Will 2400 acres in Morro Bay be used to create housing—or become a park, If a park, this will make it more difficult for San Luis Obispo County to meet the outrageous mandate of Sacramento to provide more homes. Either way, the developer owns the land—but a judge will decide how or if they can use it. Private property? Not in California.
“Federman sided with PG&E in the court case and tentatively decided HomeFed’s lease on the Wild Cherry Canyon lands expired in 2019. That’s because she found the Wild Cherry Canyon land was leased to HomeFed in 1968 primarily for agricultural purposes, so it was limited to a 51-year term instead of the two 99-year terms HomeFed argued for during the case. Therefore, control of the 2,400 acres belongs solely to PG&E, according to Federman’s Monday decision.
HomeFed has 30 days to request a different ruling be made, which the judge must consider before issuing a final decision. The Wild Cherry Canyon property is a 2,400-acre ranch in the hills above Avila Beach and Port San Luis.
This is a difficult decision. Gives more reason for developers to go outside of California to work. How many jobs were lost? How much in tax revenues were lost? This is a minor skirmish in the economic collapse of California.
Homes likely won’t be built in hills near Diablo Canyon after SLO judge sides with PG&E
BY MACKENZIE SHUMAN, SLO Union Tribune, 5/23/23 https://www.sanluisobispo.com/news/local/environment/article275703826.html
PG&E and HomeFed, a development company, are in a court fight over the future of Wild Cherry Canyon above Port San Luis and Avila Beach. A judge will determine how the property is used.
After a four-year court battle, a San Luis Obispo Superior Court judge has decided that the rights to 2,400 acres of nearly pristine coastal hills near Avila Beach do not belong to a home developer. The decision is a victory for PG&E and local conservation groups, which have no interest in seeing homes built on the scenic property that offers expansive views of the ocean. Judge Rita Federman issued her proposed decision on Monday to PG&E subsidiary Eureka Energy Corp. and Pacho and San Luis Bay limited partnerships, which are largely owned by HomeFed Corp., a real estate developer.
Federman sided with PG&E in the court case and tentatively decided HomeFed’s lease on the Wild Cherry Canyon lands expired in 2019. That’s because she found the Wild Cherry Canyon land was leased to HomeFed in 1968 primarily for agricultural purposes, so it was limited to a 51-year term instead of the two 99-year terms HomeFed argued for during the case. Therefore, control of the 2,400 acres belongs solely to PG&E, according to Federman’s Monday decision.
HomeFed has 30 days to request a different ruling be made, which the judge must consider before issuing a final decision. The Wild Cherry Canyon property is a 2,400-acre ranch in the hills above Avila Beach and Port San Luis.
BATTLE OVER CONSERVATION OR DEVELOPMENT OF WILD CHERRY CANYON
Federman’s decision comes five years after rumors circulated that HomeFed was preparing to build a 15,000-home city at Wild Cherry Canyon. The news prompted a surprised response from PG&E and unhappy turmoil in the local community. The 2,400 acres that makeup Wild Cherry Canyon are part of the 12,000 undeveloped acres that serve as a buffer around Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant. Conservation groups had, over many years throughout the early 2000s and 2010s, attempted but failed to buy the land and save it from development.
In 2019, HomeFed sued PG&E over the term of the lease. HomeFed argued that the lease was valid until 2166, while PG&E said it was only valid until 2019. Land leases for agricultural purposes are limited to 51 years under California law, but HomeFed had argued the land, although used for cattle grazing, was intended to be developed. During the court trial over the lease of the land, which took place in the fall, HomeFed witnesses showed their plans to develop the property. This included everything from a dude ranch concept to building 2,500 housing units as an “urban village,” according to witness testimony.
Had HomeFed won the case, it likely would “fight with the world to get a (development) project entitled,” testified Joseph Steinberg, chairman of Jefferies Financial Group, a New York-based investment banking firm that owns 90% of HomeFed’s Wild Cherry Canyon leasehold. Such a project could have meant leveling off the tops of the coastal hills to make way for vacation and second homes for out-of-towners, Steinberg said in his testimony.
COURT DECISION LIKELY MEANS LAND WILL NOT BE DEVELOPED
But Federman’s proposed decision paints the possibility for a different future for the land — one that has largely been supported by community members. During the trial, PG&E senior regulatory and environmental director Tom Jones said the utility company does not want to develop Wild Cherry Canyon because of its proximity to the Diablo Canyon Power Plant. “Any development there could be quite complex from an emergency planning standpoint,” Jones testified. “It (development) wouldn’t be tolerable for us.” On May 11, the California Natural Resources Agency released a plan for the 12,000-acre Diablo Canyon lands that noted Wild Cherry Canyon could be transferred to California State Parks when the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant is eventually decommissioned.
That way, Wild Cherry Canyon could connect to Montaña de Oro State Park near Los Osos via a trail. The Natural Resources Agency then proposed that a tribal entity could have a conservation and access easement on the land. This would prevent any major development on the 2,400 acres forever. The 2,400-acre Wild Cherry Canyon property is located in the hills above Avila Beach and Port San Luis. David Middlecamp [email protected] The agency’s plan was required under Senate Bill 846, which allocated $160 million for the creation and implementation of a land conservation and economic development plan for the 12,000-acre Diablo Canyon lands.
That bill also allowed for $1.4 billion to be loaned to PG&E to help pay for continued operations of the power plant through 2030. The court case only decided whether HomeFed could continue to lease Wild Cherry Canyon, Federman noted in her decision. “Although the court received lengthy testimony about the potential development of the property for a wide range of uses, this case does not concern, and will not decide, whether and how the property may be used or developed in the future,” Federman wrote.
Representatives from PG&E and HomeFed did not immediately respond to a Tribune request for comment.
