEETING, AND
TEHACHAPI CITY FINANCING CORPORATION REGULAR MEETING
MONDAY, APRIL 6, 2026 - 6:00 P.M. - PG. 4
COUNCILMEMBER REPORTS
On their own initiative, a Councilmember may ask a question for clarification, make a brief announcement, provide a reference to staff or other resources for factual information, take action to have staff place a matter of business on a future agenda, request staff to report back at a subsequent meeting concerning any matter, or make a brief report on his or her own activities. (Per Gov’t. Code §54954.2(a)) If an item is listed below the Council has the option to take action or refer the matter to staff for a later agenda.
CLOSED SESSION
1. Closed Session Minutes for March 2, 2026 – APPROVE AND FILE
2. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS
Property: 223-510-06 to 223-510-12
Agency negotiators: City Manager, Development Services Director Negotiating parties: Marianna H Kubicek Trust, Carol Swets, Trustee Under negotiation: Price and terms of payment
3. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (d) and paragraph (2) of subdivision (e) of Section 54956.9: (2 potential casesrelating to compliance with electric vehicle charging station requirements and with the Americans with Disabilities Act)
4. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – EXISTING LITIGATION
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1): (4 cases) a. City of Tehachapi v. Tehachapi-Cummings County Water District, et al. Kern County Superior Court Case No. BCV-23-104134
b. City of Tehachapi v. Tehachapi-Cummings County Water District, et al. Kern County Superior Court Case No. BCV-24-101512
c. Tehachapi-Cummings County Water District v. City of Tehachapi, et al. Sacramento County Superior Court Case No. 34-2022-80003892-CU-WM-GDS
d. Tehachapi-Cummings County Water District v. City of Tehachapi, et al. Kern County Superior Court case No. BCV-25-103013
ADJOURNMENT
TEHACHAPI POLICE DEPARTMENT
EMERGENCY OPERATIONS CENTER
220 WEST C STREET
MINUTES
TEHACHAPI CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING,
TEHACHAPI REDEVELOPMENT SUCCESSOR AGENCY SPECIAL MEETING,
TEHACHAPI PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY SPECIAL MEETING, AND
TEHACHAPI CITY FINANCING CORPORATION SPECIAL MEETING
MONDAY, MARCH 16, 2026 – 6:00 P.M.
NOTE: Ch, Sm, Po, Pa and Gu are abbreviations for Council Members Chung, Smith, Pogon-Cord, Pauer and Gutierrez, respectively. For example, Ch/Sm denotes Council Member Chung made the motion and Council Member Smith seconded it. The abbreviation Ab means absent, Abd abstained, Ns noes, and NAT no action taken.
ACTION TAKEN
CALL TO ORDER
Meeting called to order by Mayor Pogon-Cord at 6:00pm
ROLL CALL
Roll call by City Clerk Tori Marsh
Present: Mayor Pogon-Cord, Councilmember Smith, Councilmember Chung and Councilmember Gutierrez
Absent: Mayor Pro-Tem Pauer
INVOCATION
Led by Shawny Patrick of Love Tehachapi
PLEDGE TO THE FLAG
Led by Councilmember Chung
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT REPORTS
1. 2026 Tehachapi’s Extraordinary Women Recognition – PRESENTATION
2. Mayor presented a proclamation to the American Red Cross for American Red Cross Month – PRESENTATION
CONSENT AGENDA Approved
Sm/Ch 4-0 Motion Carried
Ab Pa
Tehachapi City Council Meeting – Monday, March 16, 2026 Tehachapi Redevelopment Successor Agency Special Meeting Tehachapi Public Financing Authority Special Meeting And Tehachapi City Financing Corporation Special Meeting ACTION TAKEN
AUDIENCE ORAL AND WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
3. Public Comment
CITY CLERK REPORTS
* 4. Minutes for the Tehachapi City Council, Tehachapi Redevelopment Successor Agency, Tehachapi Public Financing Authority, and the Tehachapi City Financing Corporation regular meeting held on March 2, 2026 – APPROVED AND FILED Approved And Filed
Sm/Ch 4-0 Motion Carried
Ab Pa
5. City Treasurer Vacancy – DIRECTED STAFF TO PUBLISH A NOTICE OF INTENTION
TO FILL A VACANCY AND INITIATE THE APPOINTMENT PROCESS TO FILL THE
CITY TREASURER SEAT
Directed Staff To Publish A
Notice Of Intention To Fill A
Vacancy And Initiate The
Appointment Process To Fill The
City Treasurer Seat
Ch/Gu 4-0 Motion Carried
Ab Pa
FINANCE REPORTS
* 6. Disbursements and bills for February 26, 2026, through March 11, 2026 –
AUTHORIZED PAYMENTS
Authorized Payments
Sm/Ch 4-0 Motion Carried
Ab Pa
* 7. City of Tehachapi Investment Report through February 2026 – RECEIVED REPORT
Received Report
Sm/Ch 4-0 Motion Carried
Ab Pa
8. 2025/2026 Mid-Year Budget Adjustments – APPROVED THE 2025-2026 MIDYEAR BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS AS PRESENTED Approved The 2025/2026 MidYear Budget Adjustments As
Presented
Sm/Ch 4-0 Motion Carried
Ab Pa
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REPORTS
9. Tucker Road Fencing Project Award – AWARDED THE TUCKER ROAD FENCING PROJECT TO YUKON FENCE COMPANY IN THE AMOUNT OF $98,976.00 AND
AUTHORIZED THE CITY MANAGER TO APPROVE ANY NECESSARY CHANGE ORDERS UP TO A MAXIMUM OF 20% OF THE ORIGINAL CONTRACT (OR $19,795.20).
Awarded The Tucker Road
Fencing Project To Yukon Fence
Company In The Amount Of
$98,976.00 And Authorized The
City Manager To Approve Any
Necessary Change Orders Up To
A Maximum Of 20% Of The
Original Contract (Or
$19,795.20).
Gu/Sm 4-0 Motion Carried
Ab Pa
CITY MANAGER REPORTS
10. Report to Council regarding current activities and programs – VERBAL REPORT
COUNCILMEMBER REPORTS
11. Mayoral Appointment – Eastern Kern Air Pollution Control District – APPOINTED
COUNCILMEMBER GUTIERREZ
Mayor Pogon-Cord Appointed
Councilmember Gutierrez To The
Eastern Kern Air Pollution
Control District
Tehachapi City Council Meeting – Monday, March 16, 2026 Tehachapi Redevelopment Successor Agency Special Meeting Tehachapi Public Financing Authority Special Meeting And Tehachapi City Financing Corporation Special Meeting ACTION TAKEN CLOSED SESSION Tabled
1. Closed Session Minutes for March 2, 2026 – APPROVE AND FILE
2. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – EXISTING LITIGATION
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1): (4 cases) a. City of Tehachapi v. Tehachapi-Cummings County Water District, et al. Kern County Superior Court Case No. BCV-23-104134
b. City of Tehachapi v. Tehachapi-Cummings County Water District, et al. Kern County Superior Court Case No. BCV-24-101512
c. Tehachapi-Cummings County Water District v. City of Tehachapi, et al.
Sacramento County Superior Court Case No. 34-2022-80003892-CU-WMGDS d. Tehachapi-Cummings County Water District v. City of Tehachapi, et al. Kern County Superior Court case No. BCV-25-103013
ADJOURNMENT
The City Council/Boards adjourned at 6:37 p.m. to a City Council, Tehachapi Redevelopment Successor Agency, Tehachapi Public Financing Authority and Tehachapi City Financing Corporation Regular Meeting to be held on Monday, April 6, 2026 at 6:00 pm.
Adjourned At 6:37 pm
__________________________________
TORI MARSH, CMC
City Clerk, City of Tehachapi, California
Approved this 6
th day
of April 2026.
___________________________
JOAN POGON-CORD
Mayor, City of Tehachapi, California
User:
Printed:
Accounts Payable
Checks by Date - Detail by Vendor Number
gdelgado
3/25/2026 10:34 AM
Check No Vendor No Vendor Name Check Date Check Amount
Invoice No Description Reference
ACH 0061 BSK Associates
0112472 SWR/ Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring 3,958.00
112602R WTR/ Water Pressure Zone Boundary (Feb 2026 Services) 2,365.20 BJ01063 WTR/ Drinking Water Samples 94.33
BJ01074 WTR/ Drinking Water Samples 42.80
BJ01156 WTR/ Drinking Water Samples 94.33
BJ01208 WTR/ Drinking Water Samples 42.80
BJ01343 WTR/ Drinking Water Samples 42.80
Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 0061: 6,640.26
Total for Vendor 0061 (BSK Associates): 6,640.26
ACH 0127 State of California Department of Justice
031051 PD/#151470/Dispatch Applicant Livescans/Fingerprinting(Feb 2026) 64.00 Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 0127: 64.00
Total for Vendor 0127 (State of California Department of Justice): 64.00 ACH 0182 P&J Electric Inc.
9809 WTR/ Pinon Well 4,217.61
Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 0182: 4,217.61
Total for Vendor 0182 (P&J Electric Inc.): 4,217.61
ACH 0300 Mission Linen & Uniform Service
525640749 PW/ PW Linens; Mats 288.31
525640750 SWR/ WWTP Mats 47.65
525680010 PW/ PW Linens; Mats 284.85
525680011 SWR/ WWTP Mats 47.65
Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 0300: 668.46
Total for Vendor 0300 (Mission Linen & Uniform Service): 668.46 ACH 0347 Quinn Company
WON60024656 SWR/ G-8 Repair 10,268.49
Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 0347: 10,268.49
Total for Vendor 0347 (Quinn Company): 10,268.49
ACH 0372 Southern California Edison
030626 WTR/ 8001119651/ Curry- Curry Bstr & Well (02/04-03/05/26) 5,526.81 030626-A WTR/ 8000641860/ 1299 S Curry- Minton Well (02/04-03/05/26) 2,869.29 030626-B WTR/ 8000488189/ Pinon- Pinon Well (02/04-03/05/26) 2,515.75 030626-C LLD/ 8004680470/ 1002 Applewood- Pump Station (02/04-03/05/26) 35.17 030626-D GG/ 8012490077/ 420 W Valley Blvd Ped (02/04-03/05/26) 17.40 030626-E LLD/ 8000293383/ 1347 Clasico Dr Ped (02/04-03/05/26) 21.26 030626-F LLD/ 8000296695/ 1115 Alder Ave Ped (02/04-03/05/26) 16.02 030626-G LLD/ 8000302048/ 1415 Alder Ave Ped (02/04-03/05/26) 15.63 030626-H LLD/ 8020878750/ 1544 S Alder Ave Irr (02/04-03/05/26) 16.02 030926 WTR/ 8004628073/129 Brentwood- Wahlstrom Well (02/05-03/08/26) 3,173.57 030926-A LLD/ 8000259694/110 1/2 Sutter St (02/05-03/08/26) 16.96 030926-B LLD/ 8003382785/ 180 Valley (02/05-03/08/26) 16.57 030926-C LLD/ 8001628131/ 311 Sutter St (02/05-03/08/26) 16.57 030926-D LLD/ 8001628562/ 501 1/2 Pinon St (02/05-03/08/26) 16.57 031026 STRTS/ 8001470568/1300 Goodrick Dr #Z (02/06-03/09/26) 31.73 031026-A WTR/ 8004425233/NW Cor Anita/Dennison (02/06-03/09/26) 3,546.28 031026-B SWR/ 8003048390/755 Steuber Well (02/06-03/09/26) 102.05 031026-C DR/ 8001115579/409 Bailey Ave (02/06-03/09/26) 41.04 031026-D WTR/ 8004425404/126 S Snyder Ave-Snyder Well (02/06-03/09/26) 102.05 031026-E AIR/ 8002672984/415 N. Dennison (02/06-03/09/26) 66.77 031026-F LLD/ 8000844933/115 Manzanita Ln (02/06-03/09/26) 17.42 031026-G STRTS/ 8000820180/209 E Highline Rd PED (02/06-03/09/26) 17.42 031026-H LLD/ 8000191339/1199 Canyon Dr E (02/06-03/09/26) 16.57 031026-I LLD/ 8000192404/1200 S Dennison (02/06-03/09/26) 16.96 031026-J LLD/ 8000193438/1202 S Dennison (02/06-03/09/26) 17.17 031026-K LLD/ 8000195859/1000 Canyon Dr W (02/06-03/09/26) 17.42 031226 WTR/ 8001340514/358 E D St- Mojave Well (02/05-03/08/26) 2,173.79 031826 STRTS/8003135063/800 S Curry St #A-Traffic Sign (02/17-03/17/26) 85.30 031926 PW/ 8001026848/ 101 Commercial Way (02/18-03/18/26) 69.25 031926-A GG/ 8003354652/ 115 S Robinson St (02/18-03/18/26) 1,502.45 031926-B DSD/ 8003367862/ 117 S Robinson St (02/18-03/18/26) 391.32 031926-C AIR/ 8001037981/ 409 Bryan Ct (02/18-03/18/26) 255.26 031926-D AIR/ 8000146155/ Dennison S/O Hwy 58 (02/18-03/18/26) 229.02 031926-E AIR/ 8000152422/ 314 N Hayes St (02/18-03/18/26) 88.72 031926-F AIR/ 8000361331/ 314 N Hayes St PAPI (02/18-03/18/26) 39.76 031926-G AIR/ 8000880034/ 314 N Hayes St #G (02/18-03/18/26) 21.29 031926-H AIR/ 8001144201/ 314 N Hayes St #B (02/18-03/18/26) 514.49 031926-I AIR/ 8003312447/ 314 N Hayes St (02/18-03/18/26) 137.71 031926-J AIR/ 8003312881/ 9999 1/2 Hayes St (02/18-03/18/26) 109.88 031926-K AIR/ 8003326595/ 316 N Mojave St (02/18-03/18/26) 31.99 031926-L AIR/ 8003354614/ West End Teh Airport (02/18-03/18/26) 85.76 Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 0372: 24,002.46
Total for Vendor 0372 (Southern California Edison): 24,002.46 ACH 0395 The Gas Company
SCG031826 PD/ #12851696026/ 220 W "C" St (02/12-03/16/26) 868.83 SCG031826-A DSD/ #00881702005/ 117 S Robinson St (02/12-03/16/26) 316.38 SCG031826-B GG/ #06551704007/ 115 S Robinson St (02/12-03/16/26) 314.29 SCG031826-C AIR/ #01091699981/ 409 Bryan Ct (02/12-03/16/26) 169.47 SCG031826-D GG/ #10561664466/ 200 W Teh Blvd (02/12-03/16/26) 22.56 Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 0395: 1,691.53
Total for Vendor 0395 (The Gas Company): 1,691.53
ACH 0426 Tehachapi-Cummings County Water District
TCCWD-FEB2026 WTR/Pennzoil Quaker State/#5399-000/Landscape Billing (Feb 2026) 64.44 TCCWD-FEB2026-AWTR/ Henway/#5400-000/ Landscape Billing (Feb 2026) 11.32 TCCWD-FEB2026-BWTR/ Benz/ #5401-000/Landscape Billing (Feb 2026) 4.50 TCCWD-FEB2026-CWTR/ TUSD/ #5402-000/Landscape Billing (Feb 2026) 4.50 TCCWD-FEB2026-DLLD/ Warrior Park/ #5403-000/ Landscape Billing (Feb 2026) 6.11 TCCWD-FEB2026-ELLD/COT Landscaping/ #5404-000/ Landscape Billing (Feb 2026) 4.50 TCCWD-FEB2026-FLLD/COT Median/ #5405-000/ Landscape Billing (Feb 2026) 4.50 TCCWD-FEB2026-GWTR/ TUSD-DN2/ #5434-000/ Landscape Billing (Feb 2026) 4.50 TCCWD-FEB2026-HWTR/ TUSD-DN4/ #5435-000/ Landscape Billing (Feb 2026) 4.72 TCCWD-FEB2026-IWTR/ TUSD-DN6/ #5437-000/ Landscape Billing (Feb 2026) 4.94 TCCWD-FEB2026-JWTR/ TUSD-DN8/ #5438-000/ Landscape Billing (Feb 2026) 4.50 TCCWD-FEB2026-KGG/ Steuber/ #5613-000/ Landscape Billing (Feb 2026) 4.50 Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 0426: 123.03
Total for Vendor 0426 (Tehachapi-Cummings County Water District): 123.03 ACH 0431 The Tehachapi News
0226109028 CC/ City Council Appoint. (Feb 2026) 214.20
0226109028-A DSD/ Public Hearing- Pinon-96; Minor Use 2026-01 (Feb 2026) 269.70 0226109028-B Tucker Road Fencing (Feb 2026) 430.90
Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 0431: 914.80
Total for Vendor 0431 (The Tehachapi News): 914.80
ACH 0441 Vulcan Materials Company
5830189 WTR/ Water Service Patch Back 683.90
5846191 WTR/ Water Service Patch Back 685.05
Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 0441: 1,368.95
Total for Vendor 0441 (Vulcan Materials Company): 1,368.95 ACH 0445 Tehachapi Senior Center Inc.
TSC031726 Utility Cost Support/ Meals on Wheels (April 2026) 400.00 Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 0445: 400.00
Total for Vendor 0445 (Tehachapi Senior Center Inc.): 400.00 ACH 0476 WITTS Everything for the Office
381464 GG/ Office Supplies 207.03
Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 0476: 207.03
Total for Vendor 0476 (WITTS Everything for the Office): 207.03 ACH 0642 BSSR Inc.
44508 PW/ Vapor Testing PW Fuel Station 362.50
44509 AIR/ Vapor Test 362.50
44552 PW/ Fuel Station Repair 2,993.14
Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 0642: 3,718.14
Total for Vendor 0642 (BSSR Inc.): 3,718.14
ACH 0745 Jim Burke Ford
289780 WTR/ V-26 Oil Change/ Cust # 767870 133.11
289781 PW/ V-30 Oil Change/ Cust # 767871 100.63
289782 DSD/ V-51 Oil Change/ Cust # 767873 152.59
289783 PW/ V-53 Oil Change/ Cust # 767875 106.04
289784 WTR/ V-54 Oil Change/ Cust # 767876 106.04
290066 PD/ TE-5 Oil Change/ Cust # 10038 106.04
290067 PD/ TE-21 Oil Change/ Cust # 768004 95.22
290069 PD/ TE-34 Oil Change/ Cust # 10038 100.63
290070C PD/ TE-51 Oil Change/ Cust # 10038 100.63
290071C PD/ TE-52 Oil Change/ Cust # 10038 100.63
Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 0745: 1,101.56
Total for Vendor 0745 (Jim Burke Ford): 1,101.56
ACH 0817 Kimball Midwest
104232761 PW/ Safety Gloves 100.19
104235346 PW/ Shop Supplies 277.23
Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 0817: 377.42
Total for Vendor 0817 (Kimball Midwest): 377.42
ACH 1441 Grainger
9828139825 PW/ Tools 110.83
Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 1441: 110.83
Total for Vendor 1441 (Grainger): 110.83
ACH 1507 Berchtold Equipment Company
056715 PW/ E-223 Parts 536.15
056715-A WTR/ E-223 Parts 536.15
056715-B SWR/ E-223 Parts 536.14
Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 1507: 1,608.44
Total for Vendor 1507 (Berchtold Equipment Company): 1,608.44 ACH 1973 Union Pacific Railroad Company
345795649 GG/ Public Parking/ Robinson-E Teh Blvd (FY 25-26) 1,995.63 345795649-A GG/ Public Parking/ Robinson-E Teh Blvd (FY 26-27) *PRE-PAID* 5,986.89 Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 1973: 7,982.52
Total for Vendor 1973 (Union Pacific Railroad Company): 7,982.52 ACH 1982 SSD Alarm
R-00644023 DSD/ Burglar/Fire Alarm Services (April 2026) 60.90 R-00644023-A PW/ Burglar/Fire Alarm Services (April 2026) 61.74 R-00644023-B PW/ Burglar/Fire Alarm Services- PW Trailer (April 2026) 83.10 R-00644023-C WTR/Burglar/Fire Alarm Services-Wtr Treatment Office(April 2026) 56.63 R-00644023-D SWR/Burglar/Fire Alarm Services-Wtr Treatment Office(April 2026) 56.64 R-00644023-E WTR/Burglar/Fire Alarm Services-Wtr Storage Facility(April 2026) 41.82 R-00644023-F SWR/Burglar/Fire Alarm Services-Wtr Storage Facility(April 2026) 41.82 R-00644023-G RR/Burglar/Fire Alarm Services-RR Park (April 2026) 112.30 R-00644023-H GG/Burglar/Fire Alarm Services- City Hall(April 2026) 55.94 R-00644023-I AIR/Burglar/Fire Alarm Services- Air State & Co Tax (April 2026) 86.83 R-00644023-J PD/Burglar/Fire Alarm Services- PD State & Co Tax (April 2026) 281.09 Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 1982: 938.81
Total for Vendor 1982 (SSD Alarm): 938.81
ACH 2047 Fred C. Gilbert Co.
314118 WTR/ C/2 Injector 368.00
Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 2047: 368.00
Total for Vendor 2047 (Fred C. Gilbert Co.): 368.00
ACH 2111 NAPA Auto Parts
096079 PW/ E-243 Filter 427.90
Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 2111: 427.90
Total for Vendor 2111 (NAPA Auto Parts): 427.90
ACH 2147 Coffee Break Service Inc.
63735 GG/ Coffee Service & Supplies 739.50
Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 2147: 739.50
Total for Vendor 2147 (Coffee Break Service Inc.): 739.50 ACH 2600 Holliday Rock Co. Inc.
1870317 PW/ Shop Concrete 2,003.63
1870317-A WTR/ Shop Concrete 2,003.63
1870317-B SWR/ Shop Concrete 2,003.62
1871524 WTR/ Water Service Patch Back 569.90
1871524-A STRTS/ Sidewalk Repair- Sutter 569.91
Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 2600: 7,150.69
Total for Vendor 2600 (Holliday Rock Co. Inc.): 7,150.69 ACH 2695 Home Depot Credit Services
A-513507 PW/ Keys For Message Board 16.14
B-513532 PW/ Valley Park Soccer Field Repair 26.40
C-627236 AIR/ Aviator Park Main Repair 70.45
D-6132482 PW/ Safety 88.67
E-6513828 PW/ Computer Supplies 109.21
E-6513828-A PW/ Admin Bldg Outlet Plate 1.06
F-6513864 AIR/ Gate Repair 82.14
G-5024083 AIR/ Landscaping Supplies 6.24
H-5132487 PW/ Irrigation Supplies- Warrior Park 2.48
I-5132500 LLD/ Soil- Heritage Oak 18.64
J-5132507 PW/ Soil- Pioneer Park 25.24
K-5513977 SWR/ WWTP Supplies 12.54
K-5513977-A SWR/ Computer Cable 19.46
L-5611408 PW/ Cold Weather Gear 70.28
M-5611448 AIR/ Landscaping Supplies- Aviator Park 63.53 N-5611456 PD/ Back Door- Screw 3.18
O-5627605 PW/ Shop Concrete 28.90
O-5627605-A WTR/ Shop Concrete 28.90
O-5627605-B SWR/ Shop Concrete 28.90
P-4132520 PW/ Trash Bags 146.96
Q-4514032 AIR/ Landscaping Supplies- Aviator Park 45.55 R-4522002 SWR/ Shop Towels 25.94
S-3522024 WTR/ Water Box on "F" St 28.77
T-3627677 AIR/ Landscaping Supplies- Aviator Park 109.67 U-8010619 PW/ Mulch 90.12
V-8024434 PW/ V-61 Side Rail Replacement 96.19
W-8132802 PW/ Mulch 98.90
W-8132802-A PW/ Mulch 98.89
X-8514537 PW/ Paint & Supplies for Lunch Room- Admin Bld 59.77 X-8514537-A WTR/ Paint & Supplies for Lunch Room- Admin Bld 59.77 X-8514537-B SWR/ Paint & Supplies for Lunch Room- Admin Bld 59.77 Y-8514595 PW/ Tools 21.62
YA-8522391 PW/ Tape 10.80
YB-8612000 PW/ Flowers on Teh. Blvd. 99.46
YC-8612030 PW/ T-129 Organize Trailer 40.70
YD-7514609 PW/ Tools 42.26
YE-7514633 PW/ E-243 Supplies 70.24
YF-7612094 PW/ Wall Paint; Patch 133.69
YF-7612094-A PW/ Wall Paint; Patch 133.69
YG-7628057 PW/ Paint and Supplies 209.79
YG-7628057-A PW/ Paint and Supplies 209.79
YH-7628072 WTR/ PRV Vaults 16.48
YI-6024518 PW/ Tool Bag 43.28
YJ-6514675 PW/ E-243 Organizer 151.49
YK-6514690 PW/ Cable for Office Trailer 37.87
YL-6514691 PW/ Charger for IPad 33.54
YM-6514696 WTR/ Tools 51.86
YN-6514725 WTR/ Tools 27.99
YO-6612129 PW/ Paint for Admin Bldg 40.65
YO-6612129-A WTR/ Paint for Admin Bldg 40.66
YO-6612129-B SWR/ Paint for Admin Bldg 40.66
YP-6628096 PW/ Tools 175.71
YQ-2132914 AIR/ Irrigation Repair- Aviator Park 21.04
YR-2514999 PW/ Admin Bldg Baseboards 15.13
YR-2514999-A WTR/ Admin Bldg Baseboards 15.13
YR-2514999-B SWR/ Admin Bldg Baseboards 15.12
YS-2522729 PW/ PW Admin Wall Repair 23.28
YT-2612436 PW/ Trees on Curry 172.67
YU-2612461 AIR/ Irrigation Project- Aviator Park 25.92
YV-2628359 AIR/ Irrigation Project- Aviator Park 88.73
YW-2628398 PW/ Facility Supplies 167.52
YW-2628398-A PW/ Admin Office Remodel 115.80
YX-2628400 PW/ Safety Gloves 27.03
YY-2628404 PW/ Tools 106.16
YZ-1132927 PW/ Safety Gloves 10.21
Z-1515111 SWR/ Dewater Bldg Pump 204.59
ZA-132968 STRTS/ Mill St Sidewalk Replacement (Gas Tax) 16.16 ZB-24761 STRTS/ Street Sign Replacement 13.56
ZC-515156 WTR/ Water Box 89.13
ZD-522858 PW/ Work Orders at PD- Supplies 244.33
ZE-628491 PW/ Irrigation Repair- Railroad Park 58.25
ZF-9024845 AIR/ Aviator Park Irrigation Project 28.65
ZG-9522910 PW/ Tools 48.76
ZH-9522957 PW/ Keys 45.53
ZH-9522957-A PW/ Paint at PD 118.72
ZI-5133335 PW/ Tools 23.77
ZJ-5133337 WTR/ Tools 69.19
ZK-5510318 SWR/ Tools 864.92
ZL-5613071 SWR/ Tools 117.99
ZM-5613072 SWR/ Aerator Basin Foam Removal 58.77
ZN-5620043 AIR/ Aviator Park Landscaping 14.59
ZO-4510360 PW/ Tools 21.59
ZP-4510433 PW/ Tools 35.69
ZQ-4523317 WTR/ Tools for Water Service Patch Back 47.57 ZR-4523365 SWR/ Vehicle Supplies 27.00
ZR-4523365-A SWR/ Tools 29.20
ZS-4613141 PW/ Valley Park Repairs 57.45
ZT-3133444 STRTS/ Sutter Sidewalk Repair (Gas Tax) 15.24 ZU-3510483 PW/ Valley Park Repairs 139.18
Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 2695: 6,448.46
Total for Vendor 2695 (Home Depot Credit Services): 6,448.46 ACH 2874
029962
Department of Justice Accounting Office
PW/ Fingerprinting 32.00
Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 2874: 32.00
Total for Vendor 2874 (Department of Justice Accounting Office): 32.00 ACH 2963 AT&T (Calnet)
24907492 GG/ CH Line 1/ Acct#9391006712 (02/06-03/05/26) 204.25 24907493 SWR/ WWTP Office/ Acct#9391006713 (02/06-03/05/26) 158.03 24907494 RR/ RR Depot/ Acct#9391006715 (02/06-03/05/26) 92.61 24907495 SWR/ Lift Station/ Acct#9391006716 (02/06-03/05/26) 31.91 24907496 GG/ CH Fax/ Acct#9391006717 (02/06-03/05/26) 31.91 24907497 AIR/ AWOS/ Acct#9391006718 (02/06-03/05/26) 31.91 24907498 PW/ DSL Fax/ Acct#9391006719 (02/06-03/05/26) 31.91 24907499 AIR/ Fuel System/ Acct#9391006720 (02/06-03/05/26) 31.91 24907500 LLD/ AutoDial-Applewood Pmp Stn/Acct#9391006721 (02/06-03/05/26) 31.91 Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 2963: 646.35
Total for Vendor 2963 (AT&T (Calnet)): 646.35
ACH 3011 Verizon Wireless
6137369021 PD/ #5501-00001/ Mobile Computers/Cell Phones (Feb 2026) 1,894.50 6137369022 PW/ #5501-00002/ Mobile Broadband (Feb 2026) 178.06 6137369022-A SWR/ #5501-00002/ Mobile Broadband (Feb 2026) 23.66 6137369022-B PD/ #5501-00002/ Mobile Broadband (Feb 2026) 38.83 6137369022-C COM/ #5501-00002/ Mobile Broadband (Feb 2026) 49.11 6138896355 GG/ #7654-00002/ Mobile Broadband (02/19-03/18/26) 76.02 6138896355-A PW/ #7654-00002/ Mobile Broadband; Wifi (02/19-03/18/26) 798.21 6138896355-B COM/ #7654-00002/ Mobile Broadband; Wifi (02/19-03/18/26) 152.22 Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 3011: 3,210.61
Total for Vendor 3011 (Verizon Wireless): 3,210.61
ACH 3066 AECOM Technical Services Inc.
2001118942 SWR/ WWTP Reclamation Annual Report 1,221.83 2001118942-A WTR/ Water Service STD Revision 353.56
Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 3066: 1,575.39
Total for Vendor 3066 (AECOM Technical Services Inc.): 1,575.39 ACH 3173 Sergio G. Soto
4448 PD/ TE-32 Tires 1,217.03
4449 PW/ T-130 Tire 224.95
4450 PW/ E-243 Flat Tire 160.00
4451 PW/ V-31 Alignment 95.00
4452 PD/ TE-34 Tire Change; Front Brakes 677.13
Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 3173: 2,374.11
Total for Vendor 3173 (Sergio G. Soto): 2,374.11
ACH 3207 Kern County Information Tech Svc
CI2600000167 PD/ Kern CJIS FY 25-26 3rd Qtr (Jan - Mar 2026) 840.00 Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 3207: 840.00
Total for Vendor 3207 (Kern County Information Tech Svc): 840.00 ACH 3243 Raymond's Trophy & Awards
107327 CC/ City Council Plaques 35.99
Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 3243: 35.99
Total for Vendor 3243 (Raymond's Trophy & Awards): 35.99 ACH 3317 HPS Mechanical Inc.
