RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Tehachapi House Element Plans"That is simply dishonest"?
From the article:
-2006-2013 the City was mandated
by State to provide residential unit development opportuities for 454 homes.
-2015-2023 the City was mandated
by State to provide residential unit development opportuities for 489 homes.
The City provided developers the opportunity to build 943 homes within those 17 years. According to Jay Schlosser Tehachapi's Development Services Director from 2010- 2023 there were only about 50 homes built. As of the beginning of this year there were actually over 1200 available building units in the Tehachapi area available. The Water District issue was that if all those lots (+ 995 more lots from Sage Ranch) were actually all built the Water District doesn't have enough water to supply all those connections. This also does not include other potential developments like the now mothballed "The Address" and others.
The Water District's mandate is to try and supply enough water resources for everybody today and moving forward in the future.
Jeff Ciachurski, Paul Morris and Ronnie Strasser realized this very issue, have gone out and purchased enough water rights to (in their opinion) have Sage Ranch progress without any water issues. The problem lies in that legal dispute is between the City and the Water District. Sage Ranch is merely caught in the middle, it is why Greenbriar has their lawyers involved and why the EIR for Sage Ranch is being contested. They have not been able to come to a resolution, therefore it is now in front of the courts and it is up to the court to decide the issues between the City and the Water District.
In the mean time the article points out the fact the fact that the State is telling the City they need to plan for 902 residential units over the next 7-8 years.
The Water District has taken it all the way to court that they can't supply the City's M&I needs
now if Sage Ranch and all the other available connections were actually built.. How can they possibly supply even more over the next 7-8 years?
The easy solution would that the just bring in more water, right. Well, they can't. Read this Report below and you will see how much it costs to import State water from Lake Orrville 400miles away, then pump it 3500 feet up and over a mountain, store the water and then pump it when needed. The Water District just closed a bond for
$18M to replace their pumps for moving the water up the mountain. Read the report as to what the District has, needs, obstacles they have in order to try and provide more water.
https://www.tccwd.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/TCCWD-SP-Final-Pages2-Final-R01-MM-200629-wAPPENDICES-1.pdf That is an amazing amount of money and effort to supply the Valley with water.
One thing the City is proposing is to have all the tertiary (clean but not drinkable) water that has been removed from the waste water treatment and pump that water down into the acquifer for future use.
Great idea and absolutely they should move ahead with this proposal.
Problem is, the progam will cost over $17M to get the water to an acceptable level for injecting back into the acquifer.
So, the "dishonesty" that you are referring to is that the City is providing the residential lot requirements mandated by the State and is being told to double that from current levels over the next 7-8 years.
With Sage Ranch there will now be in the range of (2400 or so) available residential units and 902 additional ones the City is being told to make available.
The City does not build these residential units.
The State is saying " We need you to build more homes". City make it so.
The developers entitle the lots and make them available to build on.
The builders are not building the homes. Which can only be accounted for in two ways. One there is not a need (sales) or to do so is uneconomical for them to build.
Then there is the Water District who is basically saying, "I don't care if you build them, we can't supply them with water" and to supply them with water is currently cost and supply prohibitive.
Again, Jeff is hoping they have done the right thing with purchasing these water rights (which shareholders are paying a lot of money for compared to what the City pays for water rights) but we don't know how this plays out till the "courts" decide.
In my opinion if they have the rights they should be able to move ahead.
That my friend is not "dishonesty", that is absolute "reality" as to the conundrum
the State is placing the City and Water District in.
That is exactly how that article ties several issues together and is extremely relevant.