Water district lawsuit against city moved to Sacramento,

❚❚The lawsuit challenged city approval of Sage Ranch and other residential developments, claiming that the city violated multiple state laws in its approval of the planned development.

For reasons not made public, the city of Tehachapi requested a change in venue for a lawsuit filed last September by the Tehachapi-Cummings County Water District.

The lawsuit challenged city approval of Sage Ranch and other residential developments, claiming that the city violated multiple state laws in its approval of the planned development.

“The district’s accusations are both unfortunate and unfounded,” a spokesperson for the city said at the time.

And the city had no additional comment about the change of venue to Sacramento County Superior Court except to say it was “mutually agreed” to move the case there.

According to an order approved by Kern County Superior Court on April 6, a section of the civil procedure code “establishes a mandatory right to transfer to a neutral county” when the action is brought against a local agency in a county where the petitioner is situated.

The court filing indicates that “Tehachapi has requested that TCCWD stipulate to a transfer of venue” and General Manager Tom Neisler of the water district confirmed that the city initiated the transfer request.

“The city requested change of venue to L.A. County,” Neisler said in an email on May 2. “We objected and suggested other venues north of Kern. Both parties stipulated to Sacramento (County).”

Neisler said he doesn’t know why the city requested the change of venue — or whether the transfer will delay the case.

“I was told they have the right to have the venue changed if requested,” he said. “We have received no formal paperwork yet on change of venue. I asked about delay and was told the change of venue should not impact the timeline.”

A city spokesperson also said the city had not yet received a new case number from the Sacramento court and an online search of civil cases filed with the court as of May 2 did not show the case.

RECORD REVIEW

As explained by Neisler last September, the process for resolving the complaint — which largely addresses issues covered by the California Environmental

Quality Act — is different from typical civil trials and will depend upon a review of the law and the administrative record — documents submitted by the parties.

“Once the judge is assigned, the first step will be to prepare the administrative record of the case. That could happen quickly or take considerable time depending on how responsive each of the parties are in providing information.”

In Kern County the case was assigned to Judge Kenneth C. Twisselman II who previously presided over two Tehachapi area CEQA cases filed in 2011 — Tehachapi First versus the city’s approval of an EIR for Walmart and a suit brought against the Board of Directors of the Tehachapi Valley Healthcare District by the Tehachapi Critical Landuse Issues Group, also claiming CEQA violations in preparation of an EIR.

Last October, Twisselman ordered a mandatory settlement conference which Neisler said was a formality required by statute and apparently yielded no results. And he has extended the deadline for certification of the administrative record four times. The most recent 60-day extension was to May 16.

THE CASE

In a nutshell, the city approved residential projects that could add 1,400 or more housing units over the next seven years — and the water district contends that the city violated CEQA and doesn’t have sufficient water to serve such development. The city disagrees.

According to the court website, the city is represented by Joseph D. Hughes, a water specialist with the Bakersfield firm Klein DeNatale Goldner and Ginetta L. Giovinco, a CEQA specialist with the Los Angeles firm Richards Watson Gershon. Representing the water district is Andrea A. Matarazzo of Sacramento’s Pioneer Law Group.

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