W26102-01 WTR/ Water Pressure Zone Boundary 562,771.59
Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 3317: 562,771.59
Total for Vendor 3317 (HPS Mechanical Inc.): 562,771.59 ACH 3564 Don's Pro Technology Auto Repair
112774 PW/ V-24 Transmission 1,716.61
Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 3564: 1,716.61
Total for Vendor 3564 (Don's Pro Technology Auto Repair): 1,716.61 ACH 3568 Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group
128488 DSD/ East Tehachapi Lift Station (Prof Services Feb 2026) 5,993.53 Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 3568: 5,993.53
Total for Vendor 3568 (Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group): 5,993.53 ACH 3645 Blueprint Service Co.
097155 DSD/ Map Room Plans Tiff Conversion 452.24
097155-A GG/ Map Room Plans Tiff Conversion 452.24
Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 3645: 904.48
Total for Vendor 3645 (Blueprint Service Co.): 904.48
ACH 3726 Open & Shut Enterprises
113877 AIR/ Green Street Gate 1,099.50
Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 3726: 1,099.50
Total for Vendor 3726 (Open & Shut Enterprises): 1,099.50 ACH 3848 O'Reilly Automotive Inc
4447-370624 PW/ Motor Oil 1,039.62
4447-370630 COM/ V-63 Filters 115.73
4447-370636 PD/ Shop Supplies 154.27
4447-370736 COM/ V-63 Filter 13.04
4447-370823 DSD/ V-42 Filters/ Motor Oil 118.88
4447-370833 PW/ Motor Oil *RETURN* -1,039.62
4447-370837 PD/ TE-37 Filters; Oil 84.51
4447-370867 PD/ TE-36 Filter; Oil 94.02
4447-370875 PD/ E-235 Battery 78.19
4447-370938 DSD/ V-41 Filters 122.68
4447-370939 DSD/ V-41 Motor Oil *RETURN/ Exchange* -1.09 4447-370947 PW/ E-200 *Core RETURN* -22.00
4447-371051 DSD/ V-41 Motor Oil 51.35
4447-371142 SWR/ V-25 Filter; Motor Oil 58.61
4447-371160 PW/ Tools 17.31
4447-371268 PW/ V-7 Filter; Motor Oil 58.82
4447-371271 SWR/ V-25 Shock 149.54
4447-371272 PD/ TE-47 Battery 428.04
4447-372066 GG/ V-65 License Plate Holder 23.80
4447-372078 PW/ V-45 Oil 53.01
4447-372113 GG/ V-65 *RETURN* -33.54
4447-372114 WTR/ V-33 Filter 48.13
4447-372127 WTR/ V-33 Antifreeze 43.28
4447-372153 PW/ Tools 21.63
4447-372201 PW/ V-35 Filter 30.00
4447-372213 PW/ V-35 Shocks 369.42
4447-372265 PD/ TE-35 Filters/ Mini Lamp 43.74
4447-372276 PW/ Shop Supplies 43.26
4447-372336 PW/ Motor Oil 360.83
4447-372336-A WTR/ Motor Oil 360.83
4447-372336-B SWR/ Motor Oil 360.83
4447-372359 PD/ TE-56 Wheel Nut Kit 93.08
4447-372463 PW/ V-22 Filters 48.13
4447-372633 PD/ TE-56 Batteries 12.98
4447-372659 PW/ V-18 Filters 62.37
4447-372825 PD/ TE-40 Battery 449.32
4447-373730 PW/ T-112 Safety Chain 86.58
4447-373750 PW/ T-112 Quick Link 6.48
4447-373762 PW/ T-112 Ring Terminal 11.53
4447-373764 PD/ TE-40 Brakes 581.65
4447-373784 PD/ TE-40 Brakes 238.15
4447-373795 PD/ TE-40 Brake Rotor *RETURN* -493.19
4447-373811 PW/ Shop Supplies 15.14
4447-373813 PD/ TE-40 Brake Rotor 404.66
4447-373892 SWR/ V-23 Filters 48.13
4447-373897 SWR/ V-23 Stabilizer 70.90
4447-373910 SWR/ V-23 Conduct Tite 11.24
4447-374012 PW/ T-112 *RETURN* -6.48
4447-374812 SWR/ V-62 Filter 51.53
4447-374878 WTR/ V-52 Filters 76.89
4447-374879 WTR/ V-33 Fluid Cap 12.98
4447-374880 PW/ Shop Supplies 8.97
4447-374882 PD/ TE-48 Battery 428.04
4447-374898 PD/ TE-48 & TE-40 Battery *CORE RETURN* -44.00 4447-374911 WTR/ V-52 Brakes; Shocks 1,380.09
4447-374924 PW/ E-209 Battery 187.48
4447-375155 SWR/ G-8 Weld Stick 23.79
4447-375167 SWR/ G-8 Tank Repair 19.47
4447-375186 PW/ E-257 Starter 73.05
Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 3848: 7,106.08
Total for Vendor 3848 (O'Reilly Automotive Inc): 7,106.08 ACH 3969 Michael K Nunley & Assoc Inc
2877 SWR/ Water/Sewer Atlas Map 1,513.88
2877-A WTR/ Water/Sewer Atlas Map 1,513.87
Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 3969: 3,027.75
Total for Vendor 3969 (Michael K Nunley & Assoc Inc): 3,027.75 ACH 4036 Waxie Sanitary Supply
83827493 CH/ Janitorial Supplies 172.12
83827522 CH/ Janitorial Supplies 195.47
Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 4036: 367.59
Total for Vendor 4036 (Waxie Sanitary Supply): 367.59
ACH 4157 Core & Main LP
Y613303 SWR/ Lift Station Bypass 2,675.68
Y634849 SWR/ Lift Station Bypass 21.65
Y640439 WTR/ Leak Repairs 46.82
Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 4157: 2,744.15
Total for Vendor 4157 (Core & Main LP): 2,744.15
ACH 4168 4 Creeks
4C109674 ATP Valley/ Mill Gap Closure (Services for Jan 2026) 1,181.54 4C109826 26/27 SBI Surface Treatment (Services for Jan 2026) 1,310.00 Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 4168: 2,491.54
Total for Vendor 4168 (4 Creeks): 2,491.54
ACH 4230 WM
0018070-4808-5 PW/ Street Sweeper Bins/ Acct#22-43626-03008 (02/01- 02/28/26) 4,441.99 0232770-4792-6 PW/ PW Shop Propane/ Acct#19-17983-73000 (12/01/26-11/30/27) 1,097.57 0232771-4792-4 WTR/ Water Shop Propane/ Acct#19-17983-83008 (06/01/26-05/31/27) 590.01 Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 4230: 6,129.57
Total for Vendor 4230 (WM): 6,129.57
ACH 4241 Functional Ergonomics Inc
13915 COM/ Ergonomic Evaluatio & Training 350.00
13915-A DSD/ Ergonomic Evaluatio & Training 175.00
13915-B GG/ Ergonomic Evaluatio & Training 350.00
Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 4241: 875.00
Total for Vendor 4241 (Functional Ergonomics Inc): 875.00 ACH 4272 Amber Chemical Inc
0387753-IN WTR/ Hypochlorite Solution- Curry Tank 318.60 0387754-IN WTR/ Hypochlorite Solution- Wahlstrom Well 318.60 0387755-IN WTR/ Hypochlorite Solution- Dennison Well 424.80 0387756-IN WTR/ Hypochlorite Solution- Mojave Well 265.50 0387757-IN WTR/ Hypochlorite Solution- Minton Well 371.70 Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 4272: 1,699.20
Total for Vendor 4272 (Amber Chemical Inc): 1,699.20
ACH 4312 ACC Business
0751573116 GG/ Acct#831-001-5137 014/ Fiber for PD (2/11-3/10/26) 711.78 Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 4312: 711.78
Total for Vendor 4312 (ACC Business): 711.78
ACH 4315 Wex Bank
111131890 PD/ Fuel for Patrol Vehicles/ #0496-00-519713-2 (02/07-03/06/26) 4,621.47 Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 4315: 4,621.47
Total for Vendor 4315 (Wex Bank): 4,621.47
ACH 4330 Burke Auto Parts
1645798 PD/ TE-37 Parts 119.20
1648824 PD/ TE-35 Shield 33.08
1650027 PD/ TE-35 Shock 376.62
1650125 PD/ TE-28 Reflector 19.89
1650126 PD/ TE-51 Housing 111.80
Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 4330: 660.59
Total for Vendor 4330 (Burke Auto Parts): 660.59
ACH 4354 Mead & Hunt
404064 ALUCP (Feb 2026) 1,223.00
Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 4354: 1,223.00
Total for Vendor 4354 (Mead & Hunt): 1,223.00
ACH 4389 Orkin
292139763 GG/ Pest Control 113.50
292139789 AIR/ Pest Control 215.99
292139806 PD/ Pest Control 158.68
292139874 DSD/ Pest Control 115.05
292139931 PW/ Pest Control 159.24
292139931-A WTR/ Pest Control 79.62
292139931-B SWR/ Pest Control 79.61
Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 4389: 921.69
Total for Vendor 4389 (Orkin): 921.69
ACH 4457 Ewing Irrigation Products Inc.
29136027 AIR/ Aviator Park Irrigation 2,532.76
29363084 AIR/ Aviator Park Irrigation 1,389.03
Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 4457: 3,921.79
Total for Vendor 4457 (Ewing Irrigation Products Inc.): 3,921.79 ACH 4565 Byrne Software Technologies Inc.
0112329 DSD/ Comp Main SW- Accela Support (Feb 2026) 375.00 0112330 DSD/ Comp Main SW- Accela Support (Feb 2026) 225.00 Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 4565: 600.00
Total for Vendor 4565 (Byrne Software Technologies Inc.): 600.00 ACH 4580 SWCA Inc.
240624 Tucker/ Highline Round-a-bout 8,217.25
Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 4580: 8,217.25
Total for Vendor 4580 (SWCA Inc.): 8,217.25
ACH 4617 White Cap
50035681791 PW/ Tools 175.58
Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 4617: 175.58
Total for Vendor 4617 (White Cap): 175.58
ACH 4639 Synagro West LLC
66104 SWR/ Biosolids Hauling (Feb 2006) 8,606.45
Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 4639: 8,606.45
Total for Vendor 4639 (Synagro West LLC): 8,606.45
ACH 4645 BrightView Landscape Services Inc.
9658297 GG/ Landscape Contract Service- Gen Gov (Feb 2026) 755.00 9658297-A PW/ Landscape Contract Service- Public Works (Feb 2026) 1,661.00 9658297-B PD/ Landscape Contract Service- Police Dept (Feb 2026) 191.00 9658297-C STRTS/ Landscape Contract Service- Streets (Feb 2026) 1,509.00 9658297-D ST & RDS/ Landscape Contract Service- Park & Ride (Feb 2026) 555.00 9658297-E RR/ Landscape Contract Service- RR Depot (Feb 2026) 215.00 9658297-F VIS CTR/ Landscape Contract Service- Freedom Plaza (Feb 2026) 152.00 9658297-G SWR/ Landscape Contract Service- Sewer Dept (Feb 2026) 660.00 9658297-H AIR/ Landscape Contract Service- Airport (Feb 2026) 1,164.00 9658297-I PW/ Landscape Contract Service- PW Addition (Feb 2026) 2,583.00 9658297-J PW/ Landscape Contract Service- Teh-Valley-Curry Blvd (Feb 2026) 599.00 9658297-K LLD/ Landscape Contract Service- Tract 6062 (Feb 2026) 1,237.00 9658297-L LLD/ Landscape Contract Service- Tract 6212 (Feb 2026) 689.00 9658297-M LLD/ Landscape Contract Service- Tract 5812 & 6215 (Feb 2026) 2,996.00 9658297-N LLD/ Landscape Contract Service- Tract 6216 (Feb 2026) 16,017.00 9658297-O LLD/ Landscape Contract Service- Tract 5812 (Feb 2026) 1,953.00 9658297-P LLD/ Landscape Contract Service- Tract 6360 (Feb 2026) 59.00 9658297-Q LLD/ Landscape Contract Service- PM 11353 (Feb 2026) 255.00 9658297-R LLD/ Landscape Contract Service- PM 12219 (Feb 2026) 201.00 9658297-S PW/ Landscape Contract Service- Valley Park (Feb 2026) 2,483.00 9658298 AIR/ Weed Abatement Contract Service- Airport (Feb 2026) 1,663.81 9658298-A PW/ Weed Abatement Contract Service- Public Works (Feb 2026) 1,109.20 9658298-B WTR/ Weed Abatement Contract Service- Water Dept (Feb 2026) 682.59 9658298-C SWR/ Weed Abatement Contract Service- Sewer Dept (Feb 2026) 639.93 9658298-D STRTS/ Weed Abatement Contract Service- Streets (Feb 2026) 170.64 9706686 PW/ Tehacahpi Blvd Trimming 2,300.00
Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 4645: 42,500.17
Total for Vendor 4645 (BrightView Landscape Services Inc.): 42,500.17 ACH 4660 Karl's Hardware
5737/4 AIR/ Aviator Park Irrigation Project 153.29
5740/4 AIR/ Aviator Park Irrigation Project 10.81
5819/4 SWR/ Tools 37.88
Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 4660: 201.98
Total for Vendor 4660 (Karl's Hardware): 201.98
ACH 4679 Tehachapi Sign Co/Rocket Media
901 PW/ Prints for Soccer Field 475.00
Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 4679: 475.00
Total for Vendor 4679 (Tehachapi Sign Co/Rocket Media): 475.00 ACH 4692 Fire & Police Selection Inc.
22968 PD/ Officer Testing 40.00
Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 4692: 40.00
Total for Vendor 4692 (Fire & Police Selection Inc.): 40.00 ACH 4714 RingCentral Inc.
CD_001382678 IT/ Ring Subscription 24,932.98
Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 4714: 24,932.98
Total for Vendor 4714 (RingCentral Inc.): 24,932.98
ACH 4826 Yukon Fence Company
438 AIR/ Aviator Park Fencing 18,411.00
440 PW/ Fence Parts 1,081.25
Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 4826: 19,492.25
Total for Vendor 4826 (Yukon Fence Company): 19,492.25
ACH 4892
1011
Blooms
GG/ Flower Arrangements 150.00
Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 4892: 150.00
Total for Vendor 4892 (Blooms): 150.00
ACH 4966 Primo Brands
06C8710328112 PW/ Hot/Cold Water Dispenser Rental Service (02/05-03/04/26) 32.06 06C8710328112-A WTR/ Hot/Cold Water Dispenser Rental Service (02/05-03/04/26) 32.06 06C8710328112-B SWR/ Hot/Cold Water Dispenser Rental Service (02/05-03/04/26) 32.05 Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 4966: 96.17
Total for Vendor 4966 (Primo Brands): 96.17
ACH 4968 Vital Signs of Bakersfield
43855 ED/ Sign Grant Program- Remaining Payment (Healthy Hippie) 2,508.25 Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 4968: 2,508.25
Total for Vendor 4968 (Vital Signs of Bakersfield): 2,508.25 Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 1708: 1,542.50
JoRonCo Rentals
Res# 22891 COM/ 25% Deposit for Green St Get Down Staging/ *PRE-PAID* 743.50 Res# 22905 COM/ 4th of July Food Tent/ *PRE-PAID* 799.00 ACH 4975 Navillus Enterprises LLC
0421895 PW/ Unleaded Gasoline 2,187.34
0421923 PW/ Unleaded Gasoline; Diesel Fuel 4,814.83
0422006 PW/ Unleaded Gasoline 3,874.87
0422055 PW/ Unleaded Gasoline; Diesel Fuel 4,298.33
Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 4975: 15,175.37
Total for Vendor 4975 (Navillus Enterprises LLC): 15,175.37 ACH 4995 Quad Knopf, Inc
131275 DSD/ East Tehachapi Lift Station (Feb 2026 Services) 420.50 Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 4995: 420.50
Total for Vendor 4995 (Quad Knopf, Inc): 420.50
ACH 4998 Gold Star Collision Center, Inc
1005 WTR/ V-26 Repair 564.53
1006 PD/ TE-25 Remove Decals 400.00
1007 PD/ TE-19 Remove Decals 560.00
Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 4998: 1,524.53
Total for Vendor 4998 (Gold Star Collision Center, Inc): 1,524.53 ACH 5009 Doreen Madrigal
DM031826 ED/ Sign Grant Program Reimbursement 5,479.95
Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 5009: 5,479.95
Total for Vendor 5009 (Doreen Madrigal): 5,479.95
ACH 5010 The Pin Center
0326110 COM/ 4th of July Merchandise 1,311.00
Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 5010: 1,311.00
Total for Vendor 5010 (The Pin Center): 1,311.00
ACH 5011 Cityzen Solutions, Inc
22257 CC/ SB707 Software License/ Implementation- Year 1 Contract 10,798.80 Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 5011: 10,798.80
Total for Vendor 5011 (Cityzen Solutions, Inc): 10,798.80 ACH 1708
43,917.00
1003224549-A Unfunded Allocation FY2026 1003224549 12,753.00 1003224549-B Unfunded Allocation FY2026 1003224549 10,613.00 ACH 3187 CalPERS-Fiscal Services Division
1003224549 Unfunded Allocation FY2026 1003224549
CC033126-A ED/ LIFT Summit, Montrey CA/ Mileage (03/31-04/03/26) 269.70 Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 4214: 519.70
Total for Vendor 4214 (Corey Costelloe): 519.70
ACH 4214 Corey Costelloe
CC033126 ED/ LIFT Summit, Montrey CA/ Meals & IE (03/31-04/03/26) 250.00 AW033126-A AIR/ LIFT Summit- Montrey, CA/ Mileage (03/31-04-02-26) 269.70 Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 3343: 453.70
Total for Vendor 3343 (Ashley G. Whitmore): 453.70
ACH 3343 Ashley G. Whitmore
AW033126 AIR/ LIFT Summit- Montrey, CA/ Meals & IE (03/31-04-02-26) 184.00 GG033126 GG/ LIFT Summit, Montrey/ Meals & IE (03/31-04/03/26) 250.00 Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 2052: 250.00
Total for Vendor 2052 (Thomas G. Garrett): 250.00
Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 1743: 50.00
Total for Vendor 1743 (Kern County Department of Agriculture & Measurement Standards): 50.00 ACH 2052 Thomas G. Garrett
ACH 1743 Kern County Department of Agriculture & Measurement Standards KCDA032426 COM/ Certified Farmer's Market Renewal 50.00 WF14851 CE/ Code Enforcement Unit Vehicle 56,112.39
Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 4956: 56,112.39
Total for Vendor 4956 (National Auto Fleet Group): 56,112.39 Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 4874: 1,922.88
Total for Vendor 4874 (Pac West Systems): 1,922.88
ACH 4956 National Auto Fleet Group
ACH 4874 Pac West Systems
Q#: 26-0204 COM/ 25% Deposit for Green St Get Down Audio Pkg/ *PRE-PAID* 1,922.88 Total for Vendor 1708 (JoRonCo Rentals): 1,542.50
ACH 4367 Springbrook (ACH)
0-055-668-374 AIR/ Jet A Fuel Dealer Tax (Feb 2026) 72.00 Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 4217: 72.00
Total for Vendor 4217 (CA Dept of Tax & Fee Administration): 72.00 Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 3974: 100.00
Total for Vendor 3974 (WageWorks): 100.00
ACH 4217 CA Dept of Tax & Fee Administration
ACH 3974 WageWorks
INV8765614 GG/ Admin & Compliance Fee (Feb 2026) 100.00 yxsn5xp GG/ HSA Admin Fees (Mar 2026) 153.40
Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 3955: 153.40
Total for Vendor 3955 (Health Equity Inc): 153.40
Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 3675: 2,385.37
Total for Vendor 3675 (Bluefin Payment Systems): 2,385.37 ACH 3955 Health Equity Inc
BF030226 GG/ Card Processing/ Merch #5101593400520000 (Feb 2026) 1,867.73 BF030226-A GG/ Card Processing/ Merch #5101593401678570 (Feb 2026) 517.64 Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 3187: 350,000.00
Total for Vendor 3187 (CalPERS-Fiscal Services Division): 350,000.00 ACH 3675 Bluefin Payment Systems
1003224549-U Unfunded Allocation FY2026 1003224549 119.00 1003224567 PD/ Unfunded Allocation ADP 25-26 116,000.00 1003224549-S Unfunded Allocation FY2026 1003224549 51.00 1003224549-T Unfunded Allocation FY2026 1003224549 193.00 1003224549-Q Unfunded Allocation FY2026 1003224549 37.00 1003224549-R Unfunded Allocation FY2026 1003224549 21.00 1003224549-O Unfunded Allocation FY2026 1003224549 21,194.00 1003224549-P Unfunded Allocation FY2026 1003224549 83.00 1003224549-M Unfunded Allocation FY2026 1003224549 38,315.00 1003224549-N Unfunded Allocation FY2026 1003224549 3,976.00 1003224549-K Unfunded Allocation FY2026 1003224549 9,880.00 1003224549-L Unfunded Allocation FY2026 1003224549 66,955.00 1003224549-I Unfunded Allocation FY2026 1003224549 367.00 1003224549-J Unfunded Allocation FY2026 1003224549 4,981.00 1003224549-G Unfunded Allocation FY2026 1003224549 46.00 1003224549-H Unfunded Allocation FY2026 1003224549 6,299.00 1003224549-E Unfunded Allocation FY2026 1003224549 12,382.00 1003224549-F Unfunded Allocation FY2026 1003224549 181.00 1003224549-C Unfunded Allocation FY2026 1003224549 161.00 1003224549-D Unfunded Allocation FY2026 1003224549 1,476.00 LBRX904-B PD/ Monthly Shredding (01/28 - 2/24/26) 56.10 Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 4732: 170.00
Total for Vendor 4732 (Iron Mountain): 170.00
LBRX904 GG/ Monthly Shredding (01/28 - 2/24/26) 57.80
LBRX904-A DSD/ Monthly Shredding (01/28 - 2/24/26) 56.10 Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 4367: 138.67
Total for Vendor 4367 (Springbrook (ACH)): 138.67
ACH 4732 Iron Mountain
260321895 GG/ Merchant Transaction Fees (Feb 2026) 138.67 AP Checks by Date - Detail by Vendor Number (3/25/2026 10:34 AM) Page 16 Report Total: 1,255,817.09
e,e, �,
TEHACHAPI
�
COUNCIL REPORTS
APPROVED
DEPARTMENT HE
MEETING DATE: APRIL 6, 2026, AGENDA SECTION: COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT TO:
FROM:
HONORABLE MAYOR POGON-CORD AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
BAILEY DAMIAN, COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT SPECIALIST
DATE: APRIL 6, 2026
SUBJECT: COMMUNITY EVENT STREET CLOSURES
The purpose of this report is to provide information regarding the upcoming special event season and provide a map of street closures.
Green Street Event Closure; Green Street between Tehachapi Blvd and F Street and Centennial Plaza - Farmer's Market: Thursday's June 4
th-August 13th
, 2026, from 4-7pm
- Green Street Get Down: August 15th
, 2026, from 6-l0pm
- Hometown Christmas: December 5
th
, 2026 from 12-4pm
American 4
th of July Street Closure; Mojave Street between E Street and D Street All American 4
th of July: July 4
th
, 2026, 7am-4pm
RECOMMENDATION
APPROVE THE STREET CLOSURES FOR THE TEHACHAPI FARMER'S MARKET, GREEN STREET GET DOWN, TEHACHAPI HOMETOWN CHRISTMAS AND ALL-AMERICAN 4TH OF JULY CELEBRATION, SUBJECT TO
STAFF CONDITIONS AND CITY MANAGER APPROVAL
APPROVED
COUNCIL REPORTS
MEETING DATE: APRIL 6, 2026 AGENDA SECTION: DEVELOPMENT SERVICES TO: HONORABLE MAYOR POGON-CORD AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM:
DATE:
DON MARSH, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR
MARCH 25, 2026
SUBJECT: MOJAVE WELL TRANSMISSION MAIN INTERTIE PROJECT REBID BACKGROUND:
Currently the Mojave well is connected directly to the City's distribution system and the Snyder well is providing irrigation to TUSD. This project will move both the Mojave well and the Snyder well into our transmission system up to the Curry Tank site by installing a new 8" transmission line from the Mojave Well, down D Street to Snyder Avenue and down Snyder Avenue to Valley Boulevard. This new transmission main will tie the Mojave Well, Snyder Well and Dennison Well directly to the Curry tanks to improve water quality blending.
Advertising began on January 7, 2026 for the project and staff opened bids on February 10, 2026. The results of the bid opening are listed in the following table:
Contractor Name
West Valley Construction
Sierra Construction and Excavation, Inc.
Pyramid Building and Engineering, Inc.
RE Chaffee Construction, Inc.
SW Construction, Inc.*
S&B Sons, Inc.**
Marjani Builders, Inc.* **
*Mathematical or clerical error
**Non-Responsive Bid
Total Bid Amount
$ 994,325.00
$ 1,022,563.00
$ 1,044,183.30
$ 1,097,835.00
$ 3,192,202.25
$ 1,127,585.27
$857,363,765.00
RESPONSIVENESS REVIEW:
In compliance with the Public Contract Code, City Staff undertook a review of the bid received to confirm that the apparent low bidder provided a responsive bid. The bid provided by West Valley Construction has been deemed to be responsive.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The project has $1,310,000 under the adjusted mid-year budget for fiscal year 2025/2026.
RECOMMENDATION:
AWARD THE MOJAVE AND SNYDER WELL TRANSMISSION MAIN INTERTIE PROJECT TO WEST VALLEY CONSTRUCTION IN THE AMOUNT OF $994,325.00 AND AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO APPROVE ANY NECESSARY CHANGE ORDERS UP TO A MAXIMUM OF 20% OF THE ORIGINAL CONTRACT (OR $198,865.00).
nyder Well Transmission Main lntertle Project Legend o D;e Natatonum o Feature 1 Feature
2 Feature
3 ,, �Jave and Snyder Well
Tran
s
m1ss·
O Tehachapi Muni Airport-TSP
Lhtltled Polygon
APPROVED
COUNCIL REPORTS
MEETING DATE: APRIL 06, 2026 AGENDA SECTION: DEVELOPMENT SERVICES TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
BACKGROUND
HONORABLE MAYOR POGON-CORD AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
ANDREW NORTON, P.E., CITY ENGINEER
MARCH 11, 2026
CONTRACT AMENDMENTS TO AGREEMENTS WITH AECOM TECHNICAL SERVICES As the Council is aware, AECOM Technical Services, Inc. has been providing engineering consultant services to the City of Tehachapi for many years. Council approved an agreement for on-call services with AECOM Technical Services, Incorporated in 2018. This agreement pertains to engineering services not encumbered by specific grant-related obligations.
In 2023 Council approved a separate contract with AECOM Technical Services, for services encumbered by State and Federal grants.
PROPOSED AMENDMENT
The proposed amendments update the rates for both the on-call engineering services agreement of 2018 and the 2023 engineering services agreement for State and Federal funds resulting in rates identical between the various contracts.
The proposed rates increase is 3.5% over the previously approved rates.
RECOMMENDATION
APPROVE AND AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO SIGN TWO AMENDMENTS TO THE EXISTING ENGINEERING
SERVICE AGREEMENTS BETWEEN THE CITY OF TEHACHAPI AND AECOM TECHNICAL SERVICES, INCORPORATED.
SIXTH AMENDMENT TO
ENGINEERING SERVICES AGREEMENT
THIS SIXTH AMENDME T TO AGREEMENT (the "Sixth Amendment") made this __ day of ____ 2026, by and between the CITY OF TEHACHAPI, a municipal corporation (the "City"), and AECOM TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC., a California Corporation (the ··Engineer"),
WITNESS ETH:
WHEREAS, City and Engineer entered into that certain agreement entitled "Engineering Services Agreement" dated February 22, 2018 which was thereafter amended by amendments dated March 26, 2019, ovember 1, 202 l, August l, 2022, March 20, 2023, and November 18, 2024 ( collectively, the ·· Agreement"), and the parties wish to amend the Agreement as hereinafter described:
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereby amend the Agreement as follows:
1. The parties incorporate the foregoing recitals as if fully set forth herein verbatim.
2. The capitalized terms used herein shall have the same meaning as in the Agreement unless otherwise specifically described herein.
3. The parties hereby replace Exhibit A attached to the Agreement with Exhibit ··A" attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof.
4. Except as amended herein, the Agreement and each of its terms and conditions shall remain in full force and e
ffect. In the event of any inconsistency or ambiguity between this Sixth Amendment and the Agreement, the terms of this Sixth Amendment shall prevail.
5. This Sixth Amendment may be executed in counterparts. The parties agree that a facsimile or electronic copy of this fully executed Sixth Amendment shall be as effective as the original for all purposes.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Sixth Amendment on the date first hereinabove written.
JOA -CORD, Mayor, City of
Tehachapi, California
ERIC GARIBAY, Principal Engineer
Aecom Technical Services, Inc.
Nole: � are NotAGowed
Consubnt or Sti>C:onsultant
Fringe Benefit 'I.
(=0%llncklled11OH)
BILLING INFORMATION
Name/JOll Tdle/CIISSification I
Specia� ?!iq,al Ei9r.eer
Principal �Mineer
Senior Engineer II
Senior Enoineer I
Associate Engineer II
As$0Ciate i:.naioeer I
,o.ssistant engineer II
Alllstanl =ineer I
EXHIBIT A
SPECIFIC RATE OF COMPENSATION (USE FOR ON-CALL OR AS-NEEDED CONTRACTS) (CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND INSPECTION CONTRACTS)
.;.AE;;;.
C;;;,.;O;..;;M,_T_ecn=n__ ical Selv __ ice__ s .;.;1nc...... . _______ Contract No.: RFO: On-Call C>ieft,.ead % General Adminislration 'I.
0.00'1,, 128.43% 0Jl0%
(= 0"4 if lndttled 11 OH)
Date: -4/12/2023
Combitied lndi� Cos
t R.lie {ICR) o/,
128.43%
FEE% 19.291%
EJlec1ive Date
CALCULATION INFORMATION
of Hourly
Hollly Biliog Rates' Rate Aalal or Avg. %ors Hourly Range • for Snight OT(1.5x) OT(2x) From To M,.,..., Rate' lnaease classifications NW 305.99 NIA NIA 1011/2022 900'2023 112.29 O.OO'I.
