Description: Challenge to environmental review for a development in the City of Santee that allegedly would be located on a 2,638-acre site and include 2,900 to 3,000 residential units, commercial structures, a road network, and other infrastructure.
-
Preserve Wild Santee v. City of Santee
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 04/06/2022 Judgment Download Judgment entered in favor of petitioners. 03/03/2022 Minute Order Download Petition for writ of mandate granted. California Court Found that City of Santee Gave Insufficient Consideration to Wildfire Evacuation in CEQA Review. A California Superior Court found that the absence of relevant information about project-specific wildfire evacuation impacts in an environmental impact report (EIR) for a mixed-use development constituted a prejudicial abuse of discretion. The court further found that the public “was not informed as to the extent to which the project would expose them to significant risk of loss, injury or death regarding evacuation timing” or “the risk of injury or death if residents are instructed to remain on site while the fires burn around them.” In addition, the court found that responses to comments about wildfire evacuation were inadequate and that the City of Santee violated the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) when it decided not to recirculate the EIR after an extension road was removed from the project. The court said the public was not provided an adequate opportunity to comment on the road removal’s impact on the wildland fire evacuation plan. The court did not address the petition’s allegations regarding inadequate analysis of greenhouse gas impacts. 10/21/2020 Petition for Writ of Mandate Download Verified petition for writ of mandate and complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief filed. CEQA Challenge Said Analysis of Proposed Development’s Greenhouse Gas Emissions Was Inadequate. Environmental groups challenged the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review of a development in the City of Santee that allegedly would be located on a 2,638-acre site and include 2,900 to 3,000 residential units, commercial structures, a road network, and other infrastructure. Among the alleged shortcomings of the environmental review was failure to adequately disclose, analyze, and mitigate significant direct, indirect, and cumulative greenhouse gas impacts.