The Menifee City Council unanimously denied an appeal filed by the Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (SAFER) on Wednesday, rejecting the group’s request for a new Environmental Impact Report for the Menifee 27 Residential Project.
The land proposed for the Menifee 27 subdivision has been planned for housing for decades. In 1993, Riverside County approved the Menifee North Specific Plan, a development plan that laid out plans for more than 2,300 homes across 1,600 acres between Homeland, Romoland, and Menifee. It also included space for commercial centers and business parks. The plan has been amended five times as land use priorities shifted.
The most impactful amendment occurred in 2008, when the project site was redesignated from business park use to residential. That update created two planning areas, 7A and 7B, for medium-high and high-density housing. Menifee 27, as now proposed, departs from some of the old standards but remains in line with the residential vision.
The current version of the project first reached the city in November 2024 under an SB 330 application — a state process that requires cities to move housing proposals through review on a set timeline. Nearly a year later, the Planning Commission unanimously approved the 192-home subdivision on Oct. 22, 2025.
Senior Planner Russell Brown told the council that an objection letter was received the day before the commission vote, followed by a formal appeal from SAFER less than two weeks later.
Brown described the project as a 27-acre neighborhood just north of Highway 74 and west of Palomar Road. The project is set to include nine very low-income units, which qualify the developer for a state density bonus. This allows the project to exceed the base density in the specific plan and request unlimited waivers from certain development standards.
Brown said the project remains consistent with the Menifee North Specific Plan and the city’s General Plan, both of which anticipated housing on the site well before the current proposal.
The council’s discussion quickly turned to environmental concerns. Victoria Yundt, an associate at Lozeau Drury LLP and spokesperson for SAFER, argued that the city improperly relied on CEQA Sections 15182 and 15183. Those sections allow certain projects to bypass a full environmental review when they are consistent with previously approved specific plans or General Plans.
They also require that the project not create new or more severe environmental impacts. Yundt noted that the project exceeds the specific plan density in Planning Area 7B.
“This project proposes 117 units, nearly 2.5 units per acre above the maximum density allowed,” Yundt said. “When a project exceeds the density analyzed in a specific plan EIR, the city cannot rely on that EIR to further exempt review.”
Yundt also raised biological and air quality concerns, citing SAFER’s experts.
“Dr. Shawn Smallwood documented seven special status species on site that were never analyzed in the 1993 specific plan EIR and only two appear in the 2013 general plan EIR,” she said. “He identified 148 special status species with potential to occur on the site… the earlier EIRs did not evaluate or mitigate impacts to these species. Dr. Smallwood further predicts hundreds of wildlife fatalities annually from habitat loss, increased traffic, and bird-window collisions—impacts the city never analyzed.”
Yundt added that the project’s greenhouse gas emissions conflicted with current state climate policies, and that neither the 1993 nor 2013 EIRs adequately addressed these impacts.
City staff and CEQA consultant Konnie Dobreva of EPD Solutions defended the project.
“We did do a full CEQA review on this project and we did not do a comparative analysis from what was previously analyzed in the prior EIR to this project,” Dobreva said. “We did a ground-to-plant analysis, just like you would for any project. We looked at the density, vehicle miles traveled, air quality emissions, and biology. We looked at the ground and asked if anything had changed from existing conditions to what’s being proposed. The answer was no.
“Then we compared our findings to the general plan EIR and the specific plan EIR, which is what we’re tiering on. Everything lines up, and that’s why it’s appropriate.”
Dobreva emphasized that state density bonus law allows the project to exceed base density while still remaining consistent with CEQA exemptions.
Council members asked staff about connectivity to the commercial plaza next door. Staff said pedestrian access could be added along the southern edge of the project, with a gate at the property line giving residents a safe way to reach nearby businesses. Council members suggested adding a condition in the plan to ensure both pedestrian and bike access are safe while also helping reduce traffic on Palomar Road.
After hearing from SAFER’s representatives and the Menifee 27 planners, the council voiced confidence in the project.
“It went through the Planning Commission, it’s gone through staff, and I think it’s been thoroughly reviewed, so I’m comfortable with approving it,” Council Member Dean Deines said.
“I would agree,” Council Member Dan Temple said. “I am also comfortable with city staff, their findings, as well as the developer’s efforts to comply with applicable law. I’m in favor of this.”
The council voted unanimously to deny SAFER’s appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s approval, allowing the Menifee 27 project to move forward without requiring an additional environmental review under CEQA Sections 15182 and 15183.