316.70 NIA NIA 1011/2023 9/30/2024 116.22 3.SO'I.
377.79 NIA NIA 1011/2024 9/30/2025 120.29 3.50!,
22260 N/A NIA 10/1/2022 9/3t\'2023 81.69 0,00,-
230.40 NIA NIA 10/112023 9/30'2024 84.55 3.50%
238.46 NIA NIA 10/1/2024 9/30/2025 87.51 3.50'14
188.54 NIA NIA 101112022 9/300023 69.19 0.00%
195.13 NIA NIA 1011/2023 !V30121124 71.61 3.�
201.97 NIA NIA 10/1/2024 9/300025 74,12 3.50%
171.48 NIA NIA 1011/2022 91:!00023 62.93 0.00%
m.cs NIA NIA 1011/2023 9/'J0/2024 65.13 3.50%
183.69 NIA NIA 10/112024 913012025 57.41 3.50%
149.14 NIA NIA 10/1/2022 9/30/2023 54.73 0.0OOA.
154.37 NIA NIA 101112ll23 9130/2024 56.65 3.50%
159.76 NIA NIA 1011/2024 9/30/2025 58.63 3.50'1,
135.59 NIA NIA 1011/2022 9/30(2023 49.76 O.OO'A.
140.34 NIA NIA 10/1/2023 9/30/2024 51.50 3.50..
145.24 NIA NIA 101112024 9'3012025 53.30 3.50..
122.68 NIA NIA 10/1/2022 9/m023 45.02 0.00%
126.98 NIA NIA 1011/2023 9/30/2024 46.60 3.50%
131.43 NIA NIA 1011/2024 9/300025 48.23 3.50%
109.00 NIA NIA 10/112022 9/3M023 40.00 0.OO'I,
112..81 NIA NIA 10/1/2023 9/3012024 41.40 3.50%
116.76 NIA NIA 1011/2.024 9/30/2025 42.85 3.50�
SPECIFIC RATE OF COMPENSATION (USE FOR ON-CALI. OR AS-NEEDED CONTRACTS) (CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND INSPECTION CONTRACTS)
Note: Mark-llps are Nol Alkr,,,�
Cons�ant or Subccnsuftllnt ;.A;;;.
EC;.;0;..;M;..;
T.;;;echn=lca;;;;.;.lSe;;;.rw.es ;..;· ;;;.;;lnc,;;;,.. . _______ Contract No.: RFQ: On-Call Fmge Benefit% Ovemeed % General Administration 14
+ 0.00% 128.�'Y, 0.00%
(= 0% W lnduded in OH) (= 0'4 ii Included in OH)
Oate; 4112/2023
Combined lnd!rect Cost Ra:e (ICRJ 'Y,
128.43%
FEE% 19.29114
BILLING INFORMATION CALCULATION tNFORMA TION
Hourly Biling Rates
l Effedi'l8 Oate or Holln'J
Nam&'Jcb Ti!le/Class.fleation' Rate Actual or Avg. %er$ Hourly Range • !or Straight OT(1.5x) OT(2x) From To H<llnl Rate' tnaeese cfassilications ont.l Engileerir.g Technician 88.51 NIA NIA 10/112022 9/30/2023 32.48 0.00%
91.61 NIA NIA 10/1/2023 9/30/2024 33.62 3.50%
Oesian
94.83 NIA NIA 10/1/2.ll24 900'2025 34.80 3.50%
CADO Suoervisor 166.17 NIA N.IA 10l1/202.2 9'30/2023 60.96 0.00% 171.97 NIA NIA 10/112023 9130l2024 63.11 3.50'4
177.99 NIA N/A 10/112Q24 S/30/2025 65.32 3.50%
Desian CAOO Ollelator 122.62 NIA NIA 10/112022 9130/2023 45.00 0.00% 126.93 NIA NIA 10/112023 9/30/2024 46.58 3.50%
131.37 NIA NIA 1011/202◄ 9/30/2025 48.21 3.50%
"'51istwlt CADO Operator 86.95 NIA NIA 1011/2022 9®12023 l1.91 0.00%
90.01 NIA NIA 10/112023 9'30l2024 33.03 3.50%
Clerical
93.17 NIA NIA 10/11202◄ 9130/2025 34.19 3.50%
88.51 NIA NIA 10/1/2022 9130/2023 32.48 0.00%
91.61 NIA NIA 10/112023 9/30/2024 33.62 3.50%
94.83 NIA N.IA 10/1l2024 9/30/2025 34.80 150%
Construdion Inspector 159.30 238.95 318.60 10/1/2022 9/30/2023 58.46 0.00% 164.89 2-47.34 329.78 1011/2023 9l30l2024 60.51 3.50%
170.65 255.99 341.32 10l1/2024 9l300025 62.63 3.50%
Constructon Manager 192.22 NIA NIA 10/1/2022 9/30/2023 70.54 0.00% 198.95 NIA NIA 10/1/2023 9130/202◄ 73.01 3.50%
205.93 NIA NIA 10/1/2024 9/30/202.5 75.57 3.50%
NOTES;
1. Al costs must a>mpl'f with lhe Federal cost prindpfes. Subconsuttams 'Ml provide their own cost proposals.
2. 3.
The
Bil!ng
cost
rate=
proposal
actual
form.It
hourly
shal
rate •
not
(1+
be
ICRJ
amended.
• (1+ Fee). lrdrect 0091 rates shouil be based on the constAtanrs aMJal actOUnling period, establshed by a cognizant agency or accepted by Cattrans. Al cosls must comply with the Federal cost pmciples !or n!lmburwoent
4. For named el11jlloyees and key persOMel enter the adllal hourly rate. For classificaticns only, enter the Awrag e Hourly Rate for that classillcalioo.
Note· Marl:�ps are Not Alowed
Consultant 0t Subconsultant
Fringe Benefit %
(= 0% � Included in OH)
BILLING INFORMATION
Name/Job Title/Classification
�ciaty"moi)a)Engll9el
Princioal Enaineer
Senior Engineer II
Seniof E noineer I
Associate Engineer II
Associate •�er I
Assistant Engineer 11
Assistmt Engineer I
CAntDI I ,u-n.c 1.,u;, I r-1\Ur-u;,�L �age 1 01 J
SPECIFIC RATE OF COMPENSATION (USE FOR ON-CALL OR AS-NEEDED CONTRACTS) (CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND INSPECTION CONTRACTS)
_Ace.;;..- '""O___ M Tech_r-.cal__
. ____ Se!vi:es . _1n_____ c. ___ connct No.: RFO: On-Call <>,,emead % General Admtnistration %
+ 121.&4% 0.00%
(= 0% � lnduded in OH)
Dale: 2/13/2026
Combined Indirect Cos1 Rate �CR)%
121.64%
FEE % 22.950%
CALCULATION INFORMATION
Effective Date d Hourly
Hourly Bilw,g Rates2 Rate Actual or Al'g. %or$ Hourly Range - ror OT(1.Sx) OT(2x) From To Hooriv Ratel lnctease dassl"icabons om 3V.79 NIA NIA 10/1/2024 9/30/2025 120.29 O.OOY,
33927 NIA NIA 10/1/2025 9/30/2026 124.50 3.50%
351.15 NIA NIA 10/1/2026 913012027 128.86 3.50%
238.46 NIA NIA 10/1/2024 9/30/2025 87.51 0.00%
248.81 NIA NIA 10/1/2025 913012026 90.57 3.50%
255.45 NIA NIA 10/1/2026 9/30l2027 93.74 3.50%
201.97 NIA NIA 1011/2024 9/30/2025 74.12 000%
209.04 NIA NIA 10/1/2025 9/300026 76.71 3.50%
216.34 NIA NIA 10/1/2026 9/30/20V 79.39 3.50%
183.69 N/A NIA 10/1/2024 9/30/2025 87.41 0.00%
190.13 NIA NIA 10/1/2025 9/30/2026 69.TT 3.50%
196.78 NIA NIA 10/1/2028 9t30/2027 72.21 3.50%
159.76 NIA NIA 10/1/2024 9/30/2025 58.63 0.00%
185.38 NIA NIA 10/1/2025 9/30/2025 80.88 3.50%
171.13 NIA NJA 10/1/2026 9/30/2027 62.80 3.50%
14514 NIA NJA 10/1/2024 9/30/2025 53.30 0.00%
150.34 NIA NIA 10/1/2025 9l30l202S 55 17 3.50%
155.60 NIA NIA 10/1/2026 9/30/2027 57.10 3.50:r.
131.43 NIA NIA 10/1/2024 9/30/2025 4823 o.oo,r,
136.04 NIA NIA 1011/2025 9/30/2026 49.92 3.50%
140.80 NIA NIA 10/1/2026 9/30/20V 51.67 3.50%
116.76 NIA NIA 10/1/2024 9/30/2025 42.85 0.00%
120.86 NIA NIA 10/1/2025 9/30/2026 44 35 3.50%
125.08 NIA NIA 10/1/2026 9/30/2027 45.90 3.50%
SPECIFIC RA TE OF COMPENSATION (USE FOR ON-CALL OR AS-NEEDED CONTRACTS) (CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND INSPECTION CONTRACTS)
Note: 1,1.a:t-ups are Not A!owed
Const.dlant or Subconsultant -------------- AECOM TechlllCcll Services Inc. Cootract No.: RFQ: On-Cal Fmge Benefit% Olerhead % Ge11eral Administration �
+ 0.00% + 121.64% 0.00%
(= 0% W Included In OH) (= 0% l lnduded in OH)
Date: 2/13'2026
Combined llldirect Cost Rate (ICR) %
121.64%
FE:% 22.950%
BILLING INrORMA TION CALCULATION INFORMATION
EilectiYe Data al Holt1y
Name/Joo Tltte!ClassrJCation 1 HotJty Bili,g Rates1 Rate AdualorAvg. %01'$ Hourly Range - for Slraight OT(1.5x) OT(2x) From To Hourfy Rate3 Increase dassifJCalions onJv Engineering Technician 94.28 NIA NIA 10/1/2024 9130(2025 34.60 0.00%
97.58 NIA NIA 10/1/2025 91'30/2026 35.81 3.50%
100.99 NIA NIA 10/1/2026 91'30/2027 37.06 3.50%
Design CAOO Supervisor m.99 NIA N/A 10/1/2024 S,'30/2025 65.32 0.00% 190.45 N/A NIA 10/1/2025 !r'30/2026 69.89 7.00%
197.13 NIA NIA 10/1/2026 9/30/2027 72.34 3.503/,
Design CADD uoeraklr 131.37 NIA NIA 10/1/2024 9/30/2025 4811 0.00% 135.98 NIA NIA 10/1/2025 9/30/2026 49.90 3.50%
140.75 NIA NIA' 10/1/2026 9/30l20'll 51.65 3.50%
11SSistant CADD Operator 93.17 NIA NIA 10/1/2024 9/30/2025 34.19 0.00%
96.44 NIA NIA 10/1/2025 9/30/2026 35.39 3.50%
99.82 NIA NIA 10/1/2026 9/30/2027 36.63 3.50%
Clerical 94.83 NIA NIA 10/1/2024 9/30/2025 34.80 0.00%
98.16 NIA NIA 10/1/2025 9130/2026 36.02 3.50%
101.59 NIA NIA 10/1/2026 9/30/2027 37.28 3.50%
Gaistruction lnspedOr 170.66 25599 341.32 10/1/2024 9/30/2025 62.63 0.00� 176.64 264.96 35328 10/1/2025 9/30/2026 64.82 3.50�
182.82 27423 365.64 10/1/2026 9/30l20'll 67.09 3.50%
I.MIStn.Jclion Manager 205.93 NIA NIA 10/1/2024 ffl2025 75.57 0.00% 213.13 NIA NIA 10/1/2025 9/30/2026 78.21 3.50%
220.59 NIA N/A 10/1/2026 9/30/2027 80.95 3.50%
Project Analyst NIA NIA 10/1/2024 9{30/2025 0.00%
125.35 NIA NIA 10/1/2025 9/30/2026 -46.00 0.00�
129.74 NIA NIA 10/1/2026 9/30/2027 47.61 3.50�
NOTES:
1. All cos1s must� wrth the ?ederal a,st principles. Subconsultarr.s d prowie their own cos! proposals
2. it.e cost proposal format shall not be amended.
SPECIFIC RATE OF COMPENSATION (USE FOR ON-CALL OR AS-NEEDED CONTRACTS) (CONSiRUCTION ENGINEERING ANO INSPECTION CONTRACTS)
Note: Marx• are Not AJlowed
Coos�lallt or Sutxonsutr.t --------- AECOM T�uvcaf Seiw:es � ----Con1ract No; RFQ: On-Call Oa!e; 2/13/2026 Fringe Benefit\ Overhead% General Admnslraoon % = Combined Indirect Cost Ra1e (ICR) % + 0.00% + 121.64% 0.00% 121.64%
(= OU Included in OH) (= 0% if lnduded II OH)
FEE \ 22.950%
BILLING INFORMA T10N CALCULATION INFOR�ATION
Effective Date of Hourly
Name/ Job Td.'e/Classaicaron 1 Hourly Bf.ng Ra1es2
Rate Actual or Avg. %or$ Houriy Range-for
Straight Oi(1.5x) OT(2x) From io HoLrtv Rale3 Increase dasskaoons om
3. BJrig rale = ad!Jal hoorty rale '(1 +!CR)· (1 + Fee). rnfJect cost rates shCUd be based oo tie cons!Jarls a,,roal aa:Mln;l peood, esf2bished by a cogm agency or acce�ed by Caltrans. Al costs must� wiih lhe Federal rost principles for reimbursement.
4. For named employees and key persoMel en1er �e actual hour1y rate. For classificafuns �. enter lhe AveraiJe Hourly Rate for that dassfK:aoon.
FIRST AMENDMENT TO
ENGINEERING SERVICES AGREEMENT
TH1S FlRST AME DME T TO AGREEME T (the ·'First Amendment") made this __ day of ____ 2026, by and between the CITY OF TEHACHAPI. a municipal corporation (the "City"), and AECOM TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC., a California Corporation (the ··Engineer"),
WITNESS ETH:
WHEREAS, City and Engineer entered into that certain agreement entitled .. Engineering Services Agreement"' dated April 3, 2023 (the "Agreement"), and the parties wish to amend the Agreement as hereinafter described:
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereby amend the Agreement as follows:
1. The parties incorporate the foregoing recitals as if fully set forth herein verbatim.
2. The capitalized terms used herein shall have the same meaning as in the Agreement unless otherwise specifically described herein.
3. The parties hereby replace Exhibit D attached to the Agreement with Exhibit ··o·, attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof.
4. Except as amended herein, the Agreement and each of its terms and conditions shall remain in full force and effect. In the event of any inconsistency or ambiguity between this First Amendment and the Agreement, the terms of this First Amendment shall prevai I.
5. This First Amendment may be executed in counterparts. The parties agree that a facsimile or electronic copy of this fully executed First Amendment shall be as effective as the original for al I purposes.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this First Amendment on the date first hereinabove written.
JOA -CORD, Mayor. City of
Tehachapi, California
ERIC GARJBA Y, Principal Engineer
Aecom Technical Services, Inc.
EXHIBIT D
SPECIFIC RATE OF COMPENSATION (USE FOR ON-CALL OR AS-NEEDED CONTRACTS) (CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING ANO INSPECTION CONTRACTS)
Nole: Marl� a1e Not MOl'l9d
Consultanl ors� .;.
A
E._,CO;;;.;;.;;M.;..
T;.;;;ectuvc:aJ= ...... Selvm·__,,_ _,_lnc. _, _______ Cont!ilCI No.: RFO: On-Call Fringe Benefit% Ovelhead % General Admllristration %
0.00% 128.43% 0.00%
(= O¾ � Included in OH) (= 0'.4 if Included i1 OH)
Date: -4112/2023
Combmed lnd'irect Cost Rate (lCR) %
128.43%
FEE% 19.291%
BILLING INFORMATION
El!eclive Date
CALCUlA TION INFORMATION
of Hotl!y
Name/Joo Tllle/CllSSkation 1 How1y Bling Ra1es2 Rate AalaJ or Ayg. %or$ HOU!tf Range - for Straighl OT(1.5xl OT(2.x) From To �at.Ra!e' Increase classifications onlw Special'/ � Ergi■r 305.99 NIA NIA 11111121)22 9130/2023 112.29 0.00% 316.70 NIA NIA 11111/2023 9/3012024 116.22 3.50%
317.79 NIA NIA 10l1/2024 9/30/2025 120.29 3.50%
Prildpal t:.naineer 222.60 NIA NIA 11111/2022 9/30/2023 81.69 0.00"' 230.'40 NIA NIA 11111/2023 9r.!0'2024 8◄.SS 3.50%
238.◄6 NIA NIA 1011/2024 913012025 87.51 3.51)<4
Srilr Engineer U 188.54 NIA NIA 11111/2022 9/m023 69.19 0.00% 195.13 NIA NIA 11111/2023 !V30/2024 71.61 3.5014
201.97 NIA NIA 1011/2024 913012025 74.12 3.50�
Senior Encinee< I 171.48 NIA NIA 101112022 9/30/2023 62.93 O.OOo/, 1TT.48 NIA NIA 1011/2023 9/30/2024 65.13 3.50%
183.69 NIA NIA 10/1/2024 9131112025 67.41 l.50%
Assoda:U t:ngineer II 149.14 NIA NIA 10/1/2022 913012023 54.73 0.00% 15-4.37 NIA NIA 1111112023 913012024 56.65 3.50%
159.76 NIA NIA 1011/2.024 �5 58.63 3.50'1,
Associate �r I 135.59 NIA NIA 10/1/2022 !1{31)(2023 49.76 0.00% 140.34 NIA NIA 10/112023 9r.!0/2024 51.50 3.50%
145.24 NIA NIA 1011/'2024 9'.W2025 53.30 3.50'.4
l\sSistanl Engineer II 122.68 NIA NIA 10/1/2022 9r.!0/2023 45.02 0.00'4 126.98 NIA NIA 10.11/2023 9/3M024 ◄6.60 3.50%
131.43 NIA NIA 10/1/2024 9/300025 48.23 3.50%
ASSis!Jnl •Milteer I 109.00 NIA NIA 11111/2022 9/30'2023 40.00 0.()0% 112.81 NIA NIA 1011/2023 9/30/2024 41.40 3.50%
116.76 NIA NIA 1011/'2024 9/30/2ll2S 42.85 3.5011.
SPECIFIC RATE OF COMPENSATION (USE FOR ON-CALI. OR AS-NEEDED COtiTRACTS) (CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING ANO INSPECTION CONTRACTS)
NOil!: Mm.ups are NOi AIIOY;ed
Consultant or Stix:ansullant: _
AE_c_o_M_T___ edln 1ca_1 _Se_M_·ce....... 1 s n..... e. _______ contract No.: RFQ: On-Call Fnnge Benefit % Ovemeed % General AdminiSlration %
t 0.00% 128.43% 0.00%
(= 0% ff Included in OH) (= 014 ii Included In OH)
Dile: .U12J2023
Combined Indirect Cost Rate (ICR) '!',
128.43%
FEE 'It 19.291%
BILLING INFORMATION CAI.CUI.A TION INFORMATION
Nam&'Jcb Titte/ClassJx:ation' HoUl1y Birw,g Rates1 Elfedive Dale of Hourtf Rate
Engileemg
Straight OT(1.5x) OT(2x) From To
Technician 88.51 NIA NIA 1011/2022 9/30/2023
91.61 NIA NIA 10/1/2023 9/30/2024
94.83 NIA NIA 1G'1/2024 9f.l012025
0mm CAOO Supervisor 166.17 NIA WA 1()'11.wu 9/J0/2023
171.97 NIA WA 1()'1/2023 913012024
177.99 WA NIA 11)(1'2024 913012025
llesian CAOO Ooer.ltor 122.62 NIA NIA 1011'2022 9130/2023 126.93 NIA NIA 10/1(2023 9/30/2024
131.37 NIA NIA 10/1/2024 9/30/2025
Assistant CADO Operator 86.95 NIA NIA 10/1/2022 9/:0/2023
90.01 NIA NIA 10/112023 �024
93.17 NIA WA 10/1/2024 9130/2025
Clerical 88.51 NIA NIA 10(1/2022 913012023
91.61 WA NIA 10/112023 9130/2024
94.83 NIA NIA 10/112024 9130/2025
Consttudion Inspector 159.30 238.95 318.60 10l1/2022 9/3012023 164.89 247.34 329.78 10/1/2023 9/30/2024
170.66 255.99 341,32 10,111202A 9/300025
Constn.d!On Manager 192.22 NIA NIA 1011/2022 900'2023
198.95 NIA NJA 10/1/2023 9t30/2024
206.93 NIA NIA 10/112024 9/3Q/2025
NOTES:
1. Al cost!! must comply 'hilh the Federal cost prindpfes. Subconsuftants \WI provide lheir own cos1 proposals. 2 The cost proposal formal shall not be amended.
Aciual
Hruti
or Avg. % ors Hourly Range • for
Rate' Increase c:lassificaoons ont,,
32.48 0.00%
33.62 3.50%
34.80 3.50%
60.96 0.00%
6l11 3.50'4
65.32 3.50%
45.00 0.00%
46.58 3.50%
48.21 l50%
31.91 0.00%
33.03 3.50%
34.19 3.50%
32.48 0.00%
33.62 3.50%
34,80 3.50"1,
58.46 0.0�
�.51 3.50'il,
62.63 3.50%
70.54 0.00%
73.01 3.50'4
75.57 3.50%
3. Bif.'llg rate= actual hourly rate• (1+ ICR) • (1+ Fee). lndrecl cost rates shoukl be besed on Ille corisiAtanrs annual �unting period, establshed by a cognizant agarc, ar accepted by Caltrans. Al costs must compfy wi1h ttle Federal cost pmdples for reimbursement
4. F01 named employees and key per,OMel enter the actual hourly rail!. For c1assifications only, enter the Average Hourty Rate for that classification.
Note. Marl\-(Jps are Not Alowed
Consuhant or Sutx:onsultant
Fringe Benefit%
(= 0% ff Included in OH)
BILLING INFORMATION
Name' Joo TIie/Ciassification
�� "mcij)al Engl,eer
Princioal Enaineer
Senior Engineer II
Senior Enoineer I
Associate Eng111eer II
A_'"="'te l'MIMer I
Assistant Engileer II
Assistant Enaineer I
CAnlDI I I U-1"1-' \,� I l"l'\Vr'V�/'\L l'age 1 01 J
SPECIFIC RATE OF COMPENSATION (USE FOR ON-CALL OR AS-NEEDED CONTRACTS) (CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING ANO INSPECTION CONTRACTS)
__ A;E-C;.;OM;.;..T;.;ech,__n· te_a_I "'-Serv--_ces
---ln---c
. ________ contract No.. RFO: On-Cati
0.00%
Ovemead % General Administration%
• 121.64% 0.00%
(= 0% t lnduded 111 OH)
Date: 2/13/2026
Combined Indirect Cost Rate (ICR) %
121.64%
FEE % 22.950%
CALCULATION INFORMATION
Effective Date ex Hoa.r1y
Hourly Bihng Rates 2 Rate Actual or Ayg. %or$ Houl1y Range - for OT(1.Sx) OT(2x) From To Hntllfv Rate3 Increase classifications nn1v 3T/79 NIA NIA 10/1/2024 9/30/2025 12029 0.00'1
339 27 NIA NIA 10/1/2025 �.>0/2026 124.50 3.50%
35115 NIA NIA 10/1/2026 9'30/2027 128.86 3.50'1!,
238.46 NIA NIA 10/1/2024 9/30/2025 87 51 0.00%
246.81 NIA NIA 10/1/2025 9/30/2026 90.57 3.50%
255.◄5 NIA NIA 10/1/2026 9/30/2027 93.74 3.50%
201.97 NIA NIA 10/i/2024 9/30/2025 74.12 0.00%
209.04 NIA NIA 10/1/2025 9/30/2026 76.71 3.50%
216.34 NIA NIA 10/1/2026 9/30/2027 79.39 3.50%
183.69 NIA NIA 10/1/2024 9/30/2025 67.◄1 0.00%
190.13 NIA NIA 10/1/2025 9/30/2026 69.77 3.50%
196.78 NIA NIA 10/1/2026 9/30/2027 72.21 3.50%
159.76 NIA NIA 10/1/2024 9/30/2025 58.63 0.00%
165.36 NIA NIA 10/1/2025 9/30/2026 60.68 3.50%
171.13 NIA NIA 10/1/2026 9/30/2027 62.80 3.50%
14524 NIA NIA 10/1/2024 9/30/2025 53.30 0.00%
15034 NIA NIA 10/1/2025 9/30/2026 55 17 3.50%
155.60 NIA NIA 10/1/2026 9002027 57.10 3.SO,,
131.43 NIA NIA 10l1/2024 9/30/2025 4823 0.00%
136.04 NIA NIA 10/1/2025 9002026 49.92 350%
140.80 NIA NIA 10/1/2026 9/30/2027 51.67 3.50%
116.76 NIA NIA 10/1/2024 9/30/2025 42.85 0.00%
120.86 NIA NIA 10/1/2025 9/30/2026 44 35 3.50%
125.08 NIA NIA 10/1/2026 9/30/2027 45.90 3.50%
SPECIFIC RATE OF COMPENSATION (USE FOR ON-CALL OR AS-NEEDED CONTRACTS) (CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND INSPECTION CONraACTS)
Note: lwl.ark-ups are Not A!owed
Consul1ant or Subconsultant
_
AE_C_OM
_
Tech_111ca1_· _Se_r11_ces _l_nc. _______ Contrac:t No.: RFQ: On.Call Fringe Benefit% ().,ert,ead % General Administration%
+ 0.00% + 121.64% 0.00%
(= 0% l Included In OH) (= 0% W lnduded in OH)
Date: 2/13/2026
Combined Indirect Cos1 Rate (ICR) %
121.64%
FE::% 22950%
BILLING INrORMATION CALCULATION INFORMATION
Effedive Data ci Hou1y
Name/Job rlde/Classlication t Houl1y Bilr,g Rates2
5:raight
Rate Actual or Avg. %or$ Hourfy Range -10r
O1(1.Sx) OT(2x) From To Hourlv Ra1e l Ir.crease dassfications Mlv Engineamg T eclwlidan 94.28 NIA NIA 10/1/2024 9/30/2025 34.60 0.00'l!i
97.58 NIA NIA 10/1/2025 9/30/2026 3581 3.50%
100.99 NIA NIA 10/1/2026 9130/2027 37.06 3.50%
Desion CAOO Supervisor m.99 NIA NIA 10/1/2024 !1/30/202S 65.32 0.00% 190.45 NIA NIA 10/1/2025 9/30/2026 69.89 7.00%
197.13 NIA NIA 10/112026 9/30/2027 72.34 3.50%
Desian CAOD Ooemtor 131.37 NIA NIA 10/1/2024 9/30/2025 48.21 0.00% 135.98 NIA NIA 10/11202S 9/30/2026 49.90 3.50%
14-0.75 NIA NIA 10/1/2026 9130/2027 51.65 3.50%
Assistant CADD Operator 93.17 NIA NIA 10/1/2024 913M025 34.19 0.00%
96.44 NIA NIA 10/1/2025 9/30/2026 35.39 3.50%
99.82 NIA NIA 10/1/2026 9/30/2027 36.83 3.50%
Clerit.al 94.83 NIA NIA 10/1/2024 9/30/2025 34.80 0.00%
98.16 NIA NIA 10/1/2025 9/30/2026 36.02 3.50%
101,59 NIA NIA 10/1/2026 9/30/2027 37.28 3.50%
Constructioo Lispecror 170.66 25599 341.32 10/1/2024 9/30/2025 62.63 0.00% 176.64 264.96 35318 10/1/2025 913(Y2()26 64.82 3.50%
182.82 27413 365.64 10/1/2026 9/30/2027 67.09 3.50%
construction Manager 205.93 NIA NIA 10/1/2024 9/30/2025 75.57 0.00% 213.13 NIA NIA 10/1/2025 9/30/2026 78.21 3.50%
220.59 NIA N/A 10/1/2026 9/30/2027 80.95 3.50%
Project Analyst NIA NIA 10/1/2024 9/30/2025 . 0.00%
125.35 NIA NIA 10/1/2025 9/30/2026 46.00 0.00%
129.74 NIA NIA 10/1/2026 9/30/2027 47.61 3.50%
NOTES:
1. All costs must com;t, 'Mill the Federal cost principles. Subconsultan'.s wi provide their a.vn cost proposas.
2. The cost proposal fonnat shail not be amended.
SPECIF( RA TE OF COMPENSATION (USE FOR ON-CALL OR AS-NEEDED CONTAACTS) (C��SiRUCTION ENGINEERING AHO INSPECTION CONTRACTS)
N<ie: Malt• are Not Alo'Ned
CoosLltant a Subconsul!ar.: ---------- AECOM Teduica SeM:es rte. Contract No� RFO: On-Cal Oa:e· 2/13/2026 Fmge Ber.efil, Overhead% General Aminstraoon % = Como k1d'rect Cost Rate (ICR) i + 0.00% + 121.�% 0 OOl/e 121.64%
(= 01/ef Included ii OH) (= � ii �uded ii OH)
FEE 'It 22.950%
BILLING INFORMATION CALCULATION INFOR"'ATION
Elledive Date d HotJ1y
Name/Job Tt'eiClassiocaoon1
Hotliy 81.ng Rates2
Rate Actual or A� �or$ Hoolfy Ra,,ge • for
Slraight 01(1.5� OT(2x) From To HollfvRale3 Increase dassttaoons om
3. Blng ra!e = actual hourly rale '(1 + ICR) • (It Fee). lrid:rect cost rates shrud be based a, fle constQl's a,"Jklal aa:outtilg peim eslabished by a ccgruant agency or mpted
4. For nam� em�
by Catrans. Al cos!s
and key
must
peisomel
comply Yt1ih
entr
lhe
m
Federal
actw truty
cost pmdples
rate. For
for
c!assitca1xlns
rein'lb!!lsement.
Oftf, en� ttle Average HotJ1y Rate b' lhat dassu::.
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
APPROVED
COUNCIL REPORTS
MEETING DATE: APRIL 6, 2026 AGENDA SECTION: ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER
HONORABLE MAYOR POGON-CORD AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
COREY COSTELLOE, ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER/PLANNING DIRECTOR APRIL 6, 2026
PUBLIC HEARING- APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION REGARDING ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN AND SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 2025-06.
BACKGROUND
On January 12, 2026, the Planning Commission of the City of Tehachapi approved Architecture Design and Site Plan Review (AD&SPR) No. 2025-06 from the applicant Pinon 96 LLC, to approve the architecture for recorded Tract Map No. 6507 referred to as the Pinon 96 project located on the northwest corner of Pinon Street and Applewood Drive. (see Figure 1)
Figure 1 - Project Location Map
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.
J -PmIM':rltH
Figure 2 - Tentative Tract Map No. 6507
-., '""'
....
On June 27, 2022, the Planning Commission reviewed an architectural application submitted by the applicant to modify the previously approved architectural design. At that time, the Commission approved the proposed changes. Following approval, the project was placed on hold due to unfavorable market conditions. The two-year deadline for advancing the project expired in 2024. Project owners recently wished to advance the project, thus creating an additional application, identical to the 2022 application to have the same architecture approved. (See Attachment A).
