Background
The Fanita Ranch site covers approximately 2,638 acres of largely undeveloped open space in the City of Santee. The City’s General Plan, adopted in 2003, designated the site as “Planned Development” and imposed lot size restrictions that the City had long interpreted as capping maximum residential density at approximately 1,395 units. In 2017, developer HomeFed Fanita Rancho, LLC (HomeFed) proposed a project with up to 3,008 housing units. Both HomeFed and the City acknowledged this density was inconsistent with the General Plan, and the City approved the project in September 2020 only by simultaneously adopting a General Plan Amendment (GPA) to permit the increased density.
The GPA never took effect. Santee citizens filed a referendum petition challenging it, and voters also adopted Measure N in November 2020, requiring voter approval for development that would increase residential density beyond what the General Plan allows. A separate CEQA lawsuit resulted in a court order setting aside all 2017 Project approvals, and the City repealed the GPA in May 2022. However, in August 2021, the City had adopted an urgency ordinance creating an “Essential Housing Program” under which City staff could “certify” a project as “deemed compliant” with the General Plan without a public hearing, appeal, or General Plan amendment. HomeFed obtained certification under this program and reapplied for approval of a virtually identical 3,008-unit project, which the City approved in September 2022 without amending the General Plan.
Preserve Wild Santee and other environmental organizations sued, arguing the City’s approval violated the State Planning and Zoning Law (SPZL), the Subdivision Map Act, CEQA, and the Elections Code. The trial court agreed on all four claims and ordered the City to set aside all project approvals and decertify the Environmental Impact Report.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal largely affirmed. The court concluded the City violated the SPZL and the Subdivision Map Act because the 2022 Project was facially inconsistent with the General Plan. The General Plan’s lot size restrictions capped density at approximately 1,395 units, and the 3,008-unit project plainly exceeded that cap. The City could not use its Essential Housing Program ordinance to simply “deem” the project consistent with the General Plan when the project did not actually conform to the General Plan’s mandatory standards. The court held that a city cannot avoid the requirement of a General Plan amendment by adopting an ordinance that redefines consistency itself.
The court also found the City violated CEQA by failing to disclose and discuss the project’s inconsistency with the General Plan in the Recirculated Environmental Impact Report (REIR). By asserting the project was consistent with the General Plan when it was not, the City’s environmental review was fundamentally misleading, undermining CEQA’s informational purpose.
However, the court reversed on the Elections Code claim, finding that because the GPA had been repealed and no new legislative action subject to referendum had been taken, section 9241 of the Elections Code was not violated. This partial reversal did not affect the relief granted, as the SPZL, Subdivision Map Act, and CEQA violations independently supported the judgment setting aside all project approvals.
Key Takeaways
- A city cannot bypass General Plan consistency requirements by adopting an ordinance that allows staff to “deem” a project compliant without an actual General Plan amendment, particularly when the project facially exceeds mandatory density limits in the General Plan.
- When a city previously acknowledged that a General Plan amendment was required for a particular project, it cannot later approve a virtually identical project by claiming no amendment is needed, simply because a new local program purports to override General Plan standards.
- CEQA’s informational mandate requires an environmental impact report to accurately disclose a project’s inconsistency with the applicable general plan. Asserting false consistency with the General Plan renders the EIR fundamentally defective.
Why It Matters
This decision is significant for California land use and environmental law because it firmly limits a municipality’s ability to circumvent its own General Plan through creative procedural mechanisms. The City of Santee attempted to use an urgency ordinance to allow a massive residential development that voters and existing land use policies had repeatedly blocked. The court’s ruling reinforces the fundamental principle that the General Plan sits atop the hierarchy of local land use laws, and consistency with it cannot be manufactured through administrative fiat.
The case also underscores the power of voter-initiated controls on development. Measure N and the referendum petition reflected strong community opposition to increased density at the Fanita Ranch site. By holding that the City could not simply define away General Plan inconsistency, the court preserved the voters’ role in land use decisions that state law guarantees. For developers, the decision is a cautionary reminder that local legislative workarounds to General Plan requirements are subject to rigorous judicial scrutiny, particularly when the development history reveals the city previously acknowledged those very requirements.