The Menifee City Council on the evening of the meeting denied an appeal by a local environmental group and approved entitlements for the Menifee 27 residential project, a 192-lot, 27.14-acre single-family subdivision (tentative tract map 39115; plot plan PLN 24-0254). The motion to approve, which included a condition requiring pedestrian access where E Street meets the neighboring commercial development, passed 4-0.

Staff senior planner Russell Brown summarized the project and its history, saying the site lies north of Highway 74, south of Watson Road and along the west side of Palomar Road, and is located in Planning Areas 7A and 7B of the Menifee North specific plan (SP 260). Brown described the entitlements as a tentative tract map for 192 residential lots and a plot plan for site and architectural review and told council staff’s position that the project meets the CEQA exemptions cited in the staff report and that the Menifee North specific plan and prior EIRs analyzed the area as residential.

Victoria Yum, representing the appellant group SAFER, asked the council to grant the appeal and require a full environmental impact report. Yum argued the project exceeds the density analyzed in the specific-plan area, described biological-resource concerns based on an expert report (Dr. Sean Smallwood), and raised air-quality and greenhouse-gas issues. “When a project exceeds the density analyzed in a specific-plan EIR, the city cannot rely on that EIR to further exempt review,” Yum said, and cited significant new information on biological resources, diesel particulate exposures during construction and inconsistencies with recent state climate plans.

Council members pressed the appellant on the record of expert analyses. When asked whether the experts provided a site-specific, quantitative comparison of impacts, Yum said the experts used case studies and predictive methods rather than a contemporaneous plot-by-plot mortality count. The council also asked whether specific claims — for example, predicted bird collisions — were based on direct, site-level observation; Yum acknowledged the expert relied on comparable cases and studies rather than a new field census of existing adjacent homes.

Connie Dobreva, the city’s CEQA consultant with EPD Solutions, said the team performed a ground-to-plan analysis addressing current conditions versus the proposed project and concluded the findings are consistent with the prior general-plan and specific-plan EIRs. “We looked at density, vehicle miles traveled, air-quality emissions, biology,” Dobreva said, and concluded the project’s analysis supports the exemptions relied on in the staff report.

Developer representative Brian Taylor said the project is designed for first-time homebuyers and expressed willingness to incorporate pedestrian access to the adjacent commercial plaza and museum area. Director Hernandez told council staff’s preference would be to add a condition requiring pedestrian access from the southern property line (where E Street abuts the commercial development), with final design subject to the city engineer and public works director.

City Attorney Melching recited the condition language into the record; Council member Dimas moved approval with the attorney’s conditions and Council member Temple seconded. The motion passed 4-0, and the appellant’s appeal was denied. The council approved tentative tract map 39115 and plot plan PLN 24-0254 while adopting staff findings related to the exemptions cited in the staff report.

Next steps noted during the meeting: staff will incorporate the pedestrian-access condition into the formal conditions of approval and finalize engineering-level details for the gate and connection subject to the city engineer’s review. The planning commission had approved the project by a 5-0 vote in October before the appeal was filed.