No changes to the design were proposed as part of this request. 90 minutes prior to the Planning Commission meeting, the city received a 164-page letter from Mazaratto Law, attorneys for the Tehachapi Cummings-County Water District, objecting to the item claiming that California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines§ 15162 justifies an additional environmental review of the project. Since the City was just approving architecture and not any proposed changes to the project, as was done in 2022 with no objections, it was staffs belief that under CEQA, this did not qualify as a project. Therefore, for a myriad of reasons, CEQA §15162 does not apply and the architecture was approved by a 4-0 vote.
APPEAL PROCESS/PUBLIC NOTICE
Tehachapi Zoning Code Section 10.20 provides for a 14-day timeline to appeal a Planning Commission Decision. The City of Tehachapi received the appeal from TCCWD on Thursday, January 22nd (see Attachment B). However, TZC Section
10.20.030 requires a public hearing for such appeal and a 10-day Notice of Public Hearing to be published. Due to publishing deadlines, that hearing could not be held until this evening's meeting. Public notice for this hearing was published on February 4, 2026 in the Tehachapi News. (see Figure 3). or
ase
,nal
per
:em
3rd)
mts
the
Pl)
one
the
the
,unt
the
·1ed
t:ly· JS/Megan �Impson. ueputy Lien<
Published 2/4, 2/11/26 AD# 5592!15
TEHACHAPI CITY COUNCIL
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
ti
d
e
a
Notice is hereby given that a Public s
Hearing will be held by the City Q
Council of the City of Tehachapi at E 6:00 p.m .. on Tuesday. February 17. 2026. or soon thereafter. at the vTehachapi Police Department L Emergency Operations Center. 220 1
West C Street. Tehachapi. California. 2
concerning the appeal of Planning C
Commission Dec1s1on for Architectural A
Design and Site Plan Review No. [
2025-06 Tract 6507 Pinon 96 P
Architecture. All interested persons h
to are invited to attend the public 8
•
ent hearing and will be given an b
rely op!X)rtunity to be heard. $
the TEHACHAPI CITY COUNCIL c
ally Jen Paoloui 2
son
the
the
:ten
the
Iect
lerk
Deputy City Clerk of the City of C
Tehachapi, California S
Dated. January 27. 2026
Posted: January 27. 2026
u
Ii
Published: Tehachapi News Februal) s
4.2026 AD/550021 d
DIIDI tr UCADI�� �nT1rc
Figure 3 - Public Hearing Notice
n
rl
In addition, ongoing negotiations between TCCWD and the City of Tehachapi were occurring, thus leading to a pair of mutually agreed upon delays of this item. However, after two delays, the applicant deserves a hearing on this matter.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The portion of this item that does constitute a "project" the tentative tract map, 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. That fact was reiterated by the Planning Commission on January 12th with the 4-0 architectural approval.
Furthermore CEQA §15162 requires "Substantial Evidence" be presented to the jurisdiction to justify additional environmental review, staff does not feel such evidence was provided. CEQA Guidelines § 15162 does refer to "changes in environmental settings that would cause new significant effects or substantially more severe impacts than previously analyzed."
So the Council is aware, the environmental settings surrounding native water rights have not changed since the initial entitlement of this project in 2005 as the native safe yield was 5,500 acre feet, consistent with the native safe yield contained in the Amendment to Judgement Case 92710 issued in 1973 by the Kern County Superior Court, establishing the safe yield from the Tehachapi Basin. The native safe yield remains 5,500 acre feet and the City of Tehachapi now owns 2,962 acre feet of native water rights.
The Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration adopted in 2005 (See Attachment B) estimated that the project would use 79,584 gallons per day, or 89 acre-feet of water per year and claims "the project individually or collectively when considered in conjunction with other known projects will not exceed the City of Tehachapi base pumping rights." Since standards and water usage practices have changed over the last two decades, in the City's most recent Water and Sewer Connection Fee Study, engineer estimates show under modern standards, these condominiums will use 22,656 gallons per day, or 25.3 acre feet of water annually. (See Figure 4). Furthermore, the City has always planned to provide water for all entitled projects, this project included, therefore, the previous ISMND language remains, this project will not exceed the City of Tehachapi base pumping rights.
Table 13: Water Connectloo Fee Multipliers
Water and Sewer Connection Fees
City of Tehachapi
Customer
ReStdential
Single Family Res dence
Accessory Owell,n2 Unit
Dwlex
Tnplex
Focrple�
Cnndomonium
Frve Units or More
Mobile Home Park
RV Parle
Unit
Each
Each
Each
Each
Each
Un,t
Untl
Space
Space
G•ltons Prooosed Current
Per Day Source Multioller Multip I ier
295 (1, 1.00 l 00
118 12) 0.40 New
472 131 1.60 l 17
708 131 2.40 l 76
944 131 3.20 2 35
236 131 080 u �·
<00 ,,. vou u,,
236 131 0 80 0 51
120 ;41 0 41 0.31
Figure 4- Water Usage
RECOMMENDATION
DENY THE APPEAL BY THE TEHACHAPI CUMMINGS-COUNTY WATER DISTRICT OF THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION REGARDING AD&SPR NO. 2025-06 PINON 96 ARCHITECTURE ON JANUARY 12, 2026,
AND FIND THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION MET ALL REQUIRED FINDINGS IN RENDERING THAT DECISION IN ADOPTING RESOLUTION NO. 2026-02.
I
HBR
Home Buflders Association
of
Korn Coonty
HOME BUILDERS ASSOCIATION OF KERN COUNTY
P.O. Box 21118, Bakersfield, CA 933909-1118
661-633-1316
March 5, 2026
Tehachapi City Council
115 S. Robinson Street
Tehachapi, CA 93561
Subject: Appeal of Architectural Design & Site Plan Review No. 2025-06 Honorable Mayor and City Council:
-
NAHB
@;)
NA'l'DIAL AssoclATD<
Ol'lloM£8uruus
The principal mission of the Home Builders Association of Kem County is to advocate for increased housing produclion, ownership opportunities, and affordability. The main causes of our severe state-wide housing crisis are the toxic regulatory climate in Sacramento, unwillingness of many local juri dictions to approve sufficient housing to meet the needs of their residents, and an epidemic of abusive CEQA litigation sponsored by organizations with antihousing, no-growth agendas. It has never been more complex, time-consuming, or costly to secure development approvals than it is today.
The median home price in Kem County is less than half that of the State of California overall, and represents one of just a few areas in the state that has any semblance of affordabili.y. Even o, only about one quarter of households in our region can qualify to purchase the median-priced home here. Attached multi-family housing is part of the so called "missing middle" in the housing market, and deserves a welcome reception for builders willing to provide it.
In our review of the subject agenda item, it appears to us that the City of Tehachapi recognizes its housing obligations under state law, and is proactively implementing the policies and programs of its certified Housing Element In effect, the City of Tehachapi is a pro-housing jurisdiction.
We agree with the thoughtful analysis set forth in your staff report, and believe the appeal is without merit. It is recommended that the City Council take action to deny the appeal.
Respectfully submitted,
Dave Dmohowski
Executive Officer
Attachment A
Planning Commission Staff Report
0-TEHACHAPI
Live Up.
TEHACHAPI PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
January 12, 2026
TO: Chairperson Hollinsworth and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Corey Costelloe, Assistant City Manager
SUBJECT: Architectural Design & Site Plan Review No. 2025-06 - Pinon 96 Architecture I. SUMMARY:
The Applicant has submitted a request for architectural approval of 32 buildings, each containing three (3) units for a total of 96 units (Tract Map No. 6507). The proposed project is located at the northwest corner of Pinon Street and Applewood Drive (see Figure 1). 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.
II. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEHACHAPI, CALIFORNIA APPROVING ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN AND SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 2025-06, PINON 96 ARCHITECTURE, SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL (ATTACHMENT A).
Ill. 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.
IV. PUBLIC NOTICE:
A Planning Commission meeting notice for this item has been posted on the City's website at www liveuptehachapi.com.
V. 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.
Planning Commission Staff Report: AD&SPR No. 2025-06
Pinon 96 Architecture
VI. PROJECT BACKGROUND:
Owner:
Applicant/ Architect:
Property Location:
Property Address:
Circulation:
General Plan Land Use
Designation:
Zoning Classification:
APN:
Existing Conditions:
Surrounding Land Uses:
Previous
Applications/Entitlements:
Pinon 96, LLC
Tim Finnigan
c/o P.O. Box 1025
Santa Paula, CA 93061
Phone: 805-207-3904
Email: [email protected]
Wade Lewis
917 Railroad Avenue
Santa Paula, CA 93061
Phone: 805-402-0533
Email: wadel [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; Architectural Design and Site Plan Review No. 2022-11 - Tract 6507 Pinon Town home Estates Architecture - Expired June 2024
VII. APPLICANT LETTER EXCERPT:
The existing approved project consisted of thirty-two building, each containing three units for a total of 96 units.
The site is approximately 10.45 acres and contains internal drives that access attached two-cor garages for each unit and a central park/open space amenity ro include pool and spa, tot lot, half-court basketball and green belt/picnic area.
See Attachment B for the full Applicant Letter.
VIII. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/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 18 years.
On June 27, 2022, the Planning Commission reviewed an Architectural Design and Site Plan Review application submitted by the applicant to modify the previously approved architectural design. At that time, the Commission approved the proposed changes. Following approval, the project was placed on hold due to unfavorable market conditions.
www llveuptehachap1 com City of Tehachapi Planning Department Page 2 of 7 Planning Commission Staff Report: AD&SPR No. 2025-06
Pinon 96 Architecture
The applicant has now submitted a new application seeking entitlement for the previously approved architectural design. No changes to the design are proposed as part of this request.
IX. ANALYSIS:
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 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 leapfrog 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
The applicant has presented the previously approved architecture (see Figure 4 and Attachment D) for consideration. The floor plans have remained the same. The 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.
The City of Tehachapi 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.
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.
X. 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. www.hveuptehachap1.com City of Tehachapi Planning Department Page 3 of 7 Planning Commission Staff Report: AD&SPR No. 2025-06
Pinon 96 Architecture
• 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 moterially 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 adhere to the previously approved Architectural Design and Site Plan Review 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. • 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 far the location, and consistent with the intended physical environment of the zoning district. • The project substantially conforms to the City's Architectural Design Guidelines as well as development regulations of the Neighborhood Commercial (C-1) Zone of the TZC.
XI. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
Approval: If the Planning Commission intends to approve this proposal, the Commission should approve a motion to approve AD&SPR 2025-06 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 2025-06 stating that the finding(s) of the proposal does not satisfy with reasons based on the www.hveuptehachap1.com City of Tehachapi Planning Department Page 4 of 7 Planning Commission Staff Report: AD&SPR No. 2025-06
Pinon 96 Architecture
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 2025-06 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 January 12, 2026 hearing, please contact Corey Costelloe, at 661-822-2200 ext. 121, or by email at [email protected].
Approved:
s oe
Assistant City Manager
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Attachment A
Attachment B
Attachment C
Attachment D
www.hveuptehachap1 com
Project Location Map
Tentative Tract Map No. 6507
Proposed Elevations
Proposed Resolution
Applicant Letter
Proposed Elevations/Architecture
Existing Conceptual Landscaping
City of Tehachapi Planning Department Page 5 of 7
Planning Commission Staff Report: AD&SPR No. 2025-06
Pinon 96 Architecture
Figure 1 - Project Location Mop
Figure 2 - Tentative Troct Mop No. 6507
www.l1veuptehachap1.com City of Tehachapi Planning Department --
...._
Planning Commission Staff Report: AD&SPR No. 2025-06
Pinon 96 Architecture
Figure 3 - Proposed Elevotions
www.hveuptehachap1.com City of Tehachapi Planning Department Page 7 of 7 Attachment A
Proposed Resolution
RESOLUTION NO. 26-02
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEHACHAPI, CALIFORNIA APPROVING
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN AND SITE PLAN REVIEW NO.
2025-06, PINON 96 ARCHITECTURE, SUBJECT TO
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
WHEREAS, the applicant, Wade Lewis, 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 Tract Map No. 6S07; and WHEREAS, on January 12, 2026, 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. 202S-06; Pinon 96 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.
S. 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 prov1s1on 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 and appropriate for the location, and consistent with the intended physical environment of the zoning district.
1 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. 2025-06; Pinon 96 Architecture, is approved subject to conditions of approval in "Exhibit A" and as previously approved in Resolution No. 05-03 "Exhibit B" attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Tehachapi at its regular meeting thereof held on the 12th day of January 2026.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
JEN PAOLOUI
Administrator of the Planning Commission
Of the City of Tehachapi
LINDA HOLLINSWORTH, Chairperson
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 January 12, 2026.
JEN PAOLOZZI
Administrator of the Planning Commission
Of the City of Tehachapi
2 EXHIBIT A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Statutory Conditions of Approval
1. In accordance with Resolution No. 24-01 adopted by the City of Tehachapi Planning Commission on April 8, 2024, the project Applicant must sign the standard unmodified Acknowledgement and Acceptance of Conditions of Approval form in accordance with the timelines outlined in Zoning Code Section 9.90.030 (either 15 or 30 days). Failure to do so places this approval on an indefinite suspension until such time that the form is signed, or the project entitlement expires.
2. These Conditions of Approval are intended to supplement the Conditions of Approval that govern the initial project approval from August 2005 (EXHIBIT B). In the case where original Conditions conflict with the below Conditions, the stricter Condition shall apply at the discretion of the Development Services Director.
3. 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.
4. All contractors and/or subcontractors shall be required to procure a business license prior to commencement of any work on the subject development.
5. 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.
6. The Developer shall comply with any and all mitigation measures contained in the final approved environmental document.
7. 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 3 voters of the City, concerning this Architectural Design & Site Plan Review.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. The developer shall cooperate in the annexation into the Community Facilities District 2017-1 to provide funding for the maintenance of streetlights, public right-of-way paving and concrete, and community policing. The district shall have the authority to assess the full amount of the maintenance cost for the items noted above and an increase in these assessments shall be authorized no less than annually by reference to the Consumer Price Index, or such other reasonable formula approved by the City. The full cost of the annexation shall be borne by the developer, including but not limited to all legal and engineering fees.
Design Conditions of Approval
11. All vehicle parking and maneuvering areas shall be surfaced with a minimum of two-inches of A.C. paving and 4" base or material of higher quality as may be required by the City Engineer.
12. Standard vehicle parking spaces shall be 10' X 20' or larger in size and shall be designated by white painted stripes.
13. All utilities shall be placed underground.
14. Non-reflective paint and construction material shall be used for the project.
15. 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.
16. A wall mounted internally illuminated address is required to assist public safety providers.
17. 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.
18. 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.
4 Prior to Building Permit Issuance Conditions of Approval
19. 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.
20. 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 24" 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.
21. The Developer shall submit a Plot Plan to the City for review and approval to ensure an appropriate mix of floor plans, architectural elevations (including upgrade options), and landscaping are provided. This includes colored architectural renderings, selected color palettes, materials, and upgrade features to be reviewed for consistency with the Final Master Development Plan.
22. 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 mechanical, plumbing, and electrical plans) and Kern County Fire Department prior to permit issuance.
23. 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.
24. 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.
25. The Applicant shall submit final colors and material specifications to the Planning Department for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits.
26. All security lighting shall be reviewed and approved by the Development Services Department and shielded in such a manner as to preclude the effects of light and glare onto adjacent properties utilizing dark sky technology per the illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IESONA). The Developer shall submit a photo-metrics analysis for the 5 community amenities confirming compliance prior to permit issuance for the public space amenities.
27. 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.
28. Prior to the issuance of the first Occupancy Permit, the central park/open space amenities: pool and spa, tot lot, half-court basketball and green belt/picnic area shall be fully constructed and open for operation.
Construction Phase Conditions of A roval
29. The project site shall be watered during grading or the use of soil binders to prevent fugitive dust.
30. The Applicant shall comply with the East Kern Air Pollution Control District construction requirements.
31. Grading shall be halted when winds reach 20mph or greater in a two (2) or more hour time period.
Prior to Final Inspection
32. All public improvements including those conditioned and those agreed upon are required to be constructed and accepted prior to building final inspection.
33. 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.
34. 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
ccostelloe@tehachapicityhall com. It is the property owner's responsibility to ensure that the information on file with the Planning Department is current at all times.
6 EXHIBIT B
7 cnYOF T9iACHAPI cro.i_ CEPARTMENT
BfSOL UIICH NO 05-03
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEHACHAPI APPROVING TENTATIVE
TRACT MAP NO. 6507 SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS OF
APPROVAL WITH RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY
COUNCIL
WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 575 of the City of Tehachapi authorizes the Planning Commission to reVlew and adV1se the Crty Council regarding subd1V1slons; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Tehachapi held a Pl c heanng on August 25, 2005 on Tentative Tract Map No. 6507: and WHEREAS, Tentative Tract Map No. 6507 represents a request to develop a one (1) condominium lot subdivis10n consisting of 32 individual residential structures, each possessing three (3) dwelling units, on a 10.45 acre site.
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 Crty of Tehachapi that the foregoing recitals are true and correct Be it further resolved that Tentative Tract Map No. 6507 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:
Becocdatioo CoodUioos·
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 Tehachaoi City Council original approval date, unless extended as provided by the extension of lime 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 Kem 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 follow documents and fees to the Community Development Department for reviE which documents shall be subJect to the approval of said department, C,rry 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 indiVJdual lot or unit, which provides that the ceclaration of covenants, conditions, and restrictions is incorporated therein by reference.
CrTYOI'
LEGAL OEPU!'TMll<T l!W,OW'I
319
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, Condrtions and Restnct1ons 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 1n common; and
d Contain the following proV1sions verbatim
otwithstanding any proV1sion in this Declaration to the contrary, the following provisions shall apply:
The homeowners association established herein shall manage and continually ma1nta1n the common areas, building elevations and roofs and on-srte sewer and water facilities and shall not sell or transfer the common areas or any part thereof, absent the pnor written consent of the Community Development Director or successor-in- interest.
The homeowners association shall have the nght 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 m the payment of a maintenance assessment. An assessment lien, once created, shall be pnor 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 pnor 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 lncorporat10n, the Bylaws or the property owners' association Rules and Regulation. If any. this Declaration shall control:
6 The developer shall install water lines, with proV1sions to maintain adequate pressure in accordance with the requirements of the City Engineer and Fire Chief. A pressure reducing station may be required.
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 comer cut-off wrth1n 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 pnor to recordation of final map.
2 320
CITY � OF
l.EG.Aril. OEP-'RTW""'1'
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-0fway. This shall include, but is not limited to. quitclaim or subordination of nghts 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-0f-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 approv,
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:
22. 23
24. 25.
26. 27.
28. a) Owner's Certificate
b) City Clerk's Certrficate
c) Engineer's or Surveyor's Certificate
d) Community Development Director's Certificate
e) City Engineer's Certificate
f) Recorder's Certificates
The land being subdivided shall be identified with a blue border.
Locations, names and widths of all streets and easenents of all kinds shall be shown on the final map.
The applicant shall provide the City Engineer with a Subdivision Guarantee and Title Report Covering subject property.
A preliminary soils report shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval.
Improvement plans (streets, sewer, water and grading) shall be prepared. stamped and signed by the registered Civil Engineer and shall be submitted and approved by the City prior to recording.
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.
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.
3 '82l
29. Pnor to the recordat1on of the final map the applicant shall convey all underlying water rights equal to ½ acre-foot per dwelling unrt If no water rights are available or If the water nghts are insufficient to meet the 1/2 acre foot requirement the applicant shall be required to pay an equivalent in lieu fee based on the fare mar1<et value of water rights at the time of purchase/conveyance.
The fare mar1<et value to be determined and agreed upon between the City of Tehachapi and the applicant.
Landscaping and Maintenance·
1. A landscaping maintenance distnct (maintenance distnct) shall be formed for the purpose of maintaining the common landscaped area along Pinon Street and Applewood Dnve/Elm Street or alternatively the project shall be annexed into an existing maintenance distnct
2. A Home Owners Association (HOA) shall be formed for the purpose of maintaining all interior common area landscaping and open space amenities 1n addition to addressing parking, maintaining architectural 1ntegnty and other regulatory functions as determined necessary by the Community Development Director The applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Commumty Development Director that the HOA mechanism 1s in place pnor to the recordation of the subdivis10n.
3 A detailed landscaping plan for all intenor and extenor 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 subdMder shall be responsible for the maintenance and upkeep of all landscaped area and irrigation systems until such time as those operations are the respons1b1lity of a landscaping maintenance d1stnct (extenor landscape) and HOA (intenor landscape) as approved by the Community Development Director.
General·
1. At the building permrt stage the proposed structure shall substantially conform to the archrtectural rendering included ,n the PRO package.
2. The Pinon Street and Applewood Dnve/Elm Street frontage improvements shall include a meandenng sidewalk, decorauve communrty 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 Kem County Building and Safety Department.
4. No building perrmts with the exception of a model home complex shall be issued for any construction within the subd1vis10n until the final subdivision map 1s recorded and either.
a) All condrt1ons of the tentauve subd1v1sion map have been fulfilled. or b) Those conditions unfulfilled at the time of an application for bu1ld1ng permits shall be secured and agreements executed 1n 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 nghts-of-way in order to construct required improvements. Upon a satisfactory showing that the developer's attempts have failed but ,n no event later than thirty (30) days prior to filing of the final map for approval, the developer shall submrt 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 expenenced condemnation appraiser who 1s competent and able to defend his/her won< 1n any court proceedings. 4 6. All public improvements shall be constructed In a manner that does not damag( existing pubhc improvements. Any damage shall be determined by an< corrected to the satisfact10n of the City Engineer
7 Sewer, water, traffic, publtc safety and other fees ,equ1red by the City shall bt paid at the time of map recordation or the issuance of a building permit a:
determined by the Community Development Director
8. The developer shall be responsible for the payment of the school impac mrtigation 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 condit1ons/requ1rer ,ti stipulated In their mer,orandum dated May 24 2055 and included herein a! Attachment H.
1 O In the event of a sewer and/or water capacity issue, the Crty reserves the nght tc withhold all building permits or otherwise limit the issuance of building permit� until such time as its sewer and/or water system have been expanded tc accommodate the existing and anticipated demand for those services Al present, the demand In terms of already approved projects appears to exceed the capacity and therefore would potentially not allow for the issuance of any building permits in this development until such time the capacity has been adequately increased to accommodate the proposed development.
Street lmpcovemeots aod Icatfic·
Public street improvements shall be constructed to City Standards as required by the SubdiV1sion 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, nght-of-way widths, concrete curbs and gutters, drainage lighting, etc , shall be resolved to the satisfaction of the City Engineer 2 The address of each loUdwelling unit shall either be painted on the curb or w ·e curbs are not available, posted In such a manner that the address Is visible 1ovm 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 proVlde a detailed detour and traffic control plan. for all constructIor within existing nght-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 nght-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 deposrt with the Crty for any worx to oe done by City forces. 5 All utilities shall be underground and streeU1ghts shall be installed as recommended by the Community Development Director
6. Pinon Street shall be dedicated and receive full street improvements (center hne of street to property line plus 10 feet oorth 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 fronta Improvements to Pinon Street to include striping of a Class II bike lane along project frontage and an additional five (5) feet of parxway shall be included in me dedication for landscape installations.
7 P1oon 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 wrth Tract Map No. 6216
8 Applewood Dnve/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 nght-of-way and a curb-to-curb distance of 40-feet. An additional 5-feet of parxway shall be included in the dedication for landscape installations. 5 323
Gcadlog·
1. A srte grading and eros10n 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 solls/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 recommendat10ns 2 Erosion control. including riprap, interim slope planting sandbags. or other erosion control measures shall be provided to control sediment and silt from the project. The developer shall be responsible for maintaining all erosion control facilities throughout the proJect and shall provide a copy of the otIce of Intent filed with the Regional Water Quality Control Board
3. The developer shall be responsible for the recycling of all excavated matenals designated as industnal recyclable (soil, asphalt, sand, concrete. land cleanng brush and rock) at a recycling center or other locaoon(s) approved by the City Engineer.
4 A general construct10n 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 Crty Engineer and shall include the construction of necessary brow ditches.
6 All eXJsting wells shall be abandoned and capped. and all exIstIng septic tanks shall be pumped and backfilled. per the Kem County Health Department requirements.
7 All lot lines shall be located a the top of slope unless otherwise approved by the Crty 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 neighbonng property owner's qualrty of lrfe
Ccatoage·
'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-srte storm water retention basin sized per the hydraulic calculations and City standards Saw.er:
1. All sewer main locat10ns and stZJng of mains shall be to the satisfaction of the Crty Engineer Required sewer main improvements include, but are not limrted to the constructton of the following
a) Onsite eight-inch sewer mains to service all the proposed lots/structures within the subd1vis1on.
2. Sewer utilities shall be extended to the project's boundary at such locations as required by the City Engineer.
Wa1.e.c.:.
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 distnbullon mains servicing the subject tract shall be installed, located and sized in conformance with the City of Tehachapi Development Standards and in 6 c, ... .
�� ... A.Pl
...f� X,PAJ:lf"l•�-.. •
a manner consistent w th the City of Tehachapi General Plan (Public Facilities Element).
3. Water pressure may be higher at tne subject srte 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 Dnve/Elm Street.
Einal Map -Easements and Oeciicatioos·
The developer shall obtain all necessary dedications for public nght-of-ways 1d necessary permissions to do work on other pnvate properties 1n 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 pubhc 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 add1t1onal utilities shall be increased accordingly
4. The developer, through his/her engineer, shall venfy the location of all pubhc utility easements within :his project and shall verify that public utilities are within these easements
5. The applicant shall prov de the City Engineer with a Subdivision Guarantee and Title Report covering subject proper:y.
6 As surety for the construction of required off-site and/or on-site improvements bonds and agreements 1 a form acceptable to the City Attorney shall be posted by the developer with the City of Tehachapi pnor to the approval of the t 11 Subdiv1s1on
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Tehachapi at a regular meeting thereof held on the 25" day of August 2005.
Secretary of the Planning Comm1ss1on
of the Crty of Tehachapi
RFELD. Chairperson of
The Pia ning Commission of the
City of Tehachapi
7 Attachment B
Applicant Letter
M
December 10, 2025
Mr. Corey Costelloe. Director
DEVELOPME 1T ERVlCE DEPARTME 'T
CITY OF TEHACHAPI
I 17 o. Robinson Street
Tehachapi. California 93561
Re: Pinon Townhomc Estates
ARCHITECT
SWC Pinon Street and Applewood Drive
Tehachapi, CA
Mr. CostelJoe.
Parcel I; Parcel Map 6507
AP1 416-500-01
Please accept the attached application for Architectural Review for the referenced project.
Accompanying this letter via email are the foUowing: one copy of each application and the lndemnificarion Agreement. previously approved floor plans, proposed exterior elevations and renderings.
The existing approved project consisted of thirty-t\vo buildings. each containing three units for a total of 96 units. The site is approximately I 0.45 acres and contains internal drives that access attached two-car garages for each tmit and a central par open space amenity to include pool and spa. tot lot. half-court basketball and green belt/picnic area. There wiU be associaced 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 unit floor plan layouts remain unchanged.
All previously outlined elements remain unchanged. It is requested that the Planning Commission reconfinn the architecrural elevations. colors and materials for the buildings tha c were previously
approved by the Commission on June 27, 2022. Site Plan Review o. 2022-11 and Resolution o. 22-07.
Thank you vel) much to your attention to this project. Let me know if you require any additional information or clarification.
Michael Dbanens
Michael Dhanens Architect
PO Box 82155 aakmfield Colifornio 93380 Tel: 661-324-4141 Fox· 661 324-4041 Email: rndarchitect®sbcglabal.nel architecrore urban ploMing proje<I management interiors Attachment C
Proposed Elevations/ Architecture
0,,.1•)
G I ( f 4
v1i.,10,11v:, on,,sullvl
uiu wot o ti
l•l•·•l(ltt,
1)HIH)l!V SN3NVHO HVH)IW
ii
;
l
'
� i !
: l
I•
<
0. .
.
..,
w
>
<
;::
0 z
<
., ... ..... .. , .... ·•t""••
..... ·-··.,.. ... --� ...... -- >-
sa1,u3 aWOljUN101 UO\!!d
'
..
.
"
0 0
06.ttt·)
0 • [ ( •
VINllOJllV) OllUUJ:WVI
Utll IOI o,
1•1• •tcl\11
lJUIHJllV SN]NVHO HVHJIW
. I
i
1 I
I
'
I
! .
I :
,
' a ' 1 .
�
' I
'l
.
l
l I I
. !
l j
l ;
,
l
i ;
: . '
I
I
w
-
s �
Ill _ .. _) -··-·
0 I .... ._ .... _.y z '"• ••• ._,,_.I pi,t,
0 U.-Q _ _,.,.,, .,., , ..... _,_
<
j:::
.
>
Sa>Jt153 "'wo4u ... 01 UO!!lcl
w
w
...
N
.,
CT]
;
5 A
I
!--
,
I
J.i--.
I
!
l:
u
0 ..
.
I
I
I
I
I I
..... , ,..,.
st-,
�,
N
i <
I
1 rnr;
ui
C
:,:
,
0 t { { i
VIN•OH1VJ ·onHSUltVI
UUt (01 ·o 4
lJHIHJllV SN3NVHO llVHJIW
;
l
i
l
l
I
I
I
2 . !
•
:
I
�
'
I
I
.
' I
!
' '
: i 1
<
w
..,
w ><
�
0 z
(.') __ _.,> ....... �•'l•I
,.-.. «-•Jo"·"
4M• ••• ,-,a_ I UH
•• 1(1 __ ...,..,. �· .. ..,,, -., >-
.,
...
N
0 ..,
:z:
u 0
P,A())£C1 NA.ML
PAOJ(Cl AODRr!.S.
CU(Nt
PAINT COLORS:
•
h,
,:,
s rucco Cl..'IDOING
COLOR TO MATCH
B" "'MEO,TARIIW AF lO�
WOOD TRIM & FASCIA COLOR
TO MATCH
BM oHC � •r AIRIIIEW TAUPE"
\NOOOStOINCt
COLOR BM AROORCOAT
SEMI· lRANSPAR(Nl S TA.IN�IOOfN VALL(;. r
MATERIALS & COLORS
IMAGE NO AWC0l 001 Materials and colors OpllonA
ASfANO,NC, SEAM !o'ETAL PA"EL
COLOR MUSTANG BROWN
CUl HJREO STONl
ELDORADO ...... ,m,c .. er SlAC..EO STONE
SOfFIT
COLOR BM AROORCOII T
SEW-TRANsPARENT STAIN
HICX>EN VALLEY"
METALGUTTl:R!j & OOV\INPl�8
PEOEL (GENTEKI
MCTAL RAILINGS
COlOR Bl.AC"
WINDOWS
COLOR BLACK VlNYL
[Rwc] ""
PQ())[( 1 NA"""(
P"())f CT �0(,,A[\!i.
