Developer HomeFed’s 3,000+ Project Halted After Its Appeal Denied
by Dorian Hargrove / Times of San Diego / June 4, 2026
An appellate court on Thursday denied an appeal from the developer looking to build a massive, 3,008-home project in Santee known as Fanita Ranch.
In the ruling, the appellate court said that the city of Santee and developer HomeFed pushed the project through despite knowing it violated state planning and environmental laws.
The ruling now puts the massive residential development, which was first proposed in 2017, on hold, once again, and likely for good, barring any petition to the California Supreme Court.
The appellate court judges found Santee and HomeFed improperly tried to push the project through without the city amending its General Plan. The plan had allowed for the construction of 1,395 homes on 2,638 acres in Northern Santee.
HomeFed Fanita Ranch first proposed the project in 2017. As the developer looked to obtain approval, the city worked to amend its building code to allow the developer to build approximately 1,700 more homes than the zoning allowed.
In 2020, the city amended the General Plan and approved the project.
However, opposition increased, and residents quickly approved a ballot measure, known as Measure N, which required voter approval for any development that increases what is allowed by the city’s General Plan.
The city and HomeFed, however, did not back down. Months after Measure N passed, the Santee City Council passed an emergency ordinance, creating the “Essential Housing Program.” The program allowed city staff to certify certain developments as essential, thus allowing the city and developers to bypass the General Plan requirements without a public hearing and without any opportunities for the public to appeal.
HomeFed Fanita Ranch, then resubmitted permits for what was an identical project. Using the Essential Housing Program, the city approved the new plan.
A group calling itself Preserve Wild Santee, along with the Center for Biological Diversity, Endangered Habitats League and California Chaparral Institute, sued the city and HomeFed, alleging the project violated state planning and zoning laws, as well as the Elections Code through the use of the Essential Housing Program.
In August 2024, a state court judge ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and ordered the city to rescind all permits and stop the project.
While the city of Santee decided not to appeal, developer HomeFed did.
In its June 4 ruling, the appellate court denied the appeal on all counts, other than the claim that the developer and the city violated election laws.
“Except for the last, we reject each of HomeFed’s contentions. We agree that no Elections Code violation has been shown, but conclude the trial court did not err in concluding the City violated the State Planning and Zoning Law,” reads the appellate court decision.
The city of Santee and attorneys for HomeFed did not respond to Times of San Diego’s request for comment. This article will be updated when, or if, either party does.
Back when I retired from the County of San Diego in 1998, fanita Ranch was at war with residents, elected officials, and environmental groups. I am pleased with the Court ruling and tip my hat to the Center for Biological Diversity to which I donate money for programs like this one.
Santee dodged a bullet. Hope this is final. Even 1,395 homes on 2,638 acres is too much. Existing traffic, extreme fire severity, small town infrastructure wouldn’t support that many more homes. The existing open space is a valuable asset in itself.
I thought the recent mantra from the Sacramento supermajority was that environmental impacts, traffic, and open space do not matter if it’s a housing project (see current efforts re: Midway Rising that the City of SD government is supporting, or the Nimitz Blvd affordable housing in a BMX playground & earthquake fault zone). Why is Fanita different? I thought the mantra was that zoning & community planning was so 20th Century.
There is a huge difference between a large suburban, single-family development sprawling into and consuming open space into our rural fringe areas, versus a large urban multi-family development infilling a fully developed city landscape.
The former requires the expensive extension of public infrastructure and services, while the latter renovates and fully utilizes what is already in place.
The former converts nature to development, while the latter converts a deteriorating and dilapidated cityscape into something worth living and working in. Clearly the latter is better than the former for our future.
I am grateful to see Fanita Ranch defeated and hopeful that Midway Rising will bless our city with joyful space for people to live, work and play.
We need housing. Midway Rising is a better way to deliver it.
Don, the only problem with what you are saying is that the infill as practiced in San Diego consists of utilizing already overburdened and dilapidated public structures and services without the renovation that you say occurs. When (if?) Midway Rising is developed it will be within the context of a deteriorating and dilapidated cityscape that will surround the new development. I’m sorry, but that is the San Diego way of doing things – no maintenance, no refurbishing, no renovation, just more buildings and residents.
Infilling one of our last recreational & natural open spaces in Point Loma is ok to sacrifice to the greater God of Density? Against the will of the Peninsula Planning Group? Well I guess if your goal of “fully developed City landscape” includes no recreational open space or embracing the incoming Midway Rising gridlock, then I suppose you have the right City Council working for your agenda.
The hypocritical Sacramento assembly will apply CEQA to Fanita Ranch, but not Midway Rising. This is inexcusable. Apply it all fairly or get rid of it. There does need to be more SFR open space development without all the environmental barriers. The nonsensical cramming of people into these concocted transit corridors only goes so far and makes renters out of all. At some point your purported affordable housing becomes moot simply because of infill without expansion. Owners vs renters.