Water district asks court to split lawsuit against city into two parts

Specifically, the district asked the court to bifurcate the fourth cause of action in its Sept. 21, 2021, lawsuit against the city. The litigation was filed after the city approved the 995-unit project proposed for 138 acres of vacant land near Tehachapi High School.

The district claimed that the city violated multiple state laws in its approval of the planned development. And it asked the court to set aside the city’s approval of Sage Ranch — and possibly some other subdivisions totaling an additional 450 units dating back as far as 2006.

“The district’s accusations are both unfortunate and unfounded,” a spokesperson for the city said soon after the case was filed, but made no other comment at the time.

The lawsuit was originally filed in Kern County but was transferred to Sacramento County nearly a year ago at the request of the city. There has been no action on the matter since its transfer except for a change of judge and extensions of time to provide records.

Nor has the pending litigation kept the city from moving the Sage Ranch project forward.

Last October, when the Planning Commission approved an extension of time for the developer to submit a Precise Development Plan, city Developmental Services Director Jay Schlosser told the commission that the project wasn’t impacted by the litigation.

“Our legal team tells me that state law is very clear that a project may advance until the court says otherwise,” he said. “And the court hasn’t even reviewed (the) documents yet.”

The developer submitted the PDP in December and in a corporate update by Greenbriar Capital Corp. published Feb. 13, CEO Jeff Ciachurski said the company would file revisions by the end of February 2023 and was “targeting soon thereafter to pull the first of the construction permits.”

City support

“The bifurcation motion is asking the court to put off for another day, the fourth cause of action in the district‘s lawsuit,” the city’s statement said. “That cause of action attempts to challenge past developments and future developments. We have always believed that the fourth cause of action was not appropriate as part of the current lawsuit against the Sage development, and we are pleased that the district apparently reached the same conclusion. We also believe that the fourth cause of action has no merit, and we remain hopeful that the district will eventually reach that conclusion as well.”

In addition to the city of Tehachapi, the petition lists Does 1 through 20 as respondents and identifies Ciachurski, Does 21 through 40, and three companies associated with the Sage Ranch development as “Real Parties in Interest.”

Ciachurski did not respond to a request for comment on the district’s request for bifurcation.

Discovery delays?

Attorney Daniel A. King of the Pioneer Law Group that is representing the district also raised a concern about discovery in the case and said in a declaration to the court that the city delayed discovery.

In connection with the dispute between the city and the district concerning appropriate analysis of the actual long-term supply of wet water to supply the Sage Ranch connections, King said, the city didn’t provide complete response. He added that discovery is still ongoing.

The city said it has fully complied with all discovery requests.

District’s request

The district outlined four causes of action in its lawsuit. The first claims violations of CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) in the city’s approval of the Sage Ranch project. The second alleges violations of state Water Code in the Water Supply Assessment for the project. The third alleges Government Code violations in approving the subdivision. And the fourth contends that the city had a “pattern and practice” of CEQA violations going back as far as 2006.

It is that fourth cause of action — the alleged history of CEQA violations — that the district is asking the court to separate from the first three.

“The district believes that bifurcating the trial on the CEQA challenges from the pattern and practice claim will promote judicial efficiencies and conserve public resources,” the district said in its filing. “The challenge to the Sage Ranch project will be heard on the administrative record for the Sage Ranch project alone. The pattern and practice claim will, instead, be decided by the court after taking evidence.

“Trial of the counts challenging the Sage Ranch project on the record first will serve the interests of efficiency and economy in this case. Specifically, if the district prevails on the Sage Ranch project claims that the city’s approach to water supply analysis does not comply with the Water Code, Government Code and CEQA, the court’s findings would enlighten the pattern and practice claim and likely lead to resolution without the need for trial on that count.”

If the city prevails on the challenge to Sage Ranch, the district said in its filing, “then the court, the parties and with them the taxpayers will likely be spared the costs, delays and expenses of trial on the pattern and practice claim.”

In the Sage Ranch matter, the district seeks a writ of mandate directing the city to set aside approval of the project.

According to the district, the project would expand the city’s water connections from 3,000 to 4,000. In its lawsuit it stated that the city’s water supply assessment and CEQA review for the Sage Ranch project “did little, if anything, to analyze just where the wet water for these 995 new connections and related infrastructure would come from.”

What’s next?

A tentative ruling on the request is expected by 2 p.m. March 23. Whether a hearing will be held on March 24 depends upon the ruling and whether a hearing is requested and parties notified by 4 p.m. March 23.

Claudia Elliott is a freelance journalist and former editor of the Tehachapi News. She lives in Tehachapi and can be reached by email: claudia@claudiaelliott.net.