Cll[Nf
PAINT COLORS:
STUCCO CLADOtNG
COLOR TO MATCH
SW 710� ·REPOSE CRAYWOOD TRlM & f A6CtA COL OR
TO"'-'TC,,
SW 7017 ·OORIAN CAA Y
WOOO SIDINC
COLOR 8M AR80RCOA T ·sPANlbH MO�➔
SEMJTRANSPARENT STAIN
MATERIALS & COLORS
IMAGE NO RWCOl Materials and colors OpuonB
ASTANOING &EAM MElAL PANE:L
COi.OR MBCI COLOR CHART "SLATE CRAYCUL I UREO STONE
El OORAOO RUSTIC LEOC.E SARATOGA"
SOFflT
COlOR BM AABORCOA I
SEMI TRANSPARENT ST AJN
HtOOEN VALLEY"
METAi. CUTTERS & OO'MIPIPES
PESH (CENTE�I
METAL RAILINGS
COLOR BLACK
WINOOWS
COLOR Bl.ACK VINYL
[Rwc] �
.,.,..,1 1.-.l IMAl,t
"
r•"OHC1 NA.Mr
�o,rc r •NJQHS
Clt(H1
PAINT COLORS:
;�
t� t; ... �� �:�_;,..:�� �-:!
&IUCU>UAOOCN<i
COlOR 10 MA lCH
SW7013 IVORHACE"
'MX)() TRIM & FASCIA COlOR
TO MATCH
�>N 7038 'TONY TAUPE•
WOOOSIOING
COLOR BM ARBORCO. T
SC.Ml TRANsPARENT ST AltnUOOEN VALLE y·
MATERIALS & COLORS
IMAGE NO RWC0l Materials and colors Opt,onC
AbTANDtN<.i 6FAM METAL PANEL
COL OH MOCI COLOR CHAR 1 "KOKO 6ROYVN'
CUl T UREO STONE
fl OOR.400 LIMESTONE SAN MAR1NO
60FFIT
COLOR BM AABORCOA T
bf:Ml lRANSPAFU.Nl STAIN
"HIOOEN VALLEY"
Mi:::TAL UUITt.Hb & OC)WNf>tPf:�
PEBCL !GENTEKI
MflAL RAJLiflilG�
COLOR lllACK
'MNllON&
COlOR Bl.ACK VINYL
[Rwc] -�
Attachment D
Existing Conceptual Landscaping
-l
�
I
l
t.J
l
i
t �
�-
�
i
:
j
!
9 >
t
I - .
..
�;-
f
="'
�t:
c;; t I:
I .
..
•l
�
°' .
-
<
.
; i
tl
Attachment B
2005 ISMND Water Section
Impact
WATER
The development of 32
structures into 96 dwelling
units will consume
approximately 79,584
gallons of domestic water
per day. The project
individually or collectively
when considered in
conjunction with other
known projects will not
exceed the City of
Tehachapi base pumping
rights.
SEWER
The development of 32
structures into 96 dwelling
units will generate an
estimated 46,848 gallons of
wastewater per day.
Treatment capacity is 1.25
million gallons per day
advance secondly.
Mitigation Measure
The applicant will be required to
pay water connection fees per
Resolution No. 38-04 to offset the
cost of providing domestic water
service and pay an equivalent inlieu fee to offset water pumping rights. Common areas will be
irrigated using non-potable water
and the use of drought tolerant
and/or native plant species. The
use of drought tolerant
landscaping per the City
standards will reduce water
consumption related to irrigation.
The applicant will pay a sewer
connection fee per Resolution No.
38-04 to offset the Incremental
Increase in wastewater
generation.
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
Less than significant
Less than significant
Monitoring Program
Agency Responsibility
City of Tehachapi Community
Development Department.
Payment of water connection fees
at the building pennit stage. ln--lieu
pumping rights fee to be paid in
conjunction with the recordation
process. Staff will review and
approve landscape plans. City
Staff to review all landscape plans
for common area landscaping to
confirm that appropriate plant
materials are utilized. City of
Tehachapi Building Department to
enforce Title 24 regulations in
conjunction with the building pennit
process to insure the use of low
flush toilets and low flow
showerheads.
City of Tehachapi Community
Development Department sewer
connection fees to be paid at the
building pennit stage. Plant
operator to monitor plant capacity
on an ongoing basis.
Attachment C
Appeal Application & Legal Correspondence
0 TE c��ls�R��1
Application Fee
Technology Fee
Long Range Planning Fee
Total
$2,900.00
$174.00
$217.50
$3,291.50
Live Up.
APPEAL OF DECISION (COMMISSION) APPLICATION
ALL sections of this form must be completed and delivered to the Planning Department at City Hall, 117 South Robinson Street and the fee paid in order for this Appeal to be accepted. 1, Thomas Neisler/TC CWD
, hereby appeal the decision of the ___ _
__ T_e_h_a_ch_ a_;p_i_P_la_n_n_i_n..::..g_C_ o_m_
m_
is_
s_io_n ___
taken on (date) January 12, 2026
______________ regarding:
Project Application No. Architectural Design & Site Plan Review No. 2025-06 Applicant: Wade Lewis
Location/or Address: APN 416-500-01, Tract 6507
Basis for the Appeal, Chapter 10.20 of the Tehachapi Zoning Code requires an application for Appeal to be accompanied by a written statement of the basis upon which the Appeal is filed.
Attach additional sheets as needed. Please see attached statement with Attachmen t 1.
Signature: j �
Print Name: Thomas P. Neisler
Address: P.O. Box 326, Tehachapi, CA 93581
Revised 01-2023
Phone: 661-822-5504
Email: tn [email protected]
Tehachapi-Cummings
County Water District
Our Water • Our Future
Directors:
John M Ables
Gerald Davis
Jonathan Hall
Joseph B Sasia
Robert W Schultz
Officers:
Robert W. Schultz, President
Jonathan Hall, Vice President
Thomas P. Neisler, General Manager
Catherine Adams. Secretary
Crystal Sampson, Treasurer
STATEMENT OF APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN & SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 2025-06
PINON 96 PROJECT
This appeal is submitted pursuant to Zoning Code section 9.60.070, which states that any interested person that is adversely affected by the Planning Commission's decision to approve an application for Architectural Design and Site Plan Review (" ADSPR") may file an appeal to the City Council. It is also made pursuant to Zoning Code section 10.20.020(8), which states that "[a]ny decision of the [Planning] Commission may be appealed to the [City] Council." The basis upon which this Appeal is filed is set forth below:
• On January 12, 2026, the Planning Commission failed to proceed in the manner required by law and committed prejudicial abuses of its discretion in violation of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and section 9.60.050 of the City's Zoning Code in adopting Resolution No. 26-02 and approving ADSPR No. 2025-06 - Pinon 96 Architecture, a 96-unit development ("Project"), in reliance on a Mitigated Negative Declaration adopted in 2005 ("2005 MND"). • The City's unlawful approval and violations of CEQA, related statutes, and the City's Zoning Code are detailed in the Tehachapi-Cummings County Water District's ("District") comment letter dated January 12, 2026, which is incorporated by reference and attached hereto as Attachment 1. The District submitted its written comments to the City prior to the January 12, 2026, Planning Commission meeting. The District's General Manager, Thomas Neisler, also presented oral comments at the public hearing on the Project, despite City staffs attempts to prevent the District from commenting. • The District's written and oral comments demonstrated that CEQA requires the City to conduct subsequent review to disclose and mitigate the 96-unit Project's water supply impacts before it can be implemented due to substantially changed circumstances in which the Project is undertaken, and due to the City's failure to enforce adopted mitigation measures. The Planning Commission improperly dismissed the District's comments and approved the Project, to the injury of the District and the entire Tehachapi community.
• To lawfully exercise its discretion and approve the entitlements requested for the Project, the Planning Commission had to find, among other things, that the Project (1) is consistent with the general plan; (2) complies with all applicable laws; (3) will not be materially detrimental to public health, safety, or welfare; and (4) is "consistent with the applicable provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act and the State CEQA Guidelines." (Zoning Code, § 9.60.050(8).) These requirements are designed to ensure that when a project is ultimately implemented, it will be consistent with current standards and that the project's current impacts were adequately disclosed and mitigated. • While the tentative map for the Project was originally approved in 2005 and the City allowed a final map to be recorded in 2007 despite the Project's failure to comply with all required conditions (in violation of the Subdivision Map Act), no development rights have vested. The Planning Commission's January 12, 2026 approval was a discretionary decision subject to CEQA. If a further discretionary decision is required for an approved project, then the agency must comply with CEQA's subsequent review provisions. (Pub. Resources Code,§ 21166; CEQA Guidelines,§ 15162.) • Public Resources Code section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines section 15162(a) require preparation of a subsequent EIR if (1) substantial project changes, (2) substantial changes with respect to the project's circumstances, or (3) new information of substantial importance will require major revisions to the previous Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects. 22901 Banducci Road, Tehachapi, California 93561
P.O. Box 326, Tehachapi, California 93581
Office 661-822-5504 • Fax 661-822-5122 • www.tccwd.com
• CEQA prohibits reliance on a prior MND without subsequent review if "it can be fairly argued" that the Project "might have a significant environmental impact'' that was not studied in the prior MND. (Friends of College of San Mateo Gardens v. San Mateo County Community College District (2016) 1 Cal.5th 937, 957, 959 [italics added] (·San Mateo Gardens".)
• As evidenced by the Sacramento Superior Court's June 18, 2024, Ruling, which invalidated the City's approval of the Sage Ranch Project, since the City adopted the 2005 MND, the circumstances regarding the City's water supply availability have changed substantially due to the City's growing demands and subsequent approvals. Changed circumstances show that the mitigation measures/conditions of approval set forth in the 2005 MND related to water supply- which the City has not even enforced - are invalid and cannot be relied upon for approval of the proposed Project. (Lincoln Place Tenants Association v. City of Los Angeles (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 1491, 1508-1509 ("Lincoln Place/") [supplemental CEQA review is required when previously adopted mitigation is determined to be infeasible]; Natural Resources Defense Council v. City of Los Angeles (2023) 98 Cal.App.5th 1176, 1198-1202, 1208, 1212 [lead agency's failure to ensure that previously adopted mitigation is effective and enforceable when considering a subsequent discretionary action violates CEQA).) Since adoption of the 2005 MND, circumstances regarding the City's water supply availability have also substantially changed due to the increasingly strained and variable (i.e., unreliable) nature of the District's imported supply from the State Water Project ("SWP"). • The circumstances in which the Project is undertaken have substantially changed. When viewed in the context of these substantially changed circumstances regarding water supply availability and associated new information of substantial importance, the 96-unit Project would result in significant water supply impacts that were not disclosed or mitigated in the 2005 MND. Therefore, subsequent CEQA review is required. (Pub. Resources Code,§ 21166; CEQA Guidelines,§ 15162(a); Friends of San Mateo Gardens I, supra, 1 Cal.5th at p. 959.)
• By ignoring CEQA's requirements and by refusing to adequately analyze and mitigate the Project's significant effects related to water supply, the District, as a regional water supplier and Watermaster, and all of the residents of the greater Tehachapi area it serves are adversely affected and aggrieved by the Planning Commission's CEQA violations.
• By refusing to analyze and mitigate the Project's adverse significant environmental impacts before approving the Project, the Planning Commission also violated Zoning Code section 9.60.050 because the record before the Planning Commission showed that the necessary findings set forth in section
9.60.050(8) (see above) could not lawfully be made.
• For the reasons provided in Attachment 1 and in the interests of avoiding litigation, the District respectfully requests that the City Council (1) overturn the Planning Commission's approval of the Project; (2) and instruct the City to comply with CEQA by conducting adequate subsequent CEQA review that discloses the Project's significant impacts related to water supply (including its cumulative impacts), imposes valid and enforceable mitigation measures, and identifies a realistically available water supply for the Project and cumulative development. • The Planning Commission adoption of Resolution 2026-02 is further demonstration of the City's ongoing pattern and practice of violating CEQA and related statutes by failing to analyze, disclose, and mitigate water supply constraints and impacts with effective and enforceable conditions of approval.
Attachment 1
I
, I . \ T. \ R-\ Z Z Cl I .. -\,,~
-- A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION --
ATTACHMENT 1
January 12, 2026
Via Electronic Mail
ccostelloe@tehachapicityha/1.com
cityclerk@tehachapicityha/1.com
City Planning Commissioners
Corey Costelloe, Assistant City Manager
Tori Marsh, City Clerk
City of Tehachapi
115 S. Robinson Street
Tehachapi, CA 93561
Re: Agenda Item No. 5: Pinon 96 Project
Planning Commission Meeting - January 12, 2026
Our File No. 5397-003
Dear Planning Commissioners:
Andrea A. Matarazzo
[email protected]
On behalf of the Tehachapi-Cummings County Water District ("TCCWD" or uoistrict'), for itself and as Watermaster for the Tehachapi Basin, we respectfully submit the following comments on Agenda Item 5 scheduled for the City of Tehachapi ("City") Planning Commission meeting on January 12, 2026.
These comments are made pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") (Pub. Resources Code,§ 21000 et seq.), Water Code (sections 100, 100.5, 105, 10910-10915), Article X, section 2 of the California Constitution, and Housing Element Law (Gov. Code, § 65580 et seq.), as to the City's proposed adoption of a resolution approving development of the 96-unit project within Tract Map No. 6507 ("Project") on the basis of a mitigated negative declaration adopted in 2005 ("2005 MND," attached hereto as Exhibit A).1 1 / Consistent with CEQA's informational demands, the Water Code and Article X section 2 of the California Constitution establish the basic principle that, "because of the conditions prevailing in this State general welfare requires that" water supply planning decisions must be reasonable. (Cal. Const, Art. X, § 2; Wat.
Code,§§ 100, 100.5.) As stated in the City's General Plan: "Tehachapi's location in a high desert valley pose unique realities for development related to water supply that need to be integrated into the daily work of achieving the community vision." (General Plan,§ 2.1 A. Town Form Element, Objective 15, p. 2:27.) 1215 K Street, Suite 1210 I Sacramento, California 95814 916.241.0533 I www.matarazzolaw.net
Re: Pinon 96 Project
January 12, 2026
The District is largely responsible for managing the region's water resources which may be significantly affected by the activities involved in the proposed Project. Native (natural) groundwater within the Tehachapi Basin provides the main source of water supply for the City and surrounding communities. The District serves as Watermaster for the Tehachapi Basin and has substantial experience and technical expertise regarding hydrology, water quality, and water supply issues arising in relation to the City's proposed Project.
While District takes no position on the merit of any project the City considers or approves, the City must comply with CEQA and other applicable provisions of state law. (Tehachapi Zoning Code ("Zoning Code") section
9.60.050.) In the present circumstances, approval of the 96-unit Project pursuant to the outdated 2005 MND would violate CEQA. An agency cannot rely on a prior MND without conducting further CEQA analysis if there is a fair argument that the Project "might have a significant environmental impact not previously considered." (Friends of College of San Mateo Gardens v. San Mateo County Community College District (2016) 1 Cal.5th 937, 959 [italics added] ("San Mateo Gardens f').) Due to substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under with the proposed Project is undertaken and in light of new information of substantial importance, the proposed Project would have significant adverse impacts related to water supply that were not disclosed in the 2005 MND.
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15162, which the City failed to consider, the City must prepare a subsequent CEQA document to analyze and mitigate the Project's new significant effects related to water supply that were not identified in the 2005 MND.
Approving the Project as proposed would continue the City's pattern and practice of ignoring CEQA's requirements. It would also violate directly applicable holdings contained in the Sacramento County Superior Court's June 18, 2024, Ruling which invalided the City's approval of the Sage Ranch project ("Ruling," attached hereto as Exhibit B). The District respectfully requests that the Planning Commission take no action on the Project, consider the District's comments, and direct preparation of a subsequent CEQA document to analyze and mitigate the proposed Project's significant impacts related to water supply.
1. The City's Purported "Environmental Review" is Inadequate.
The proposed Project would involve construction of 96 units on 10.45 acres of vacant land that is bordered by vacant land uses to the east and west.
Re: Pinon 96 Project
January 12, 2026
(Agenda Packet, pp. 21-22.) The Project was originally approved on August 15, 2005 by way of an MND. (City of Tehachapi (August 15, 2005), Staff Report Re:
Tentative Tract Map No. 6507, attached hereto as Exhibit C.) While the applicant planned to promptly implement the Project, as evidenced by recordation of a final tract map on November 27, 2007, it was "never constructed due to local economic changes over the last 18 years." (Agenda Packet, p. 22.) The applicant's entitlements to develop the Project expired. (Agenda Packet, p. 22; City of Tehachapi (August 15, 2024), Letter from Jay Schlosser to Applicant (attached hereto as Exhibit 0.) Now, over 20 years have passed and a new discretionary approval is required to implement the Project. (Ibid.) In order to proceed, the Planning Commission must find that approval of the Project would comply with CEQA and other applicable provisions of state law.
Yet, the City prepared no CEQA analysis. The "Environmental Review" section of the relevant staff report provides, in full: "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." (Agenda Packet, p. 21.) The City makes this conclusion without disclosing the 2005 MND or discussing its contents. By failing to disclose the 2005 MND to the City's decision makers and the public, the City thwarted informed decision making regarding whether the project's potentially significant impacts in 2026 were adequately addressed in the 2005 MND. 2 They were not.
Without any analysis, the City merely assumes that the impacts associated with implementing the proposed Project in 2005 would be the same as in 2026. Reliance on the 2005 MND is improper, however, if "it can be fairly argued" that the Project "might have a significant environmental impact" that was not studied in the prior MND. (San Mateo Gardens I, supra, at pp. 957, 959 [italics added].) In light of this "exacting standard," which favors subsequent review and "is less deferential to the agency," the City's decision to blindly rely on the 2005 MND is unreasonable and a prejudicial abuse of discretion. (Id. at p. 953; Friends of College of San Mateo Gardens v. San Mateo County Community College District (2017) 11 Cal.App.5th 596, 607 ("Mateo Gardens If').) 2 / The Planning Commission Staff Report dated June 13, 2022, contained the same conclusory "Environmental Review" and provided: "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." (Exhibit E, p. 2.)
Re: Pinon 96 Project
January 12, 2026
Page4
2. Without Subsequent CEQA Review, the Planning Commission Cannot Make the Findings Required to Approve the Project.
The Planning Commission's review of the proposed Project is governed by Chapter 9.60 (Architectural Design and Site Plan Review) of the Zoning Ordinance. As provided in Zoning Code section 9.60.0S0(B), the Planning Commission must make eight (8) findings before it approves an application for Architectural Design and Site Plan Review. Among other things, findings must be made that the project: ,
• Is consistent with the goals and policies of the City's General Plan and meets applicable district development standards; 3
• 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;
• Will not be materially detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of the public or to property and residents in the vicinity;
• Is consistent with the applicable provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act and the State CEQA Guidelines.
As proposed, the Project is inconsistent with these requirements and therefore cannot be approved.
A. Without Adequate CEQA Review, the Project Is Inconsistent with General Plan Goals and Policies Regarding Water Supply.
By failing to analyze and mitigate the Project's significant adverse impacts upon water supply and by ignoring CEQA's requirements, the Project is inconsistent with various General Plan goals and policies, including:
3 / The Housing Element of the City's General Plan is invalid and the subject of a pending challenge. Therefore, reliance on the Housing Element would be unlawful and, among other things, entitle to the District to injunctive relief. (Code Civ. Proc.,§ 526; Tulare Lake Canal Co. v. Stratford Public Utility Dist. (2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 380, 417 [order denying request for preliminary injunction in CEQA case reversed].)
Re: Pinon 96 Project
January 12, 2026
• "Land stewardship for environmental and water sustainability .... " (Goal
1.2(b), General Plan, p. 1 :7.)4
• 'Tehachapi's location in a high desert valley pose unique realities for development related to water supply that need to be integrated into the daily work of achieving the community vision." (General Plan, 2.1 A.
Town Form Element, Objective 15, p. 2:27.)
o Policy TF60. "Approve development projects only when
consistent with the allowed water availability." (General Plan, p. 2:27 [emphasis added].)
o Policy TF62: "Develop annual audit and management
procedures to track the approval of growth potential consistent with Table 2-2.1 and consistent with the availability of water for each development." (Ibid.) Table 2-2.1 of the General Plan, "Development Potential," forecasts the City's maximum
development potential through 2035, "subject to compliance with all applicable requirements including an annual growth management audit to track growth and the availability of services such as water supply." (General Plan, p. 2:10
[emphasis added].)
• "Protect and Conserve Groundwater Resources." (General Plan, 2.1 F.
Sustainable Infrastructure Element, Water shed and Water Supply, Objective 3, p. 2:89.)
o Policy SI 12. "Continue to perform Water Source Assessments." (General Plan, p. 2:89.)
As demonstrated below, further CEQA analysis is required to ensure that approval of the Project will be consistent with the City's water availability and promotes water sustainability. Without further review, approval of the Project would violate key General Plan policies intended to ensure that each project has an adequate water supply. The relevant staff report ignores these specific General Plan goals and policies, however, and merely concludes: "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." (Agenda Packet. p. 23.) This conclusory analysis does not provide any meaningful information and fails to consider any specific "goals and policies of the City's General Plan." (Zoning Ordinance, §
9.60.050(8)(1 ).)
4 / City of Tehachapi General Plan (Adopted May 2013),
https ://www.liveuptehachapi.com/DocumentCenterNiew/3184/Combi nedGeneral-Plan-2015-red uced?bid Id=.
Re: Pinon 96 Project
January 12 , 2026
Page6
B. Approving the Project Without Adequately Disclosing and Mitigating its Significant Impacts Would Violate CEQA and Be Materially Detrimental to Public Health, Safety, and Welfare.
Without further review, approval of the Project would violate CEQA and the applicable provisions of the CEQA Guidelines (see below). Consequently, the Planning Commission cannot find that the Project is consistent with CEQA.
Approving the Project without adequately analyzing and disclosing its significant impacts related to water supply would be materially detrimental to public health, safety, and welfare.
The staff report claims that the Project is consistent with CEQA because the "previous project approval is complaint with the applicable provisions of CEQA considered at that time." (Agenda Packet, p. 24.) However, because the Project's entitlements have expired and a further discretionary approval is required, the CEQA process reopened and the City must detennine whether to prepare a subsequent CEQA study. (CEQA Guidelines,§ 15162(b)-(c).) Thus, the question is whether - in light of today's circumstances - the City can rely on the 2005 MND without further documentation or whether CEQA's subsequent review provisions are triggered. The answer is that current circumstances show implementation of the Project would involve new environmental impacts related to water supply that were not analyzed in the 2005 MNO. As such, further CEQA documentation is required before approval of the Project.
3. The 2005 MND's Water Supply Analysis Is Outdated and its Associated Conditions of Approval Are Invalid.
The 2005 MND analyzed impacts to water supply and concluded that any associated impacts would be less than significant. (Exhibit A, pp. 4-5, 13.) The MND's analysis regarding whether there were sufficient water supplies to service the project is provided below in full:
The development of 96 dwelling units (condominiums) will consume approximately 79,584 gallons per day (GPO) as calculated below. 96 dwelling units (Triplex) X 829 gallons per dwelling unit per day= 79,584 gallons per day. The amount of water anticipated to be consumed by the project at build out will not have a significant impact on the availability of domestic water to the public. The "safe yield" of the ground water basin underlying the Tehachapi region has been established at 5,500-acre feet per year (AFY). The basin Re: Pinon 96 Project
January 12, 2026
has been adjudicated and the City currently has a base
righUpumping right of approximately 1,809-Acre Feet (AF) exclusive of any carryover from previous years and/or exchange pool resources. The City of Tehachapi typically uses approximately 1,600 AFY and based on a projected 4% growth rate the City should have adequate pumping rights through year 2007. To mitigate/offset the cost of expanding the City of Tehachapi municipal system in terms of constructing new wells, additional storage facilities, etc., the developer(s) of Tract No. 6507 will be required to pay an impact fee per Resolution No. 38-04 at the development stage. In addition1 at the development stage the applicant or successors in interest will be required to convey their water rights or pay an equivalent in-lieu fee as a condition of tract recordation to offset/mitigate the incremental impact to the City of Tehachapi's water availability in terms of water rights and pumping rights.
(Exhibit A, p. 13 [emphasis added]a.)
In other words, the 2005 MND concluded:
1. The Project will require 79,584 gallons per day ("GPO"), or 89.14 acre-feet per year ("AFY").5
2. The City was only expected to "have adequate pumping rights through year 2007."
3. To "offset/mitigate the incremental impact of the City of Tehachapi's water availability ... at the development stage the applicant ... will be required to convey their water rights or pay an equivalent in-lieu fee as a condition of tract recordation."
(Ibid.)
5 I According to the "City Project List" attached as Exhibit D to the District's Second Amended Petition challenging the Sage Ranch project and the City's pattern and practice of violating CEQA, the Project, referred to as the "Hod is Condos" project, would have a total pumpable demand of 25.60 AFY. (Exhibit F.) However, regardless of whether the Project would require 89.14 AFY or
25.60 AFY, developing the 96-unit project will require a significant amount of water. Implementation of the Project will result in significant environmental impacts unless a sufficient water supply is identified and enforceable mitigation measures are enforced.
Re: Pinon 96 Project
January 12, 2026
A. The 2005 MND is Outdated Because It Only Forecasted the City's Pumping Rights Through Year 2007.
As noted in the 2005 MND, the Tehachapi Basin "has been adjudicated." (Ibid.) The basin's water rights holders have adjudicated pumping rights, monitored by the District as Watermaster, that cannot be exceeded. (Ibid.) In this context, the 2005 MND's projection that "the City should have adequate pumping rights through year 2007" is material. (Ibid.) First, it shows that the City forecasted that it would reach the limits of its 1,809 AFY pumping allocation by 2008. (lbid.)6 While the City typically used "approximately 1,600 AFY" around year 2005, it expected to commit the remaining difference between its existing use and its pumping allocation to new development. (Ibid.) Second, it shows that instead of attempting to analyze the availability of projected water supplies over the Project's long-term horizon, the City decided to rely on conditions of approval as a backstop to mitigate any potentially significant water supply impacts. (Ibid.) This information bears little, if any relevance, regarding the scope of the Project's water supply impacts associated with implementation in 2026. We are now nearly 20 years beyond the point where the City expected that its pumping rights would be fully committed to development projects.
8. Continued Reliance on the City's 2005 Conditions of Approval Is Unlawful.
CEQA does not permit the City to conclude that significant impacts will be mitigated by vague, incomplete, speculative or untested mitigation measures. (Federation of Hillside & Canyon Associations v. City of Los Angeles (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 1252, 1260 [speculative measures do not constitute mitigation]; Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 727 ("Kings County'') [mitigation agreement calling for purchase of replacement groundwater supplies without specifying whether water was available violated CEQA].) Without meaningful analysis, the availability of water dedicated by a developer or purchased using in-lieu fees "amount to nothing more than 'paper water' unsupported by substantial evidence." (Exhibit B, p. 12.) A commitment to pay fees does not by itself establish an adequate water supply, nor is it adequate mitigation for water supply impacts if there is no evidence that mitigation will actually result. (Anderson First Coalition v City of Anderson (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 1173, 1188-1189 ("Anderson").) Fees must be paid in connection with a reasonable, enforceable plan for mitigation that is sufficiently 6 I The City's current pumping allocation is approximately 1,975 AFY.
Re: Pinon 96 Project
January 12, 2026
tied to actual mitigation of the project impact at issue. (Ibid.; California Clean Energy Committee v. City of Woodland (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 173, 197-198; Gray v. County of Madera (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1099, 1122.) The City has a pattern and practice of relying on invalid conditions of approval in an attempt to shortcut meaningful water supply analysis and mitigation. This issue was fully litigated in the Sage Ranch matter. Specifically, the District challenged case Mitigation Measure HYD-3 of the Sage Ranch EIR, which stated that the applicant:
"[S]hall procure shall procure 93 acre-feet of pumpable water rights" before issuance of any building permits, and "[e]ach housing unit not covered by the 93 acre-feet of water ... shall pay fees ... with the funds being used [to]," "[p]urchase water rights" or "[i]mport a 20-year supply of water through [the District] for each dwelling unit." (Exhibit B, p. 14.)
This mitigation measure is essentially the same as Condition No. 29 imposed on the Project via Resolution No. 05-03, which provides:
Prior to the recordation of the final map the applicant shall convey all underlying water rights equal to 1/2 acre -foot per dwelling unit.
If no water rights are available or if the water rights are insufficient to meet the 1/2 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.
(Agenda Packet, p. 39.)
As held in the Sage Ranch Ruling, which voided Mitigated Measure HYD3, the City failed to analyze the "actual source" of water that the developer was required to dedicate "or whether it will be reliably available year after year." (Exhibit B, pp. 11, 18.)7 The Ruling also held that the City does not have the 7 I The Ruling also invalided numerous portions of the Sage Ranch EIR, including (1) the City's responses to the District's comments; (2) the EIR's impact analyses regarding hydrology and water quality and utilities; (3) substantial portions of the EIR's alternatives analysis; (4) the El R's Water Supply Re: Pinon 96 Project
January 12, 2026
proper elements of a fee program to rely on in-lieu fees. (Id. at pp. 11-12.) Specifically, the Court found that while the City "contemplates purchasing water needed," it "omits basic information " regarding the "circumstances surrounding these sources," such as "whether any water would be available for purchase." (Id. at p. 11.) The City's continued assumption that water will materialize because it imposes an unspecified condition of approval violates CEQA. (Id. at p. 12.) Additionally, "
[t
]he law's informational demands may not be met, in this context, simply by providing that future development will not proceed if the anticipated water supply fails to materialize." (Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal.4th 412, 432 ("Vineyard'); Exhibit B, pp. 5, 12. )
As in the Sage Ranch EIR, the 2005 MND did not analyze whether any particular sources of water would realistically be available for the applicant to dedicate to the City and/or for the City to purchase. The City's lack of the proper elements of a fee program is further illustrated by the City's failure to enforce Condition No. 29. Specifically, on December 6, 2021, the Project applicant asked the City whether there were "underlying water rights sufficient to meet the 1/2 acre [foot per year] pre dueling [sic] unit requirement" or if "equivalent in lieu fees" were paid "at recordation" of the final map. (Correspondence between Jay Schlosser and Wade Lewis (December 2021) (attached hereto as Exhibit G).) The City responded as follows:
(Ibid.)
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 .... Together, we are confident in saying that prepayment did not occur.
The City's failure to enforce Condition No. 29 before approving the Project's final map exemplifies the pitfalls of relying on speculative and unspecified mitigation measures - and why they are prohibited under CEQA. Contrary to the 2005 MND's speculative assumption, a water supply for the Project was not secured. Consistent with the City's obligations detailed in the Ruling, the City Assessment ("WSA"); and (5) any other unidentified portions of the EIR inconsistent with the Ruling. (Exhibit B, p. 18.)
Re: Pinon 96 Project
January 12, 2026
must conduct subsequent analysis of the Project's water supply and associated impacts before approving the Project. For the reasons set forth in the Ruling, the 2005 MND's reliance on a condition of approval to "offset/mitigate the incremental impact of the City of Tehachapi's water availability" by requiring the applicant to "convey their water rights or pay an equivalent in-lieu fee as a condition of tract recordation" is invalid and fails to satisfy CEQA's informational demands. Continuing this unlawful practice would perpetuate the City's de facto policy of ignoring CEQA's requirements.
4. The City Failed to Analyze CEQA's Subsequent Review Provisions and the Implications of Relying on a Prior MND.
"The central purpose of CEQA is to ensure that agencies and the public are adequately informed of the environmental effects of proposed agency action." (Friends of College of San Mateo Gardens v. San Mateo County Community College District (2016) 1 Cal.5th 937, 951 ("Friends of College of San Mateo Gardens f').) As such, CEQA strongly favors environmental review and imposes a low threshold to require preparation of an environmental impact report ("EIR"). (CEQA Guidelines, § 15064(a)(1 ).) If the lead agency determines there is substantial evidence in the record that the project may have a significant effect on the environment, the lead agency shall prepare an EIR. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15064(f)(1 ); Friends of B Street v. City of Hayward (1980) 106 Cal.App.3d 988).
Said another way, if a lead agency is presented with a fair argument that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, the lead agency shall prepare an EIR even though it may also be presented with other substantial evidence that the project will not have a significant effect. (§ 15064(f)(2); No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68). Under the "fair argument" standard of review, an agency can only rely on a negative declaration where there is "no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment." (CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15064(f)(3) [italics added], 15384.)8 Similarly, an agency may only rely on a MND if potentially significant impacts are identified in an initial study but they can be avoided or mitigated "to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur" and "there is no substantial evidence" that the project "may have a significant effect on the environment." (Pub. Resources Code,§§ 21064.5, 21157.5; CEQA Guidelines, § 15070.)
8 / Under CEQA Guidelines section 15384(a), substantial evidence "means enough relevant information and reasonable inferences from this information that a fair argument can be made to support a conclusion, even though other conclusions might also be reached."
Re: Pinon 96 Project
January 12, 2026
A. An Agency Cannot Rely On a Prior MND If There is a Fair Argument that the Project Might Result in a Significant Environmental Impact That Was Not Addressed in the MND. 11Once a project has been approved, the lead agency's role in project approval is completed, unless further discretionary approval on that project is required." (CEQA Guidelines,§ 15162(c).) If a further discretionary approval is required, then the agency must comply with CEQA's subsequent review provisions. (Pub. Resources Code,§ 21166; CEQA Guidelines, § 15162.) The purpose of these requirements are to explore environmental impacts not considered in the original environmental document; 11 [o]nly changed circumstances ... are at issue." (San Mateo Gardens/, supra, 1 Cal.5th at p. 949.)
The California Supreme Court addressed how to review an agency's compliance with CEQA's subsequent review provisions in the context of an MND in Guidelines section 15162 in San Mateo Gardens I, supra. In this case, the San Mateo Community College District ("SMCCD") adopted a 2006 MND to renovate a small building complex. (Id. at p. 946.) However, SMCCD failed to obtain funding for the renovations. (Ibid.) Then, pursuant to a 2011 Addendum to the 2006 MND, SMCCD approved project changes, which included demolishing the subject building complex and its associated gardens. (Id. at pp. 946-947.) The trial court granted the petition challenging the 2011 Addendum.
The Court of Appeal affirmed, finding that the proposed demolition was a new project, rather than a project modification. (Id. at p. 947.) The California Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal because the Court of Appeal incorrectly determined that the project changes constituted a "new project" instead of evaluating the agency's compliance with CEQA's subsequent review provisions. (Id. at pp. 949-954, 961.) The Supreme Court remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion, in which the Supreme Court articulated a two-step process for reviewing an agency's decision to proceed under CEQA's subsequent review provisions. Under the first step, an agency is permitted to proceed under CEQA's subsequent review provisions if "the original environmental document retains some informational value." (Friends of College of San Mateo Gardens I, supra, 1 Cal.5th at pp. 940, 951, 952.)
The next and critical step 11is to determine whether the agency has properly determined how to comply with its obligations under those provisions." Re: Pinon 96 Project
January 12, 2026
(Id. at p. 953 [italics in original].) This inquiry is conducted pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15162(a). Section 15162(a) requires preparation of a subsequent El R if ( 1) substantial project changes, (2) substantial changes with respect to the project's circumstances, or (3) new information will "require major revisions to the previous shows EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects."
As held by the California Supreme Court, "when a project is initially approved by negative declaration, a 'major revision' to the initial negative declaration will necessarily be required" if project changes, changed circumstances or new information "may produce a significant environmental effect that had not previously been studied." (San Mateo Gardens/, supra, 1 Cal.5th at p. 958.) This is because an agency's initial determination to prepare a negative declaration instead of an EIR is subject to the "fair argument" standard of review (see above). Consequently, in the context of a negative declaration:
[T]he substantial evidence standard prescribed by CEQA
Guidelines section 15162 requires an agency to prepare an EIR whenever there is substantial evidence that the changes to a project for which a negative declaration was previously approved might have a significant environmental impact not previously considered in connection with the project as originally approved, and courts must enforce that standard.
(Id. at p. 959; fn. 1, supra [regarding the applicable "substantial evidence standard"].)
This exacting standard of review applicable to negative declarations governs an agency's compliance with CEQA Guidelines section 15162(b), which provides:
If changes to a project or its circumstances occur or new information becomes available after adoption of a negative declaration, the lead agency shall prepare a subsequent EIR if required under [CEQA Guidelines section 15162,] subdivision (a).
Otherwise the lead agency shall determine whether to prepare a subsequent negative declaration, an addendum, Qr no further documentation.
The Supreme Court further emphasized that an addendum to an adopted negative declaration "may be prepared if only minor technical changes or Re: Pinon 96 Project
January 12, 2026
additions are necessary or none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent El R or negative declaration have occurred." (Friends of College of San Mateo Gardens I, supra, 1 Cal.5th at p. 946; CEQA Guidelines,§ 15164(b}.)
On remand, the Friends of College of San Mateo Gardens case came before the Court of Appeal for a second time. (Friends of College of San Mateo Gardens II, supra, 11 Cal.App.5th at p. 600 (""). Following the Supreme Court's opinion, the Court of Appeal held that use of an addendum violated CEQA's subsequent review provisions "because there is substantial evidence to support a fair argument that the project changes might have a significant effect on the environment." (Ibid.) The Court of Appeal emphasized that "once we have determined that the subsequent review provisions apply to a project approved through a negative declaration, our application of the standard of review changes and is less deferential to the agency." (Id. at p. 607.) To overturn an agency's decision to prepare an addendum to a mitigated negative declaration, a challenger must only demonstrate "a fair argument exists that the project might have a previously unstudied significant environmental impact." (Id. at p. 608.) The Court of Appeal found that "the record contains substantial evidence that the planned removal of a portion of the gardens surrounding Building 20 might have a significant aesthetic impact on the college campus." (Id. at p. 609.) Faculty and students submitted comments that the subject gardens were aesthetically unique in the campus setting. In response, SMCCCD argued that removing a portion of the gardens was insignificant because it would result in a loss of less than 0.33 percent of the total landscaped and open space on campus. (Id. at p. 610.) Court of Appeal rejected this argument and emphasized that the "significance of an environmental impact is not based on its size but is instead 'measured in light of the context where it occurs.'" (Ibid. [citations omitted].)9 Ultimately, the Court of Appeal held that adoption of an addendum to the prior MND violated CEQA, with the agency to determine whether to prepare a subsequent EIR or a subsequent MND. (Id. at p. 611.)
9 / Similarly, the City attempted to rationalize its approval of the Sage Ranch project using ratio theory, claiming that the project would require a "mere 2.7%" of the District's supply. However, this impermissible use of "ratio theory" violated CEQA because it trivialized project impacts and masked the seriousness of environmental concerns. (Kings County, supra, 221 Cal.App.3d at p. 718.) For these same reasons, the City cannot merely assume that the Project would result in less than significant impacts because its demands would only account for a certain percentage of the City's water supply.
Re: Pinon 96 Project
January 12, 2026
The City, which proposes to rely on the 2005 MND without any further analysis, completely ignores CEQA's subsequent review provisions and wellsettled caselaw. As there have been substantial changes to Project's circumstances since it was initially approved in 2005, the City's failure to evaluate whether a subsequent EIR or MND is required violates CEQA.
5. CEQA Requires the City to Conduct Further Environmental Review Before Project Approval.
As the California Supreme Court explained in San Mateo Gardens I, "CEQA Guidelines section 15162 constitutes a gap-filling measure as applied to projects initially approved via negative declaration" to ensure that new significant impacts associated with project changes, changes to a project's circumstances, or new information are adequately studied and mitigated. (San Mateo Gardens v. San Mateo County Community College District (2016) 1 Cal.5th 937, 945-46, 958.) Specifically, a subsequent EIR is required if it can be fairly argued that there is substantial evidence that one or more of the following conditions has occurred since adoption of an MND:
(1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; (2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under whic_h the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or (3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous Negative Declaration was adopted, shows the project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or Negative Declaration.
(CEQA Guidelines,§ 15162.)
As demonstrated below, there is substantial evidence in light of the record as a whole that the conditions regarding substantial changes to the Project's Re: Pinon 96 Project
January 12, 2026
circumstances and new information have occurred since adoption of the 2005 MND. As such, CEQA requires the City to prepare a subsequent EIR before approving the Project.10
A. Substantial Changes Have Occurred With Respect to the Physical and Legal Circumstances Under With the Project Is Undertaken, Which Illustrate That the Project Will Result in New Significant Environmental Effects Regarding Water Supply That Were Not Analyzed in the 2005 MND.
While impacts associated with the Project were studied in an MND based on conditions and information available to the City in 2005, no impacts on the physical environment have occurred. If implemented, the Project would impact the physical environment as of 2026 (at the earliest) and be subject to the City's current regulatory setting. The substantial changes to the physical and legal setting in which the Project would be implemented are extensively documented in the 2024 Sage Ranch Ruling. These changes include (1) the material implications of the Sage Ranch Ruling on the longstanding practices used by the City in an attempt to comply with CEQA; (2) substantial changes regarding the availability of water to the City, City's existing water demands, and the City's subsequent approval of other development projects; and (3) substantial changes regarding the reduced availability of the District's imported State Water Project ("SWP") supply in light of climate change, increasing frequency of drought conditions, instream uses for fish protection, and increasing subsidence along the California Aqueduct. These substantial changes demonstrate that implementation of the Project under current circumstances would result in potentially significant environmental impacts that were not disclosed or adequately mitigated in the 2005 MND.
The Ruling, which invalided the City's approval of the Sage Ranch EIR, provided the City with detailed guidance regarding its mandatory CEQA duties regarding analysis of water supply impacts. (Exhibit B, pp. 1-18.) While the City asserted that it fully complied with CEQA before approving all projects, there had 10 / As noted in San Mateo Gardens II, the City can "choose to prepare a subsequent MND if it determines that the possibly significant environmental effects will 'be reduced to insignificance' through the implementation of mitigation measures." (San Mateo Gardens II, supra, 11 Cal.App.5th at p. 611.) Doing so would be appropriate only if it cannot be fairly argued that the project, as mitigated, might have a significant effect on the environment. (San Mateo Gardens I, supra, 1 Cal.5th at p. 945.)
Re: Pinon 96 Project
January 12, 2026
never been a judicial determination regarding the City's CEQA compliance in the context of water supply analysis. The Ruling provided such a determination and ruled against the City. The Court found that "[s]everal significant flaws are readily apparent" in the City's "evaluation of available water supply." (Exhibit B, p. 8.) Because the Ruling addressed many of the City's longstanding practices regarding environmental review, its holdings are relevant to all water supply analysis performed by the City. Therefore, compared to conditions in 2005, the Ruling constitutes a substantial change to the legal setting in which the Project is undertaken. These changed circumstances regarding the Project's setting must be considered to evaluate whether approval of the Project would result in potentially significant impacts that were not addressed in the 2005 MND. i. Substantial Changes Regarding the City's Water Supplies and Water Supply Obligations Demonstrate that
Development of the Project in 2026 Would Result in
Potentially Significant Impacts That Were Not Analyzed in the 2005 MND.
The 2005 MND provided that the City's adjudicated pumping rights were approximately 1,809 AFY and typically used 1,600 AFY per year. (Exhibit A, p.
13.) Thus, when the City adopted the 2005 MND, its adjudicated pumping rights were approximately 209 AFY more than its existing demands. (Ibid.) Since then, the circumstances regarding the City's water supply availability have changed substantially due to the City's growing demands and subsequent approvals. For example as provided in the WSA prepared for the Sage Ranch Project, prior to year 2021, "the City had been allocated 1,847 afy which was approximately 90 percent of its average demand of 2,017 afy." (Sage Ranch WSA, pp. 2, 15 (AR 1769, 1782); Exhibit B, p. 6 [City's 10-year average demand for water had been 2,017 AFY as of 2019).) Unlike conditions in 2005 when the City adopted the 2005 MND, in recent years the City's water demands have regularly outstripped its pumping allocation -the City's primary source of water. (Ibid.) While the City's current pumping allocation is approximately 1,975 AFY, this quantity is insufficient to cover the City's water demands in all years.
In recent years, the City has made various discretionary approvals regarding other development projects in its pipeline, such as Tract 6216 Alta Estates (55 lots of phased project approved in 2021), Tract 6248 (30 units), Tract 6688 (18 units), Tract 6714 (74 Units), and others listed on Exhibit D to the District's Second Amended Petition in the Sage Ranch litigation ("SAP").
Further, as illustrated in Table B-3 of the City's 6th Cycle Housing Element Update, the City states there are approximately 1,599 "entitled" units that have Re: Pinon 96 Project
January 12, 2026
been approved and/or are under construction. These approvals further added to the City's cumulative water demands. (Housing Element Update (2024), Table B-3, p. B-4, attached hereto as Exhibit H.) Of these units, which include the now-expired Tract 6507 Pinon 96 Project and the invalided Sage Ranch Project, the vast majority have not been constructed. (Ibid.) When constructed, these projects will substantially increase the City's cumulative water demands.
T-B-3: Units Approved, Pwmltlild, and/or Built
Tehachepl/Heyn 040-470-22, D@-470-23 Enlilled Mixed Use 7 7 nJa Tract 7<403 223-500-01 In entiUemenl process, not yet
Dennison 83 83 nJa approved
Tract Ut8 • Holly 415-412-18 Entitled. public improvenents under construction 30 30 nJa
Tract seea . Fig 416-120-0Z, -03 Entitled. public Improvements 18 18 nJa under construction Tract6507 41&-120-07 Enli�ed. in building plan 96 96 n/a Pinon 96 cheek CurryNOf1h 416-120-20 Entitled. in b<Jilding plan 18 18 n/a check Tl'IICt4854· Entitled, In building plan Sherwood
COndos
41M22-01--3S 34 34 n/a check
Tract 7366 • Sage 417-012-01,417�2- Entitled, Engineering and 995 995 n/a Ranch 24, -25, .:zr, ·21 Preclse Planning Under,,ay Pinon South 417-011-23 Enlllled, In bullcing plan
check 19 19 n/a
Tract 6215. K llulfJple (subdivision) Under c:onsuu:tlon. fulure 259 259 n/a Hovnanian phmes to come Subtotal - 1,599 1,99
HetN-Total - 1,511 1.aa,
The City did not meaningfully analyze the impacts of approving these projects. For example, the Tract 6216, Tract 6248, Tract 6668 projects relied on the same condition of approval imposed on the Project. (Exhibit I [conditions of approval for Tract 6216, 6248, 6668 and the proposed Project].) The City provided zero analysis of the water supply impacts associated with the 34-unit Sherwood Condominium Project before approving it by way of the Class 32 Categorical Exemption. As discussed above, the Ruling held that the City's approval of the 995-unit Sage Ranch project violated CEQA. Moreover, the City's Housing Element Update concludes that in addition to the 1,599 "entitled" units, it can accommodate an additional 1,304 units and 5 ADUs over the next four years. This development would further strain regional water supplies and result in significant environmental impacts. These facts demonstrate that the City Re: Pinon 96 Project
January 12, 2026
has yet to grapple with the cumulative impacts of its growth and the real-world constraints on its water supply.
In light of these substantially changed circumstances regarding the availability of water and the City's ballooning demands, the Project has much greater potential to result in adverse significant impacts related to water supply.
As the City's demands continue to outstrip its pumping allocation, the City lacks a sufficient water supply to meet the Project's demands in addition to those associated with the approved cumulative projects. The mitigation measures/conditions of approval set forth in the 2005 MND are invalid and cannot be relied upon for approval of the proposed Project. (Lincoln Place Tenants Association v. City of Los Angeles (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 1491, 1508- 1509 ("Lincoln Place f') [supplemental CEQA review is required when previously adopted mitigation is determined to be infeasible]; Lincoln Place Tenants Association v. City of Los Angeles (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 425, 450 ("Lincoln Place If') [same]; Sierra Club v. County of San Diego (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 1152, 1173 [same]; Natural Resources Defense Council v. City of Los Angeles (2023) 98 Cal.App.5th 1176, 1198-1202, 1208, 1212 [lead agency's failure to ensure that previously adopted mitigation is effective and enforceable when considering a subsequent discretionary action violates CEQA].) As the Tehachapi Basin has a fixed Natural Safe Yield of 5,500 AFY, there are limits to the amount of groundwater that the City and project applicants can procure. Based upon these facts, there is substantial evidence that there is not a sufficient water supply to service the project, which would result in a significant environmental impact. Subsequent review under CEQA therefore is required. ii. Substantial Changes Regarding the Regional Water
Supplies Demonstrate That the Project Will Have New
Significant Impacts That Were Not Analyzed in the 2005
MND.
The City depends on its allocated groundwater as its primary source of water. "The City supplements any excess demand by purchasing SWP water from the District under the 2017 Term Municipal & Industrial Agreement ("M&I Agreement") between the City and the District. In recent years, the City's average annual demand for SWP water has been approximately 264 afy." (Exhibit B, p.
2.) In contrast, when the City approved the 2005 MND, the City did not require any imported SWP water from the District. In 2005, the City's pumping allocation exceeded demand by approximately 209 AFY. (Exhibit A, p. 13.) In approving the Sage Ranch project, the City assumed that "all the difference between the Re: Pinon 96 Project
January 12, 2026
City's annually-increasing total demand and the City's ... groundwater allocation of 1,897 afy would be covered by SWP water purchased from the District under the M&I Agreement." (Exhibit B, p. 7 [italics in original].) The City maintained this assumption despite the District's comments regarding the amount of SWP water that is realistically available, the District's material water supply constraints, and the plain language of the M&I Agreement. (Id. at pp. 2-3, 6-9.) As held on page 8 of the Ruling:
Under the M&I Agreement, the City may purchase SWP water from the District to meet its needs beyond its groundwater allocation, but the District "shall have no obligation to sell [to the City] more than 1, 153 acre feet per year." "The District's obligation to supply water" is further "conditioned upon the availability of sufficient SWP water ... to enable the District to meet all of its Customers' water demands." In times of shortage, allocations are to be made pursuant to the District's rules and regulations. Also, the M&I Agreement ends on December 31, 2026, subject to possible annual extensions unless a 90-day notice of termination is given by either party. The M&I Agreement also "shall terminate upon termination of [the District's contract with Kern County Water Agency] (December 31, 2039) unless and to the extent the terms of such agreements are extended."
Regarding the District's water supply constraints, the Ruling found that while the District's contractual supply of SWP water is 19,300 AFY on paper, amount the District actually receives, which is constrained by capacity limitations on the District's water delivery infrastructure and by rationing by the Department [of Water Resources]." (Exhibit B, p. 2.) "These constraints resulted in deliveries amounting to 33.22% (6,411.46 afy), 37.51 % (7,239.43 afy), and
41.08% (7,928.44 afy) of the contractual amount, averaged over 10, 15, and 20 years, respectively." (Ibid.) These facts show that since adoption of the 2005 MND, the District's SWP allocations have substantially decreased. (Ibid.; State Water Project Historical Table A Allocations, Water Years 1996-2026 (attached hereto as Exhibit J.)
The City must also consider the recent addenda published by the Department of Water Resources ("DWR") pursuant its State Water Project Delivery Capability Report 2023. These studies include DWR's Technical Addendum to the State Water Project Delivery Capacity Report 2023 dated July 2024, and its Impacts of Subsidence Addendum dated May 2025 (attached Re: Pinon 96 Project
January 12, 2026
hereto as Exhibit K).11 These studies document the constraints affecting the District's SWP supplies, which are expected to significantly decline due to the impacts of subsidence. These studies provide essential informa\ion regarding the District's constrained SWP supplies and further document the substantially changed circumstances in which the Project would be implemented.
Since the MND was adopted in 2005, the following changed circumstances have occurred regarding the District's imported water supply: (1) The Districts imported SWP water supplies have become a supplemental source of water that the City has sought to increasingly rely upon; (2) the District's average annual SWP allocations have dramatically declined, and are expected to further decline due to climate change, drought, the State Water Resources Control Board's ("SWRCB") need to balance instream and consumptive uses, and new evidence regarding the impacts of subsidence. These facts show that the City cannot rely on the District's imported SWP supply to seNice the Project.
These circumstances show that given the regional water supply constraints that have emerged and intensified since the 2005 MND, the Project's direct and cumulative impacts upon water supply will be significant unless adequately disclosed and mitigated. Moreover, as discussed above, the 2005 MND's mitigation measures and the City's adopted conditions of approval related to water supply are ineffective and invalid, and cannot be relied upon for approval of the Project.
Ill
11 / DWR (July 2024), Technical Addendum to the State Water Project Delivery Capacity Report 2023,
https://data .en ra. ca.gov /dataseVfinaldcr2023/resou rce/0dd 1 f896-59c 7-4d25-8f90- b2f 4211379c5; DWR (May 2025) The State Water Project Delivery Capability Report 2023 Addendum: Impacts of Subsidence, https://s3.amazonaws.com/ogprod uction-open-data-cnra-892364687672/resources/4 78ff 1 a8-b 7fb-4d 3f-95de3bc90cf047f0/dcr2023 impacts of subsidence 20250506.pdf?X-AmzAlgorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-AmzCredential=AKIAJJIENTAPKHZMIPXQ%2F20250707%2Fus-east1 %2Fs3%2Faws4 reguest&X-Amz-Date=20250707T15491 0Z&X-AmzExpires=86400&X-Amz-SiqnedHeaders=host&X-AmzSiqnature=e4525935b54f6a96b8fe3b 13c9cd797 497 c52fda630abb 19cfd6fd76e9 742001.
Re: Pinon 96 Project
January 12, 2026
iii. The Project Would Result in New Significant Effects Regarding Water Supply Because the 2005 MND's Reliance
on a Speculative Condition of Approval Regarding Water
Supply Is Invalid as Provided in the Ruling.
As demonstrated above, the .City continues to rely on a condition of approval that is plainly invalid for the reasons provided in the Ruling. The 2005 MND determined that any "incremental impact to the City of Tehachapi's water availability• would be "offset/mitigated" by a condition of approval that requires dedication of water rights or payment of in-lieu fees. (Exhibit A, p. 13; Agenda Packet, p. 39.) By disclosing that the Project's water demands would have an "incremental impact" on the City's water supply availability that required "offset/mitigation," the 2005 MND indicated that water supply impacts would be potentially significant unless mitigated. Due to this condition- which was really a mitigation measure like Mitigation Measure HYD-3 in the Sage Ranch matter - the City determined that any impacts related to water supply would be less than significant.
Yet, as is made clear in the Sage Ranch Ruling, this condition is invalid and cannot be relied upon to comply with CEQA. (Exhibit 8, pp. 11-12, 18.) 12 Without this condition, the 2005 MND no longer has any basis for (1) concluding that any impacts to water supply would be less than significant and (2) declining to analyze water supply impacts beyond 2007. Therefore, in light of current circumstances, the Project's potentially significant impacts related to water supply remain undisclosed and unmitigated. As such, there is substantial evidence that implementation of the Project in reliance on the 2005 MND without further review would result in new potentially significant impacts that were neither analyzed nor mitigated in the 2005 MND.
Ill
12 / Among other things, the Court held that the "additional sources of water" contemplated by Mitigation Measure HYO-3 "amount to nothing more than 'paper water' unsupported by substantial evidence. (Id. at p. 12.) The City "should have discussed the circumstances surrounding the sources rather than conclude without analysis that they will be available." (Id. at p. 11.) Re: Pinon 96 Project
January 12, 2026
B. New Information of Substantial Importance Demonstrates that the Project Will Have Significant Adverse Effects Related to Water Supply That Were Not Discussed in the 2005 MND.
New information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the 2005 MND was adopted shows that the Project will have significant effects related to water supply that were not discussed in the 2005 MND. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15162(a)(3).) This new information is reflected in the Project's substantially changed circumstances and includes the following:
1. The California Supreme Court's 2007 opinion in Vineyard, supra, where the Supreme Court granted review to resolve the "disputed issue" of "how firmly future water supplies for a proposed project must be identified," because "[n]either CEQA itself, nor the CEQA Guidelines, nor any of [the California Supreme] court's decisions address this question specifically." (40 Cal.4th at p. 428.) Vineyard is new information because the Supreme Court's guidance regarding CEQA's information requirements related to water supply analysis was not known and could not have been known then the City adopted the 2005 MND. Vineyard is of substantial importance because it is articulated four principles, which have become the primary standards for analyzing water supply impacts under CEQA, namely:
a. First, CEQA's informational purposes are not satisfied by an EIR that simply ignores or assumes a solution to the problem of supplying water to a proposed land use project.
b. Second, an adequate environmental impact analysis for a large project, to be built and occupied over a number of years, cannot be limited to the water supply for the first stage or the first few years.
c. Third, the future water supplies identified and analyzed must bear a likelihood of actually proving available; speculative sources and unrealistic allocations ("paper water") are insufficient bases for decisionmaking under CEQA.
d. Finally, where, despite a full discussion, it is impossible to confidently determine that anticipated future water sources will be available, CEQA requires some discussion of possible replacement sources or alternatives to use of the anticipated water, and of the environmental consequences of those
Re: Pinon 96 Project
January 12, 2026
contingencies. The law's informational demands may not be met, in this context, simply by providing that future development will not proceed if the anticipated water supply fails to materialize.
(Vineyard, supra, 40 Cal.4th at pp. 430-432.)
Application of the standards set forth in Vineyard was not possible when the City prepared the 2005 MND. Vineyard demonstrates that the water supply analysis contained in the 2005 MND does not comply with fundamental standards necessary to protect public health and safety. Without any analysis of whether sources of water are realistically available, the 2005 MND assumed that water would materialize based on an generalized condition of approval requiring dedication of water rights or payment of in-lieu fees. (Exhibit A, p. 13; Exhibit B, p. 12.) Consequently, the 2005 MND did not adequately analyze or mitigate the Project's potentially significant impacts related to water supply.
2. The Sage Ranch Ruling provided new information of substantial importance regarding the Sage Ranch EIR and the City's duties to analyze water supply impacts under CEQA. The Ruling, issued in June 2024, could not have been known when the City adopted the 2005 MND. Nor could the facts at issue in the Sage Ranch litigation have been known when the City adopted the 2005 MND. The Ruling is of substantial importance because it provided a judicial determination regarding the City's CEQA compliance in the context of water supply analysis for a residential development like the Project. The Ruling addressed issues directly related to the 2005 MND, such as Mitigation Measure HYD-3, which is essentially the same as the condition of approval described in the 2005 MND. The Ruling also verified new information of substantial importance, such as the District's declining SWP allocations. In light of this information, reliance on the 2005 MND without further CEQA documentation would result in potentially significant water supply impacts that were not addressed in the 2005 MND.
Substantial evidence shows that changes to the Project's circumstances and new information of substantial importance require major revisions to the 2005 MND due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects related to water supply. (CEQA Guidelines,§ 15162(a); San Mateo Gardens I, supra, 1 Cal.5th at pp. 958-59.) To comply with CEQA and to provide the information minimally required to make the necessary findings concerning public Re: Pinon 96 Project
January 12, 2026
safety and welfare, the City must prepare a subsequent EIR before approving the Project. (Ibid.)
6. The Project Is Not Exempt From CEQA Pursuant to AB 130 (2025) or Any Other Exemption.
The Project is not exempt from CEQA, and the City does not claim so.
This discussion confirms that fact. The statutory CEQA exemption established by AB 130, set forth in Public Resources Code section 21080.66 does not apply.
For this exemption to apply, a housing development must "meet all" of eight (8) conditions. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21080.66(a).) The Project does not satisfy at least three (3) of these essential elements. First, the Project does not meet any of the criteria set forth in section 21080.66(a)(3). This is because the Project site is vacant land that has not been developed with an urban use, is borders vacant land to the east and west (i.e., the parcel's two longest sides), and is primarily surrounded by vacant land within a 0.25-mile radius. (Agenda Packet, pp. 22, 26.)
Second, the Project does not meet the criteria set forth in section 21080.66(a)(4) because implementation of the Project would be inconsistent with the City's General Plan and its Zoning Ordinance. (See above.) Third, to satisfy the criteria set forth in 21080.66(a)(5}, the Project's density must be "at least one-half of the applicable density specified in subparagraph (B) of paragraph (3) of subdivision (c) of Section 65583.2 of the Government Code." Section 65583.2(c)(3)(B)(iv) requires at least 30 units per acre because the City is in a metropolitan county, with Kern County designated as the Bakersfield Metropolitan Statistical Area. Therefore, this requirement is met if the project would have a density of at least 15 units per acre. This requirement is not met. The project site is 10.45 acres and would have 96 units, which equates to 9.18 units per acre. (Exhibit C, p. 1 [August 15, 2005, Planning Commission staff report].) In sum, the statutory exemption established by AB 130 does not apply because at least three (3) essential elements are not met.
The City cannot rely on any other CEQA exemptions. For example, the Class 32 exemption does not apply because the Project site is over 5 acres, is not substantially surrounded by urban uses, and the City has not demonstrated that the site will have an adequate water supply. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15332.) The common sense exemption does not apply because the 96-unit Project has the potential to result in significant environmental impacts as demonstrated Re: Pinon 96 Project
January 12, 2026
above. Nor can the City rely on the exemption established by SB 131 set forth in Public Resources Code section 21080.1 for because there are no exemptions that would apply but for a "single" unsatisfied condition required to establish an exemption.
The District respectfully requests the Planning Commission take no action on the Project until subsequent CEQA documentation has been prepared to analyze and mitigate the Project's impact related to water supply. The requests City comply with its obligations under state law and work with the District to achieve their mutual goals. City staff should contact Tom Neisler, TCCWD General Manager, for proper consultation and coordination.
MM:CPS{jis
Enclosures
Very truly yours,
MATARAZZO LAW, APC
ANDR
�
EA
M
A.
l�
MATARAZZO
k''Gf
EXHIBIT A
Environmental Checklist Form
1. Project Title:
2. Lead Agency Name and Address:
3. Contact Person and Phone Number:
4. Project Location:
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
6. General Plan Designation:
7. Zoning:
8. Assessors Parcel Number
9. Description of Project:
10. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:
Tentative Tract Map No. 6507 (A Planned
Residential Development)
City of Tehachapi
115 South Robinson Street
Tehachapi, CA 93561
Marcia Smith
(661) 822-2200 ext. 118
North and adjacent to Pinon Street and
west and adjacent to the future extension
of Applewood Drive.
Empire Land LLC
190 Sierra Ct. Suite C-12
Palmdale, CA 93550
Medium Density Residential
R-2
416-120-07
A one lot subdivision consisting of 32
residential structures, each possessing 3
dwelling units, for a total of 96 dwelling
units on a 10.45 acre site.
North: Single Family Residential
South: Currently vacant. However, site is
graded per Tract 6216 for Single
Family Residential structures.
East: Vacant
West: Single Family Residential
11. Other agencies whose approval is required: City of Tehachapi Building Department, City and County Fire Departments.
CITY4COA 13796
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
D Land Use and Planning
■ Population and Housing
■ Geophysical
■Transportation/Circulation
■ Biological Resources
D Energy and Mineral
Resources
■ Public Services
■ Utilities and
Service Systems
□ Aesthetics
■water
■Air Quality
□ Hazards
■Noise
■Cultural Resources
■ Recreation
Determination:
D Mandatory Findings of
Significance
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on they environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
Associate Planner Date sent out for public review
□
■
□
□
CITY 4COA 13797
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Issues:
Would the proposal result in potential
impacts involving:
Landslides or mudslides? D
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING.
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
Would the proposal:
Conflict with general
designation or zoning?
plan
Conflict with applicable
environmental plans or policies
adopted by agencies with jurisdiction
D
over the project? o
Be incompatible with existing land
use in the vicinity? D
Affect agricultural resources or
operations (e.g. impacts to soils or
farmlands, or impacts from
incompatible land uses)? D
Disrupt or divide the physical
arrangement of an established
community (including a low-income
or minority community? D
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING.
a)
b)
c)
Would the proposal:
Cumulatively exceed official regional
or local population projections?
Induce substantial growth in an area
either directly or indirectly (e.g.
through projects in an undeveloped
area or extension of major
infrastructure?
Displace existing housing, especially
affordable housing?
3 D
D
D
Negative
Declaration:
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
■
D
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
D
■
CITY 4COA 13798
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Issues:
Ill. GEOLOGICAL PROBLEMS.
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
g)
h)
i)
Would the proposal result in or
expose people to potential impacts
involving:
Fault rupture?
Seismic ground shaking?
D
D
Seismic ground failure, including O
liquefaction?
Seich, Tsumani, or volcanic hazard? D
Landslides or mudflows? D
Erosion, changes in topography or
unstable soil conditions from D
excavation, grading, or fill?
Subsidence of the land?
Expansive soils?
D
D
Unique geologic or physical 0 features?
IV. WATER.
a)
b)
c)
Would the proposal result in:
Changes in absorption rates,
drainage patterns, or the rate and
amount of surface runoff? D
Exposure of people or property to
water related hazards such as
flooding? D
Discharge into surface water or other
alteration of surface water quality (e.g.
temperature, dissolved oxygen or 0 turbidity)?
4 Negative
Declaration:
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
D
■
■
D
D
0 D
■
0 D
D
D
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
0 D
0 D
D
■
D
D
D
■
■
□
■
D
D
■
■
D
■
D
■
0 D
■
CITY4COA 13799
Issues:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
d)
e)
f)
g)
h)
i)
Changes in the amount of surface
water in any water body? □
Changes in currents, or the course
or direction of water movements? D
Change in the quantity of ground
waters, either through direct
additions or withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts or
excavations or through substantial
loss of groundwater recharge
capability? □
Altered direction or rate of flow of
groundwater? □
Impacts to groundwater quality? □
Substantial reduction in the amount
of groundwater otherwise available
for public water supplies? □
V. AIR QUALITY.
a)
b)
c)
d)
Would the proposal:
Violate any air quality standard or
contribute to an existing or projected 0 air quality violation? Expose sensitive receptors to 0
pollutants? ·
Alter air movement, moisture, or
temperature, or cause any change in □
climate?
Create objectionable odors? □
Negative
Declaration:
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
□
□
□
D
D
D
D
D
□
□
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
□
■
■
D
■
■
□
□
□
D
■
□
□
■
D
D
■
■
■
■
CITY 4COA 13800
Issues:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION.
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
g)
Would the proposal result in:
Increased vehicle trips or traffic □
congestion?
Hazards to safety from design
features (e.g. sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g. farm □
equipment)?
Inadequate emergency access or D
access to nearby uses?
Insufficient parking capacity on-site D
or off-site?
Hazards or barriers for pedestrians □
or bicyclists?
Conflicts with adopted policies
supporting alternative transportation □
(e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
Rail, waterborne or air traffic o
impacts?
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES.
a)
b)
c)
Would the proposal result in impacts
to:
Endangered, threatened or rare
species or their habitats (including
but not limited to plants, fish, insects, □
animals, and birds)?
Locally designated species (e.g. □
heritage trees)?
Locally designated natural
communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal □
habitat, etc.)?
Negative
Declaration:
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
■
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
□ □
□ ■
□ ■
□ ■
□ ■
□ ■
□ ■
□ ■
□ ■
□ ■
CITY4COA 13801
Issues:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
d)
e)
Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian D
and vernal pool)?
Wildlife dispersal or migration D
corridors?
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL
a)
b)
c)
RESOURCES.
Would the proposal:
Conflict with adopted energy D
conservation plans?
Use non-renewable resources in a D
wasteful and inefficient manner?
Result in the loss of availability of a
known mineral resource that would
be of future value to the region and 0 the residents of the State? IX. HAZARDS.
a)
b}
c)
d)
Would the proposal involve:
A risk of accidental explosion or
release of hazardous substances
(including, but not limited to: oil, 0
pesticides, chemicals or radiation)?
Possible interference with an
emergency response plan or □
emergency evacuation plan?
The creation of any health hazard or D
potential health hazards?
Exposure of people to existing D
sources of potential health hazards?
7 Negative
Declaration:
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
D
D
D
□
D
D
□
□
□
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
D ■
D ■
D ■
□ ■
□ ■
D ■
□ ■
□ ■
D ■
CITY 4COA 13802
Issues:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
e) Increased fire hazard in areas with
flammable brush, grass, or trees? □
X. NOISE.
a)
b)
Would the proposal result in:
Increases in existing noise levels? □
Exposure of people to severe noise
levels? □
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES.
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
Would the proposal have an effect
upon, or result in a need for new or
altered government services in any
of the following areas:
Fire protection? o
Police protection? □
Schools? □
Maintenance of public facilities,
including roads? □
Other governmental services? □
XII. UTILITIES ANO SERVICE
SYSTEM. Would the proposal result
in a need for new systems or
supplies, or substantial alterations to
the following utilities:
a)
b)
c)
Power or natural gas? D
Communications systems? □
Local or regional water treatment or
distribution facilities? □
Negative
Declaration:
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
□
□
■
■
■
■
■
■
□
□
■
■
■
□
□
□
□
□
□
■
■
□
CITY 4COA 13803
Issues:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
d)
e)
f)
g)
Sewer or septic tanks?
Storm water drainage?
Solid waste disposal?
Local or regional water supplies?
□
□
□
□
XIII. AESTHETICS.
a)
b)
c)
Would the proposal:
Affect a scenic vista or scenic 0 highway?
Have a demonstrable negative □
aesthetic effect?
Create light or glare? □
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES.
a)
b)
c)
d)
Would the proposal:
Disturb paleontological resources?
Disturb archaeological resources?
Affect historical resources?
□
□
□
Have the potential to cause a
physical change which would affect
0 unique ethnic cultural values?
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred
uses within the potential impact D
area?
XV. RECREATION.
a)
Would the proposal:
Increase the demand for
neighborhood or regional parks or
other recreational facilities? □
Negative
Declaration:
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
■
■
■
■
□
□
■
□
■
□
□
□
■
□
□
□
□
■
■
□
■
□
■
■
■
□
CITY 4COA 13804
Issues:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
b) Affect existing
opportunities?
recreational D
XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF
a)
b)
c)
d)
SIGNIFICANCE.
Does the project have the potential
to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce
the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below selfsustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of the
major periods of California history or D
prehistory?
Does the project have the potential
to achieve short-term, to the
disadvantage of long-term, D
environmental goals?
Does the project have impacts that
are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable?
("Cumulatively considerable" means
that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects
of past projects, the effects of other
current projects, and the effects of D
probable future projects)
Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings, □
either directly or indirectly?
Negative
Declaration:
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
□
□
D
□
D
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
■ □
■ D
■ □
■ D
D ■
CITY4COA 13805
NARRATIVE DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
REGARDING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 6507 (A PLANNED
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT) ON A 10.45-ACRE SITE. A ONE LOT SUBDIVISION CONSISTING OF 32 INDIVIDUAL RESIDENTIAL
STRUCTURES, EACH CONSISTING OF 3 DWELLING UNITS, FOR A
TOTAL OF 96 DWELLING UNITS
A. EARTH
The soil underlying the project area is predominately undocumented fill over alluvial soil.
As stated in the geotechnical report prepared by Lawson & Associates (included herein as Appendix A), "alluvial soils consist of moderate yellowish-brown to dark brown and reddish-brown, slightly moist, loose to very dense, poorly graded sand and silty sand, with local pores to a depth of 6 feet." The geotechnical report further states, "Loose to medium dense silty sands were common in the upper 5 to 6 feet, with medium dense to very dense sand predominant at greater depths. Some gravel was present at varying depths across the site." The geotechnical report concludes the proposed site for development is feasible provided the report recommendations are carried out, such as "compressible materials not removed by the planned grading should be excavated to competent material and replaced with compacted fill soils." (Please refer to pages 9 through 19 of Appendix A). The subject site slopes downward from the southern end of the property to the northern end with a differential elevation of approximately 20-feet and an average slope of 3%. Drainage appears to occur in a sheet flow condition into the existing retention basin. The project area does not to exhibit any unique geological features or topographic relief. Furthermore, the project will not create unstable earth conditions or changes in geological structures.
B. TRAFFIC/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. The subject site achieves primary access off Applewood Drive to the east. Applewood Drive represents a north/south local street within the City's hierarchy of streets.
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 herein as Appendix B. Project mitigation will be achieved per the attached 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.
11 CITY 4COA 13806
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 St. 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
Street Improvement
Pinon Street from Black Oak to Curry Street
TOTAL
0.69%
2.24%
1.18%
1.53%
0.92%
0.10%
0.125%
0.118%
0.95%
0.90%
0.72%
0.15%
9.623%
3.30%
The cost to install a new traffic signal is approximately $150,000.00.
C. AIR
The development of the subject site for 96 dwelling units will temporarily increase the level of �fugitive dust" (particulate matter) in the air primarily during the grading phase of the project. This impact associated with particulate matter is commonly referred to as P.M. 10.
In accordance with the Kern County Air Pollution Control Board the applicant will be required as a condition of approval to keep the site watered down and/or use soil binders to reduce dust emissions and implement the District's policies relative to P.M. 10, construction-related impacts will be kept to a minimum. Grading on the site will not be permitted when winds reach 20 mph or greater in a two (2) or more hour time period.
In terms of traffic related air quality issues, the development at build out is expected to generate approximately 563 vehicle trips per day. The additional trips generated by this project can be absorbed by the area circulation network without causing the traffic flow to drop below an acceptable level of service providing the mitigation measures are implemented. Level of service and traffic congestion are directly related to the issue of air quality relative to auto exhausts emissions. The development activity and associated traffic generation may have an incremental impact on local air quality but will not individually or collectively cause a significant decrease in the regions air quality. The City of Tehachapi's inherent compact urban form and contiguous growth patterns and policies will contribute to the maintenance of good air quality by reducing the trip lengths for local residents to drive to access shopping, services and employment destinations. 12 CITY4COA 13807
D. WATER
The development of 96 dwelling units (condominiums) will consume approximately 79,584 gallons per day (GPO) as calculated below.
96 dwelling units (Triplex) X 829 gallons per dwelling unit per day = 79,584 gallons per day.
The amount of water anticipated to be consumed by the project at build out will not have a significant impact on the availability of domestic water to the public. The "safe yield" of the ground water basin underlying the Tehachapi region has been established at 5,500-acre feet per year (AFY). The basin has been adjudicated and the City currently has a base right/pumping right of approximately 1,809-Acre Feet (AF) exclusive of any carryover from previous years and/or exchange pool resources. The City of Tehachapi typically uses approximately 1,600 AFY and based on a projected 4% growth rate the City should have adequate pumping rights through year 2007. To mitigate/offset the cost of expanding the City of Tehachapi municipal system in terms of constructing new wells, additional storage facilities, etc., the developer(s) of Tract No. 6507 will be required to pay an impact fee per Resolution No. 38-04 at the development stage. In addition, at the development stage the applicant or successors in interest will be required to convey their water rights or pay an equivalent in-lieu fee as a condition of tract recordation to offset/mitigate the incremental impact to the City of Tehachapi's water availability in terms of water rights and pumping rights.
In terms of water supply the project proponents will be required to connect to the 8-inch water line on Applewood Drive, continuing the water line through the proposed development, and tie into the existing 12-inch water line on Pinon Street creating a continuous loop system. Water supply shall be connected in a manner consistent with the Capital Improvement Element of the General Plan as a condition of development and at the developer's expense. The City engineer will ultimately determine the size and placement of water lines.
With respect to water quality related issues, impacts can be broken down into three (3) categories; grading, construction and project occupancy. At the development stage any non-point pollution and storm water discharge associated with grading activity and/or construction activity will be regulated under the Federal Clean Water Act Section 402. Any grading disturbance of over one (1) acre will necessitate a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit relative to non-point pollution associated with construction activity, processed through the Regional Water Quality Control Board (Central Valley Region). This permit process will require preparing a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program (SWPP) employing "best management practices" (BMPs) relative to the long and short-term control of erosion and sedimentation, and construction staging activity. In terms of the post construction or project occupancy phase, mitigation could include monthly street sweeping to reduce the concentration of pollutants associated with run-off occurring during the "first flush" event. The highest concentration of urban related pollutants occurs following the first major storm of the year. This event is commonly referred to as the first flush. Additionally, the existing retention facility located on the north 13 CITY 4COA 13808
side of the property will intercept much of the heavy metal compounds and dissipate prior to leaving the subject site and reaching a drainage course. The retention basin facility will also serve to reduce the increased run-off resulting from an increase in impervious surfaces to an amount equivalent to the pre-development stage. This issue is discussed in more detail under the Hydrology section of this initial study.
E. SEWER
The proposed 96 dwelling units (condominiums) will establish a land use intensity that will require the individual dwelling units to connect to a municipal system as opposed to the individual septic tank alternative. Given the subject sites proposed General Plan Designation of Neighborhood Residential the project area at build out could generate up to 46,848 gallons/day of wastewater as calculated below:
96 dwelling units (Triplex) X 488 of waste water/day = 46,848 gallons/day The quantity of wastewater anticipated to be generated by the project area at build out will not have a significant effect on the Wastewater Treatment Plant. The plant is designed as an advanced secondary treatment facility with a capacity to process up to 1.25 million gallons per day (MGD) and is currently operating at approximately 65 percent capacity. To mitigate/offset the incremental increase in wastewater the project proponents will be required to pay sewer connection/mitigation fee at the development per Resolution No. 38-
04. Said fee will be used in turn to off set the cost of expanding the treatment plant in order to keep pace with development activity.
The project will be conditioned to provide the individual parcels with a domestic sewer service. To achieve this, the project shall connect to the existing 8-inch sewer line on Pinon Street and tie into the line at the Mulberry Street and Cherry Lane intersection. The City Engineer shall ultimately determine the size and placement of sewer lines.
F. GEOLOGY/SEISMICITY
The subject site is considered seismically active, as is most of Kem County. All proposed structures and utility installations anticipated to occur at the development stage would be designed to withstand anticipated ground acceleration within an acceptable level of risk. It is assumed that the Garlock Fault located approximately (9) miles southeast of the project area will be the design fault by which construction parameters will be established in conjunction with other Uniform Building Code (UBC) seismic standards applicable to the project site. The Garlock Fault shows the characteristic features of high-angle faults with major strike-slip component. The Garlock Fault has a Richter Magnitude potential of 8.0 and a Peak Execration range of .409 (g) to .904(g). The applicant has submitted a geotechnical report included herein as Appendix A. Findings of the geotechnical report shall be incorporated into the project design in terms of grading activity and structural details pursuant to the Uniform Building Code (UBC) and Section 66434 of the Subdivision Map Act.
14 CITY 4COA 13809
G. CULTURAL RESOURCES
The subject property is located within the ancestral home of the Kawaiisu cultural group also known as Nuooah who are linguistically related to the Shoshoenan language family.
An archaeological evaluation was conducted by Mr. Robert Schiffman dated March 2005 to ascertain the absence or presence of cultural resources on the subject site. The survey did not reveal the presence of any archaeological or historical resources on the 10-acre site. The attached survey recommends that archaeological clearance be granted to the proposed development project. (Please refer to Appendix C). If, however, resources are excavated during the construction phase the project will be conditioned to cease grading and other construction activity until such time as the resources can be recovered and properly documented.
H. PLANT LIFE/WILDLIFE
The subject site has been disturbed by past agricultural activity and is located within an area having an emerging pattern of urban development. Mr. Paul Pruett, consulting biologist, conducted a biological resources survey over the property. (Please refer to Appendix D) There are several plant and animal species in the Tehachapi region that are of special concern. However, the biological survey dated April 12, 2005 concluded that ''there are no rare and/or endangered flora species, flora communities or fauna species on the subject site". Therefore, the City of Tehachapi will issue a "De Minimus Impact Finding. Development of the 10-acre site for a condominium subdivision will reduce the amount of "open space" and relatively natural habitat available in the region. The cumulative loss of open space had already been considered within the Programmed Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared in conjunction with the 2000 City of Tehachapi General Plan update. The existing retention basin will create an opportunity to establish an artificial wetland area and provide a source of habitat for species occupying mesic conditions.
I. DRAINAGE/HYDROLOGY
The subject site slopes from the south property line to the north property line in what can be characterized as a sheet flow condition with a differential elevation of approximately 20 feet and an average slope of 3%. The development of a 10-acre site for 32 residential structures, each possessing 3 dwelling units for a total of 96 dwelling units (condominiums) will increase the amount of impervious surface area and as such create a corresponding increase in storm water run-off. At the development stage, the applicant will be required to collect the storm water run-off in a storm drain system and convey the storm water run-off to an appropriate outlet. A retention basin currently exists at the north side of the property meeting the above requirement. A Hydrology Study dated September 29, 2004 and included herein as Appendix E was conducted for Tract 6216 located south of the project site. The hydrology study retention basin analysis included runoff retention for Tract 6216 in addition to the proposed Tentative Tract Map. While hydrology/drainage is an issue, it can be mitigated by design and storm water can be conveyed through the subject site and in a manner that will not impact down stream properties and/or cause an increase in the quantity and/or intensity of surface flows on public streets. The City Engineer shall review 15 CITY4COA 13810
the submitted hydrology study at the final map/engineering phase of the development process per the conditions of approval.
J. PUBLIC SERVICES
The project area at build-out may result in the need for increased law enforcement and fire protection facilities. To mitigate/off-set the incremental impact/demand on the City's public safety agencies, the developer shall be required to pay an impact fee per dwelling unit per Resolution No. 01-05 adopted February 21, 2005. The project area will place an incremental increase on water and sewer facilities. The City of Tehachapi has completed a study of the cost of providing these services (City of Tehachapi Water and Waste Water System Development Fee Study) and the fees for services are equal to the cost of providing said services consistent with AB 1600. To mitigate/off-set the incremental impact/demand on the City of Tehachapi's municipal water and sewer system future developer(s) of the subject tract will be required to pay an impact fee per Resolution No. 38-04 at the development stage.
K. SCHOOLS
The development of the subject site will also have a direct impact on the Tehachapi Unified School District. Based on the following generation rates, the build-out of 96 dwelling units (condominiums) will generate approximately 77 students in the following grade categories:
• K through sixth grades, 43 students@ .45 students per dwelling • Seventh through eighth grades, 12 students @ .125 students per dwelling • Ninth through twelfth grades, 22 students@ .225 students per dwelling It should be noted that the above impact is based on an assumption that the proposed 96 dwelling units are ultimately occupied by "newcomers" and not individual families with children already living in the region and attending area schools.
To offset/mitigate these impacts, school impact fees will be required and amount determined by the Tehachapi Unified School District.
L. POPULATION
The development of 96 dwelling units (condominiums) will generate potentially 259 new residences based on the following formula:
2.7 persons per household X 96 dwelling units= 259 individuals.
This increase in population assumes that each of the 96 dwelling units is sold to families living outside the area or from at least outside the City limits. This incremental increase in population will not alter population distribution in the area in any significant way and will not cause individually or collectively the population of the City of Tehachapi or the Tehachapi 16 CITY 4COA 13811
region to exceed current population projections and trends as adopted by the Kern Council of Governments (Kern COG).
M. PARKS AND RECREATION
Development of the 96 dwelling units (condominiums) will cause an incremental increase in population and a corresponding increase in demand for both active and passive parks and recreation resources. To mitigate this incremental impact the developer of the project will be required to dedicate land and/or pay an in-lieu fee based on the Quimby Act formula and Chapter 17.42 of the City of Tehachapi Municipal Code. The formula calls for 3-acres of active park land per 1,000 residences as calculated below:
2.7 persons/DU x 96DU X3 = .78 acre
1,000
Typically small subdivisions of less than 150 dwelling units are too small to warrant the dedication of land and as such an in-lieu fee is paid to the district as an alternative.
However, the project is a Planned Residential Development (PRO) and as such, the applicant is proposing on site active and passive recreational opportunities that appear to meet the minimum open space required per the Quimby Act Formula. The Tehachapi Valley Recreation and Parks District shall ultimately determine whether the applicant is required to pay in-lieu fees in addition to the proposed on site open space.
0. NOISE
The design of Tentative Tract Map No. 6507 includes seven (7) residential structures that back up to Pinon Street which is slated to be a minor arterial street that will eventually link to Tucker Road to the west and Dennison Road to the east. Based on the anticipated future traffic volumes and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) traffic noise predication modeling, the southern structures within the subdivision could be exposed to noise levels in excess of 60 dBCNEL exterior and 45 dBCNEL interior. The 60dB exterior and 45dB interior are noise levels that fall within a range that is considered to be acceptable. At the development stage the project proponent or successor in interest shall be required to construct dwelling units that comply with this criteria. Mitigation to achieve an acceptable exterior and interior noise level will include the construction of a noise attenuation wall.
Mitigation measures to achieve an acceptable interior noise environment could include various structural modifications to be incorporated into the design of the residential units such as double paned windows, mechanical ventilation, weather stripping, etc. 17 CITY4COA 13812
EXHIBIT B
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
DATE/TIME I May 3, 2024, 9:00 a.m.
JUDGE HON. STEPHEN ACOUISTO
TEHACHAPI-CUMMINGS COUNTY WATER
DISTRICT,
Petitioner,
v.
CITY OF TEHACHAPI,
Respondent.
GREENBRIAR CAPITAL CORPORATION, et al.,
Real Parties in Interest.
DEPT. NO 1
36 CLERK M. LU
Case No. 34-2022-80003892
FILED
Superior Court of California
Countyof Sacramento
06/18/2024
M. Lu. Deputy
Nature of Proceedings: Ruling on Submitted Matter - Petition for Writ of Mandate
On May 2, 2024, the Court issued an order directing the parties to appear at the scheduled merits hearing and be prepared to discuss a number of topics. Following the hearing, the Court took the matter under submission. Having now considered the parties' filings, the administrative record, as well as the arguments offered at the hearing, the Court issues this final ruling granting the petition.
BACKGROUND
Petitioner Tehachapi-Cummings County Water District ("the District") is a water district in Kem County. The District was created in 1965 in the backdrop of persistent groundwater overdraft in the area. A lawsuit in 1966 resulted in a judgment that determined the rights of certain parties to extract groundwater. The District now serves as a court-appointed water master for three groundwater basins in the area. The District also supplies surface water that it receives from the State Water Project ("SWP"). The California Department of Water Resources provides SWP water to Kern County Water Agency, which, in tum, provides it to the District. The current contractual supply of SWP water between Kem County Water Agency and the District is I 9,300 acre-feet per year. 1 The contractual supply of S WP water, however, does not reflect the amount the District actually receives, which is constrained by capacity limitations on the District's water delivery infrastructure and by rationing by the Department. These constraints resulted in deliveries amounting to 33 .22% (6,41 1.46 afy), 37.51% (7,239.43 afy), and 41.08% (7,928.44 afy) of the contractual amount, averaged over 10, 15, and 20 years, respectively. The District supplies SWP water it receives to a number of customers in its jurisdiction, including the Community Services Districts of Golden Hills, Bear Valley, and Stallion Springs, as well as Respondent City of Tehachapi ("the City").
The City is located within Tehachapi Basin, one of the groundwater basins administered by the District. The City was allocated a right to groundwater from the basin as part of the 1966 I
judgment, and is currently allocated 1,897 afy. The City depends on its allocated groundwater as its primary source of water. The City supplements any excess demand by purchasing SWP water from the District under the 2017 Term Municipal & Industrial Agreement ("M&I Agreement") between the City and the District. In recent years, the City's average annual demand for SWP water has been approximately 264 afy.2 The M&J Agreement caps the maximum annual amount of SWP water that the City may receive at 1 ,153 afy.
On July 3, 2019, the City published a notice of preparation of a draft environmental impact report ("EIR") for a proposed 995-unit housing project called the Sage Ranch Development Project ("Sage Ranch"). Real Party in Interest Greenbriar Capital Corporation is the project's developer. On March 4, 2020, the City released a draft EIR. The District submitted comments raising a number of concerns with respect to the water supply assessment. The District's primary complaint was that the EIR assumed, without support, that the District would be able to provide increasing amounts of SWP water to meet the City's projected future demands 1 "Af," or "acre-foot", is a unit of volume for water. An acre-foot describes the volume of water that would cover one acre of land, one foot deep. "Afy" represents "acre-feet per year." 2 The EIR does not appear to contain the actual figures of deliveries of S WP water from the District to the City in recent years. The 264 afy figure is calculated from the City's 1,321 af of banked water as of January 1, 2020 (AR 1787), which represents a figure five times the annual average of the City's SWP water demand over the previous five calendar years. (AR 1 943.) The 264 afy represents the City's average demand for SWP water between 2015-201 9. 2 in excess of amounts the District projected to be available. In 2021, without making many of the substantive changes the District requested, the City issued and certified the final EIR.
The District filed this action alleging that the City certified the EIR with insufficient analysis with respect to water supplies. The first, second, and third causes of action allege violations of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), the Water Code, and the Government Code, respectively. The fourth cause of action, which has been bifurcated, seeks declaratory relief based on an allegation that the City has had a pattern and practice of approving development projects without conducting sufficient water supply analysis in violation of CEQA.
DISCUSSION
l. The City's Request for Judicial Notice
The City requests judicial notice of three items. Exhibit A is an agreement between the City and the District regarding the preparation of the 2020 Regional Urban Water Management Plan ( .
. RUWMP"). It is offered to show that the 2020 RUWMP was not available at the time of the preparation of the EIR, and that the District is responsible for preparing it. The request as to Exhibit A is denied as irrelevant extra-record evidence. The responsibility for preparing the next iteration of the RUWMP and its availability at the time of the preparation of the EIR have no bearing on the sufficiency of the analysis in the EIR or the water supply assessment within.
Exhibit B is a staff report for the February 21, 2024 board meeting of the District, offered to show the amount of the City's banked SWP water in 2023. The request as to Exhibit Bis denied as irrelevant extra-record evidence.
Exhibit C consists of copies of water rights transfer agreements recorded in Kem County.
The request as to Exhibit C is also denied as irrelevant extra-record evidence. The relevant inquiry is not whether actual recorded agreements existed at the time of the preparation of the EIR, but whether the ElR disclosed and analyzed their effects.
II. CEQA Claims
A. CEQA and the Relevant Standards of Review
"CEQA is a comprehensive scheme designed to provide long-term protection to the environment." (Mountain Lion Foundation v. Fish & Game Com. (1997) 16 Cal.4th 105, 112.) CEQA generally requires an EIR whenever a public agency proposes to approve a project that may have a significant effect on the environment. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21151.) The EIR is the "primary means of achieving" the legislative objective behind CEQA, and '•is therefore 'the 3 heart of CEQA."' (Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 792.)
The purpose of the EIR is to "provide public agencies and the public in general with detailed information about the effect which a proposed project is likely to have on the environment; to list ways in which the significant effects of such a project might be minimized; and to indicate alternatives to such a project." (Pub. Resources Code,§ 21061.) To achieve this purpose, the EIR must include, in part, "a detailed statement setting forth .. . [a]ll significant effects on the environment of the proposed project." (Id., § 21100, subd. (b )( l ).) CEQA requires the lead agency to notify the public regarding the preparation of a draft EIR. (Id., § 21092.) The lead agency must then prepare a final EIR and certify it, addressing, in part, comments received on the draft EIR. (Guidelines, §§ 15090, 15132.)3 ·'It is not enough for the EIR simply to contain information submitted by the public and experts. Problems raised by the public and responsible experts require a good faith reasoned analysis in response." (Santa Clarita Organization for Planning the Environment v. County of Los Angeles (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 715, 723 ("SCOPE').) This requirement ensures that "stubborn problems or serious criticism are not 'swept under the rug."' (Ibid.) Before approving the project, the agency must find any significant environmental effects to be avoided or mitigated, or that the benefits of the project outweigh the unmitigated effects of the project. (Pub. Resources Code, §§ 21002.1, 21081.)
Judicial review of such agency action under CEQA is limited to "whether there was a prejudicial abuse of discretion." (Id., § 21168.5 .) "Abuse of discretion is established if the agency has not proceeded in a manner required by law or if the determination or decision is not supported by substantial evidence." (Ibid.) Whether the agency "has not proceeded in a manner required by law" is reviewed de novo. (Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v.
City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal.4th 412, 435 (" Vineyard').) In reviewing for substantial evidence, however, the agency's factual conclusions are given greater deference. (Ibid.) A court may not set aside an EIR '·on the ground that an opposite conclusion would have been equally or 3 Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations contain what are commonly called the CEQA Guidelines, and are cited and referred to simply as "Guidelines. For example, "Guidelines, § 15064.3" refers to Code of Regulations, title 14, section 15064.3. 4 more reasonable," because the court's task "is not to weigh conflicting evidence and determine who has the better argument." (Ibid.)
"When the informational requirements of CEQA are not complied with, an agency has failed to proceed in 'a manner required by law' and has therefore abused its discretion." (Save Our Peninsula Comm. v. Monterey Cnty. Bd. o/Supervisors (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 99, 118.) The EIR and its certification are "presumed legally adequate," and "[p]ersons challenging the EIR therefore bear the burden of proving it is legally inadequate and that the agency abused its discretion in certifying it." (Cherry Valley Pass Acres & Neighbors v. City of Beaumont (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 316, 327-328 ("Cherry Valley").)
B. Sufficiency of the Water Supply Analysis
The District's main contention is that the EIR contained an insufficient analysis of the water supply for the project. The Court agrees.
1. The Water Supply Analysis Required by CEQA
Provision of water to a project may implicate a significant effect on the environment. (See Vineyard, supra, 40 Cal.4th 412, 428.) Vineyard articulates a number of principles with respect how an EIR must address the supply of water to a project. "First, CEQA's informational purposes are not satisfied by an EIR that simply ignores or assumes a solution to the problem of supplying water to a proposed land use project. Decision makers must, under the law, be presented with sufficient facts to ·evaluate the pros and cons of supplying the amount of water that the [project] will need."' (Id. at pp. 430-431.) "Second, an adequate environmental impact analysis for a large project, to be built and occupied over a number of years, cannot be limited to the water supply for the first stage or the first few years." (Id. at p. 431.) "Third, the future water supplies identified and analyzed must bear a likelihood of actually proving available; speculative sources and unrealistic allocations (' paper water') are insufficient bases for decisionrnaking under CEQA." (Id. at p. 432.) "An EIR for a land use project must address the impacts of likely future water sources, and the EIR's discussion must include a reasoned analysis of the circwnstances affecting the likelihood of the water's availability. " (Ibid.) "Finally, where, despite a full discussion, it is impossible to confidently determine that anticipated future water sources will be available, CEQA requires some discussion of possible replacement sources or alternatives to use of the anticipated water, and of the environmental consequences of those contingencies .... The law's informational demands may not be met, in 5 this context, simply by providing that future development will not proceed if the anticipated water supply fails to materialize."' (Ibid
.) CEQA does not require, however, an EIR to
--demonstrate□ that the project is definitely assured water through signed, enforceable agreements with a provider and already built or approved treatment and delivery facilities." (Ibid.) either does CEQA "necessarily require that an E[R show that total water supply and demand are or will be in balance in an area[.]" (Id. at p. 446.) If water supply uncertainties exist, .. an EIR may satisfy CEQA by fully disclosing the uncertainty, and other possible outcomes, their impacts and appropriate mitigation measures." (ibid.)
2. The EIR's Water upply Analysis
With respect to supply, the EIR identifies the City's 1,897 afy of groundwater allocation established by the 1966 judgment as the City's primary source of water, and SWP water provided the District under the M&I Agreement as its secondary source to meet excess demand. (AR 1785-1787.) With respect to demand, the EIR estimates that once Sage Ranch is built and fully occupied, it will require 350 afy of water. (AR 1781.)4 The EIR recognizes that the City's 10-year average demand for water had been 2,017 afy as of 2019, suggesting that the City consistently has been and will be depending on WP water to meet demand beyond the City's groundwater allocation. (AR 1769.) The EIR al o describes the City's banked amount of water under the M&I Agreement-the most recent five-year average of the City's annual demand for SWP water-as a supply. (AR 1787.)
The EIR then presents a 20-year projection of water supply and demand in the City between 2020 and 2040 in a chart form, along with an explanation. (AR 1789-1792.) In Table 4-1, the EIR presents projected baseline conditions without the project, represented in columns A-Hon the chart. (AR 1792.) The EIR. assumes that population in the City, without the project, will grow annually by 2.3%, predicting the population of 9,272 in 2021 will grow to 14,283 in 2040. (ibid. [column BJ.) The EIR projects, based on the average amount of water used per capita, a corresponding total demand for water in the City will increase from 2,244.5 afy in 2021 4 The EIR replicates essentially the same water supply analysis in three different sections: (1) section 3.10 entitled, "Hydrology and Water Quality," starting at AR 1675; (2) section 3.19 entitled, "Utilities," starting at AR 1709; and (3) the Water Supply Assessment (''WSA"') required by Water Code section 10910, starting at AR 1766. The Court's citations are to the relevant portions of the W A because its analysis appears to be the most thorough. 6 to 3,457.5 afy in 2040. (Ibid. [column F].) The EIR assumes that the City's groundwater supply of 1,897 afy would remain the same through 2040. (Ibid. [column G].) The EIR assumes that all of the difference between the City's annually-increasing total demand and the City's unchanging groundwater allocation of 1,897 afy would be covered by SWP water purchased from the District under the M&I Agreement. (AR 1790 ["Column His the difference of Column F minus Column G"J, 1792.) For example, the EIR concludes that in 2040, the City's total demand of 3,457.5 afy would be met with the City's allocation of 1,897 afy of groundwater plus 1,560.5 afy of SWP water from the District. (AR 1792 [ column HJ.) The amount of SWP water that the EIR projects the City will receive beginning in 2035 through 2040 is notable because it exceeds the 1,153 afy cap under the M&I Agreement.5 (AR 1792.) The EIR does not explain how or why it believes the City will receive volumes of SWP water in excess of its contractual limit.
The EIR projects an annual population growth of 2.3% without the project, and the same
2.3% population growth with the project. The EIR provides no reasoned or clear explanation for treating the project as not adding to what the City's projected population growth would be without The project. The EIR then confusingly states that although there will be "a population increase of 2,630 people resulting from the Sage Ranch Project," which corresponds to 350 afy of demand, the "increase in water associated with the Sage Ranch Project over the baseline" will only be 93 afy because there will be "other development occurring in the City[.]" (AR 1790-91, 1792 [Column NJ.) The EIR does not explain or attempt to justify its failure to analyze Sage Ranch's actual annual water demand of 350 afy. Neither does it explain bow it arrived at the reduced amount of 93 afy, or why that figure is reasonable.
The EIR then states that Greenbriar will be required as a condition of approval to provide 93 afy to the City, and that Greenbriar has already identified a source for the 93 afy. (AR 1793.) The EIR further states any demand in excess of the 93 afy provided by Greenbriar will be mitigated by fees per house, which can be used to purchase additional groundwater rights or additional SWP water from the District. (Ibid.)
5 The EIR projects that the City will receive amounts of SWP water at least double that of its current 5-year average beginning in 2025, and greater than the 1,153 afy cap under the M&I Agreement beginning in 2035.
7 The EIR concludes that with these mitigation measures, ·'the City would have adequate water supplies to serve the proposed Project," and that the City's «water system has sufficient capacity to supply the Sage Ranch Development Project and other projected demands within the City's service area through the year 2040." (AR 1825.)
3. The EIR Did �ot Meaningfully Analyze the District's Available WP Water.
Several significant flaws are readily apparent in the EIR's evaluation of available water supply. First, as already pointed out, the EIR-without explanation-seems to artificially reduce the project's annual water demand from 350 afy to 93 afy. Given that the project will demand 350 afy, it would seem that the City's water need with the project would be 350 afy more than without the project. But the EIR fails to evaluate or attempt to solve for the project's actual annual water demand of 350 afy. The EIR does not explain bow it an·ived at 93 afy for the project. Regardless, the EIR's failure to evaluate the project's actual water demand is a fundamental flaw in its water supply analysis.
The EIR also appears to simply assume that the City's increasing demand for water, including the water required by the project, will be met by SWP water provided by the District under the M&I Agreement. The EIR declares that the City's increased water demand in any given year is based on reasonable population growth, and the District '·bas agreed to provide [SWP] water to the City ... in perpetuity." (AR 1788.) But the M&J Agreement does not provide nearly the level of certainty that the City claims.
Under the M&I Agreement, the City may purchase SWP water from the District to meet its needs beyond its groundwater allocation, but the District '·shall have no obligation to sell [to the City] more than 1.153 acre feet per year." (AR 1942, fl B.l.) "The District's obligation to supply water" is further "conditioned upon the availability of sufficient SWP water ... to enable the District to meet all of its Customers' water demands." (AR 1946,,; 10.) In times of shortage, allocations are to be made pursuant to the District" s rules and regulations. (Ibid.) Also, the M&I Agreement ends on December 31, 2026, subject to possible annual extensions unless a 90-day notice of termination is given by either party. (AR 1946, 11.) The M&l Agreement also --shall terminate upon tennination of [the District's contract with Kem County Water Agency] (December 31, 2039) unless and to the extent the terms of such agreements are extended.•· (Ibid.)
8 The M&I Agreement hardly establishes that the District has "agreed to provide Stare Water Project water to the City of Tehachapi in perpetuity," and certainly not in amounts over I, 153 afy, which is the express upper limit on the District's obligation to sell to the City. The EIR offers no basis or explanation for how or why it expects that the City will receive SWP water in excess of this cap, such as the projected amount of 1,560.5 afy in 2040. (AR 1792 [column H].)
The EIR also fails to meaningfully discuss whether there will be enough SWP water for the City. During the CEQA process, the District expressed its concern that it has received substantially lower amounts of SWP water in the recent years and that it anticipates not being able to meet the projected demands of the City and other customers of the District. (AR 1658- 1661.) In response, the City claimed that SWP water will be available because it "consistently has been available in varying amounts depending on environmental conditions (lower for dry years, higher for wet years)." (AR 1668.) But this conclusory statement is not supported by any facts or analysis regarding historical or future availability of SWP water. (See ibid.) Also, the fact that in recent years, the City has received an average of only 264 afy of SWP water should have prompted a practical assessment of whether amounts closer to the contractual cap of l, 153 afy would realistically even be available.
In its response to the District's comment during the CEQA process about the insufficiency of the WP water supply, the City estimated that the total increase in demand for water over 20 years from the City and the District's other customers would amount to 1,894.5 afy. (AR 3309.) The City reasoned that because the 1,894.5 afy increase is small in comparison to the 6,407.6 afy of SWP water that the District receives annually,6 water will be available to the City. (AR 3309.) But this comparison is not useful because it does not consider the current annual demand for the District's SWP water. If, for example, the average annual demand for SWP water already outstrips the average annual supply, then any further increase in demand could be a significant detriment to the availability of water for the City and other water users relying on the District.
6 The District had asserted in its comment that in the recent 10 years, it had only been able to obtain 33.2% of its contractual entitlement of 19,300 afy. (AR 3306, 14176.) The 6,407.6 afy figure represents 33.2% of 19,300 afy.
9 The City attempts to show that the EJR's water supply analysis is sufficient because it contains a few reasonable components. But these components do not make up for the inadequacy of the EIR's overall water supply analy is. For example, even if the EIR's projected
2.3% population growth and the corresponding projected demand for water are reasonable, the ElR's assessment of whether there will be sufficient supply to meet that demand is lacking.
Similarly, the City's priority as a municipal customer is not meaningful without a discussion regarding actual supplies of water, as well as competing customers who also have priority. And the EIR's discussion of the City's banked water is not useful without any information regarding how it can be used to meet future demand.
The amounts of SWP water that the EIR relies upon appear to be nothing more than what courts have called "paper water." In SCOPE, supra, I 06 Cal.App.4th at pp. 723-724 and California Oak Found v. City of Santa Clarita (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 1219, 1242, the EIRs in were insufficient because they relied heavily on entitlements to water from the SWP, but failed to provide any information regarding the amount of water that could be actually delivered. The entitlements on which the EIRs relied were mere "paper water" that were meaningless for purposes of CEQA. (SCOPE, supra, at pp. 721, 724; California Oak Found., supra, at p. 1241.) Similarly, in Preserve Wild Santee v. City of Santee (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 260, 285-286, the EIR was insufficient, in part, because it failed to discuss the supplying water district's concern that it could not "predict whether any mandatory cut backs will result from the court's ruling or what the impacts of those cut backs would be" with respect to water expected to be transferred from the SWP.
Overall, the EIR's determination that there will be an adequate WP water supply for Sage Ranch is undermined by readily apparent circumstances, including: (I) the ElR seems to artificially reduce the project's annual water demand from 350 afy to 93 afy; (2) EIR as umes without explanation that from 2035 through 2040, the City will receive water amounts that exceed the cap under the M&I Agreement; (3) given that the City has never received anything close to the projected annual SWP water needs, the EIR fails to assess whether amounts close to the contractual cap of 1,153 afy would reali tically be available if needed; (4) the ElR fails to address the fact that the M&J Agreement will expire in a couple years; and (5) the EIR fails to engage in a meaningful assessment of the constraints and competing demands for the District's S WP water that work to limit amount of SWP water available to the City. Rather than attempt to 10 explain why these circumstances do not present actual water supply problems, the EIR either ignores them or deals with them in a cursory manner. That type of approach does not satisfy CEQA as explained in Vineyard.
4. The EIR Did Not Meaningfully Analyze the Potential Groundwater Supply.
The EIR also fails to adequately assess the availability and reliability of both the 93 afy of groundwater that Greenbriar purports to be able to provide, and the additional groundwater beyond the 93 afy that could potentially be purchased from per-house water fees.7 As a mitigation measure and a condition of approval of building permits, Greenbriar ··shall procure 93 acre-feet of pumpable water rights" before issuance of any building permits, and '"[e]ach housing unit not covered by the 93 acre-feet of water ... shall pay fees ... with the funds being used [to]," '·[p]urchase water rights" or ·'[i]mport a 20-year supply of water through [the District] for each dwelling unit." (AR 1761.) The record contains a copy of an agreement between Jeff Ciachurski and H-Star Investments, LLC for the purchase of groundwater rights in five installments. (AR 3271-3292.) There is also a one-page letter from Jeffrey Ciachurski to the City stating that the letter should be treated as a "binding and formal agreement ... to hereby provide 262.5 AF (175 AF of actual pumping rights) to the City of Tehachapi[.]" (AR 3294.) The extent of the EIR's analysis regarding the 93 afy of additional groundwater is as follows: "[Greenbriar] will be required, as a mitigation measure, to secure/purchase an additional 93 acre-feet of water rights to serve the Project. [Greenbriar] has identified sufficient/ available water rights for purchase to accommodate the additional 93 acre-feet." (AR 1793.) There is no analysis regarding the actual source of the 93 afy or whether it will be reliably available year after year. (See AR 1761-1762, 1793.) Relevant inquires could include how is the water currently being used; the nature of the contract between Greenbriar and H-Star Investments, LLC; whether the installment purchases are already complete; and the extent to which Greenbriar is obligated to provide water to the City. Also, the EIR contemplates purchasing water needed beyond the 93 afy, but omits basic information such as whether any water would be available for purchase. (See ibid.)
Case law makes clear that the ElR should have discussed the circumstances surrounding these sources rather than conclude without analysis that they will be available. 1n Napa Citizens 7 Again, the EIR's reliance on 93 afy as the figure represen6ng the impact of the project is unsupported. The actual projected water demand for the project is 350 afy. 11 for Honest Government v. Napa County Bd. of Supervisors (200 I) 91 Cal .App.4th 342, 3 72, for example, the EIR projected that by 2015, the city's current water supply would be insufficient to meet the project's water demands. Despite the projected water-shortage, the EIR concluded the project would have enough water based on a potential agreement between the city and another water supplier, but did not identify or evaluate other potential water sources if the agreement failed to materialize. (Ibid.) The court held that while the EIR did not need to •'identify and analyze all possible resources" of water, given the ·'uncertainty surrounding the anticipated sources for water." it could not "simply label the possibility [of the projected shortage] as 'speculative,' and decline to address it." (Id. at p. 373; see also Madera Oversight Coalition (2011) 199 Cal .App.4th 48, I 04-105 [EIR failed to disclose objection from water supplier that the proposed use violates contract].)
The fact that the provision of 93 afy from Greenbriar was imposed as a condition of approval of building permit does not make up for the critical inadequacies in the EIR's water supply analysis. As stated above, "[t]he law's informational demands may not be met, in this context. simply by providing that future development will not proceed if the anticipated water supply fails to materialize." (Vineyard, supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 432.) Without meaningful analysis, the availability of these additional sources of water discussed in the EIR amount to nothing more than '·paper water" unsupported by substantial evidence.
5. The EIR Failed to Analyze impacts on Other Water Users.
With respect to the District's concern about its ability to meet the demands of its other customers, the ElR simply points to the City's status as a priority customer, and casts the issue as the District's problem rather than the City's. (AR 3310.) It is true that ·'CEQA does not necessarily require that an ElR show that the water supply and demand ... will be in balance in an area." (Vineyard, supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 446.) But it still needs to address "reasonably foreseeable impacts of supplying water to the project.'' (Cherry Valley, supra, 190 Cal.App.4th at p. 346.) In Cherry Valley, the EIR sufficiently concluded that the water demanded by the project would cause no significant impact because the project only needed 531 afy from a 1,484 afy entitlement dedicated to the project. and the 531 afy demand was less than the amount historically used on the same land. (Ibid.)
The City's EIR, on the other hand, has no such factual support, and is more akin to the deficient EIR in Santiago County Water Dist. v. County of Orange ( 1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 818. 12 In Santiago, an ElR for a mining project requiring 12,000 to 15,000 gailons per day was deficient "with regard to the quantity of water needed" where it provided a bare conclusion, without analysis, that the supplying water district "ha[d] indicated their ability to supply the water." (Id. at pp. 830-831.) The EIR was also deficient for remaining "silent about the effect ... on water service elsewhere in the Water District's jurisdiction." (Id. at p. 831.) The EIR's bare conclusion of "[i]ncreased demand upon water available from the Santiago County Water District" was insufficient without ''information about how adverse the adverse impact will be." (Ibid.) Similarly, the cursory manner in which the City's EIR addresses the project's impacts on the District's other customers is inadequate.
C. Sufficiency of the Discussion of Mitigation and Alternatives When a project will result in a significant effect on the environment, the agency is prohibited from approving the project .. unless it makes specific findings about alternatives and mitigation measures." ( California Clean Energy Committee v. City of Woodland (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 173, 203.) "Under CEQA, the public agency bears the burden of affirmatively demonstrating that, notwithstanding a project's impact on the environment, the agency's approval of the proposed project followed meaningful consideration of alternatives and mitigation measures." (Ibid.) "In evaluating the adequacy of an EIR's discussion of mitigation measures and alternatives, the key issue is whether the discussion fosters informed decision.making and informed public participation." (Cherry Valley. supra, 190 Cal.App.4th at p. 348.)
Mitigation measures are to be ·'fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures." (Pub. Resources Code,§ 21081.6, subd. (b).) Mitigation measures must be specific, and an agency may not defer the formulation of a more specific measure for the future. (See California Clean Energy Committee, supra, 225 Cal.App.4th at p. 203.) A mitigation measure to recharge groundwater through the purchase of water lacked meaningful evaluation where the EIR failed to "evaluate whether the agreement was feasible and to what extent water would be available for purchase[.]" (Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 728.)
"[A]n EIR is not required to address every · imaginable' project alLernative," but only a "reasonable range of alternatives that could feasibly reduce a project's significant environmental impacts." (Cherry Valley, supra, 190 Cal.App.4th at p. 354 [EIR not deficient for failing to 13 address a ·'290 residential unit alternative or any of the 328 imaginable alternatives involving the construction of anywhere between 232 and 559 residences").) "Generally, an agency's selections of alternatives will be upheld as long as there is a reasonable basis for the choices it has made." (City of Maywood v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist. (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 362, 416.)
The EIR's mitigation measure HYD-3 states that Greenbriar ·'shall procure 93 acre-feet of pumpable water rights" before issuance of any building permits, and "[ e Jach housing unit not covered by the 93 acre-feet of water ... shall pay fees ... with the funds being used [to]," ·'[p]urchase water rights" or ·•[i]mport a 20-year supply of water through [the District) for each dwelling unit." (AR 1761.) As discussed above. the EIR lacks any analysis regarding the actual source, availability, and impact of the 93 afy from Greenbriar as well as any additional water to be purchased with the imposition of per-hou e water fees. The mitigation measure lacks meaningful analysis to allow informed decisionmaking and public participation.
The E1R's discussion of alternatives was also lacking. The ElR considered three alternatives: o Project, Alternative Location, and Reduced (50%) Project. (AR 652.) The EIR rejected the 50%-reduction alternative on the following basis:
However, in this instance, one of the Project objectives to is provide an economically viable residential project that provides a variety of housing options within the City's growing population base. A reduced project size is likely to make the project infeasible because it would not meet the City's goal of having diverse housing. A lower density project would likely result in a single-family neighborhood, which does not provide a variety of housing types and would not be consistent with the City's General Plan which expressly requires projects of this size to contain a diversity of housing types.
(AR 656.) This analysis does not constitute a meaningful consideration. The EIR concludes that a smaller project would result in less diverse housing types, but does not explain why. The project already has a detailed land use plan consisting of various types of single-family and multi-family homes. (AR 405.) There is no apparent reason why a smaller project cannot maintain the same diversity of housing types. There is also no apparent reason why a smal !er project has to be less dense. A project could maintain the same density by using a smaller area.
0. Whether the City' Responses to Comments Were ufficient CEQA requires that in preparing the final EIR, lead agency "must describe the disposition of each of the significant environmental issues raised and must particularly set forth 14 in detail the reasons why the particular comments and objections were rejected[.]" (People v.
County of Kern (1974) 39 Cal.App.3d 830, 841.) "Problems raised by the public and responsible experts require a good faith reasoned analysis in response." (SCOPE, supra, 106 Cal.App.4th at p. 723.) The City's EIR responded directly to the District's comments. (AR 1658-1673.) But the City's response consisted of the unsupported and conclusory statements regarding the availability of water, as discussed above. The City's cursory treatment of the District's comments did not constitute a "good faith reasoned analysis" required by CEQA.
E. Whether the City was Required to Hold a Scoping Meeting The District alleges the City violated the requirement to hold a scoping meeting. For projects of significance. a lead agency '"shall conduct at least one scoping meeting," "to assist the lead agency in detennining the scope and content of the environmental information that the [lead agency] may require." (Guidelines,§ 15082, subds. (c), (c)(l).) The parties dispute whether the District administratively exhausted this claim, and whether the violation was prejudicial. But they do not dispute that Sage Ranch is a project of significance, that the City was required to hold a scoping meeting, and that it failed to hold one. The Court finds that the City violated Guidelines section 15082. As the Court is granting this petition on substantive grounds, to the extent the City reopens the CEQA process to remedy the inadequacies in the ElR discussed in this order, the City should also hold a scoping meeting.
F. Whether the Project Description Was Sufficient
The District contends that the EIR's water supply analysis amounted to an inadequate project description as required by Guidelines section 15124, subdivision ( c ). The project description within an ElR must include "[a] general description of the project's technical, economic, and environmental characteristics, considering the principal engineering proposals if any and supporting public service facilities." (Guidelines,§ 15124, subd. (c).) The project description, however, "should not supply extensive detail beyond that needed for evaluation and review of the environmental impact." (Id.,§ 15124.)
The Court does not find the project description to be inadequate. The project description explains the location and the types of housing to be built in 12 pages in Chapter 2. (AR 400- 411.) The District, however, is complaining about the substantive discussions of water supplies in other parts of the EIR rather than those 12 pages. (See Opening Brief, p. 25:22.) The project description itself does not make any representations regarding water supply, and is not unstable 15 or misleading. (See San Joaquin Raptor Rescue Center v. County of Merced (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 645, 655 [project description found "unstable and misleading" where it inaccurately summarized the scope and effect of the project].)
III. Claims Under the Water Code
A. Consultation Requirement
At the outset of CEQA review, a city "shall identify ... a public water system ... that may supply water for the project. (Wat. Code,§ 10910, subd. (b).) If the city "is not able to identify any public water system that may supply water for the project, the city or county shall prepare the water assessment. .. after consulting with any entity serving domestic water supplies whose service area includes the project site, the local agency formation commission, and any public water system adjacent to the project site." (Ibid. [ emphasis added].) This consultation requirement is inapplicable because the City itself is a "public water system" that would supply water for the project within the meaning of section 10910. (See AR 5451; Wat. Code, § l 0912, subd. (c).) The Court does not find any violation based on a failure to consult. However, given that the City relies on imported SWP water from the District, substantive engagement with the District would have been prudent and may have improved the quality of the EIR's water supply analysis.
B. Incorporation of the 2015 RUWMP
A city, at the outset of a CEQA process, must prepare a water supply assessment and include it in the EIR for the project. (Wat. Code,§§ 10910, subds. (a)-(b), 10911, subd. (b).) The assessment "shall include a discussion with regard to whether the total projected water supplies, determined to be available by the city or county for the project during normal, single dry, and multiple dry water years during a 20-year projection, will meet the projected water demand associated with the proposed project, in addition to existing and planned future uses, including agricultural and manufacturing uses." (Id.,§ 10910, subd. (c)(4); see also subd. (c)(3) [imposing the same requirement for "public water systems" rather than cities and counties).) The assessment must identify information such as existing water rights and quantities available, as well as specific information regarding the procurement of any additional water supplies that will be necessary. (Id. § 10910, subds. (d), (e), (f), 10911, subd. (a).) "If the projected water demand associated with the proposed project was accounted for in the most recently adopted urban water management plan, the public water system may 16 incorporate the requested information from the urban water management plan in preparing the ... assessment[.]" (Id., subd. (c)(2).)
The District contends that the City violated section 10910, subdivision (c)(2) by incorporating the 2015 Regional Urban Water Management Plan prepared by the District, even though the 2015 RUWMP did not account for water demand associated with Sage Ranch. The City contends that its water supply assessment did not rely on the 2015 RUWMP because the 2015 RUWMP used a 1.1 % population growth rate, but the water supply assessment used a 2.3% population growth rate. 8
The Court agrees with the District. Despite the City's contention, the water supply assessment included pages "extracted directly from the adopted 2015 RUWMP ... in satisfaction of Water Code Sections 10910(A)(l) and 10910(0)(2)." (AR 1800.) The assessment also adopted key information, such as projected water supplies available to the City, directly from the 2015 RUWMP. (See AR 1785, 5465.) The 2015 RUWMP did not account for the demand associated with Sage Ranch, so the incorporation of the 2015 RUWMP in the water supply assessment violates Water Code section 10910, subdivision (c)(2).
IV. Claim Under Government Code Section 66473.7
The approval of a subdivision map must be accompanied by a "written verification from the applicable public water system" that "a sufficient water supply shall be available." (Gov.
Code,§ 66473.7, subd. (b)(l).) When a verification relies on·water supplies that are currently unavailable, the verification must be based on "firm indications the water will be available in the future, including written contracts for water rights, approved financing programs for delivery facilities, and the regulatory approvals required to construct infrastructure and deliver the water." (Vineyard, supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 433; Gov. Code,§ 66473.7, subd. (d).) The verification "shall be supported by substantial evidence." (Id., subd. ( c ). ) The City contends that it sufficiently provided a verification when it found by a resolution "that [Greenbriar] has demonstrated a sufficient water supply will be available to serve the subdivision, in accordance with [section] 66473.7." (AR 20.) The District argues that 8 The EIRjustified its reliance on the 2015 RUWMP solely on the basis that the project area is within the District's service area shown on the 2015 RUWMP. This is an untenable position because the relevant test is not whether the project area was included in the RUWMP, but whether the project demand was accounted for in the RUWMP. The City appears to have abandoned this justification because it does not appear in the City's opposition brief. 17 the resolution does not amount to the requisite verification and that without a more detailed analysis of water supplies, the City cannot provide the water supply verification.
The Court agrees with the City that the resolution amounts to a verification under section 66473.7, but finds that the verification is not supported by substantial evidence. As discussed above, the EIR made conclusions regarding the availability of water based on an inadequate analysis.
CONCLUSION
For these reasons, the petition is granted with respect to the fust, second, and third causes of action. The Court, however, is unable to issue the judgment or peremptory writ until the fourth cause of action is resolved. Upon resolution of the remaining fourth cause of action, a judgment shall be issued in favor of the District, and against the City, and a peremptory writ shall issue commanding the City to take action specially enjoined by law in accordance with the Court's ruling, but nothing in the writ shall limit or control in any way the discretion legally vested in the City. The City shall make and file a return within 60 days after issuance of the writ, setting forth what has been done to comply therewith.
The peremptory writ, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21168.9, shall command the City to void the certification of the EIR and any project approvals resulting from the certification of the EIR. Specifically, the following portions of the EIR, to the extent inconsistent with this ruling, shall be voided:
(1) Chapter 2, Response to Comment Letter 4 (AR 1661-1673); (2) Section 3 .10 Hydrology and Water Quality (AR 1675-1708); (3) Section 3. 19 Utilities (AR 1709-1748);
(4) Chapter 4, Mitigation Measure HYD-3 (AR 1761);
(5) Section 5.3, "Reduced (50%) Project" Alternative (AR 655-656); (6) Section 5.4, "Summary of Potential Tm pacts of Alternatives" (AR 657-658); (7) SB 610 Water Supply Assessment (AR 1766-1825);
(8) Any other unidentified portions of the EIR inconsistent with this ruling.
Also, the peremptory writ shall command the City, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1085, to set aside Resolution No. 42-21 with respect to the verification of a sufficient water supply under Government Code section 66473.7 and any resulting project approvals. (AR 20-21.)
18 The Court will likely refer this matter to be reassigned so that the fourth cause of action can be handled through the Court's regular civil process unless counsel for the District notifies the Court within 14 days that it is dismissing its fourth cause of action or that the cause of action has been otherw
ise resolved. Counsel/or the District is directed, upon resolution of the remaining fourth cause of action, to prepare the judgment and the peremptory writ, submit them to counsel for approval as to form, and then submit them to the Courl for signature, in accordance with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312. * * *
This minute order is effective immediately. �o formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc.,§ 1019.5; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1312.) 19 EXHIBIT C
,,,_�
�OwTe�athaP-I
P"4t Pla.vw,g,O,v F«llveTEHACHAPI 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
CITY4COA 13813
Tentative Tract Map No. 6507
August 15, 2005