3 0
2 2
as required by the Project’s conditions of approval. The Agreement requires that improvement securities be posted to guarantee the completion of the required onsite and offsite improvements.
The Agreement also requires that public improvements be completed within 24 months from the date of City Council approval.
Staff have reviewed the Developer’s request and determined that the associated Agreement meets the requirements of the Project’s conditions of approval. A summary of the bonds being posted to guarantee the required improvements are shown in Tables 1, 2, and 3 below.
TABLE 1 – OFFSITE IMPROVEMENTS
Improvement Security Faithful Performance Labor & Materials Streets and Drainage 1001199534 $ 1,404,000 $ 1,404,000 Water System 1001199534 $ 151,000 $ 151,000 Recycled Water 1001199534 $ 106,000 $ 106,000
Sewer System 1001199534 $ 6,000 $ 6,000 Total $ 1,667,000 $ 1,667,000
TABLE 2 – ONSITE IMPROVEMENTS
Improvement Security Faithful Performance Labor & Materials Streets and Drainage 1001199535 $ 1,934,500 $ 1,934,500 Water System 1001199535 $ 416,500 $ 416,500 Sewer System 1001199535 $ 293,000 $ 293,000 Total $ 2,644,000 $ 2,644,000
TABLE 3 – MONUMENT IMPROVEMENTS
Improvement Security
Survey Monuments 1001199536 $ 70,560
Total $ 70,560
As allowed by the Project’s conditions of approval, the Developer has also requested that the City consider the proposed CFD deferral agreement. The agreement would enable the final map for TM38766 to be recorded ahead of annexation into the CFD to maintain their project schedule.
Grading for the project is ongoing, with building construction anticipated to begin in the first quarter of 2026.
The deferral agreement with BrightSky Residential, LLC requires annexation into the CFD to be completed prior to the issuance of any building permits within the project. Both Garbani Road 134 Owner, LLC and Bright Sky Residential, LLC are subsidiaries of Corporate Creations Network, Inc.
STRATEGIC PLAN OBJECTIVE
Safe and Vibrant Community
Item Title: 10.8
Final Map, Agreements, and Bonds for Tract Map 38766 Garbani Haven, by Garbani Road 134 Owner, LLC Item Page Number: 2
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
508 of 966
City of Menifee Staff Report
Final Map 38766 - Garbani Haven and CFD Deferral Agreement December 3, 2025
3 0
2 2
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with the recommended action. The Developer has paid all necessary fees associated with the review of TM38766. Upon completion of the improvements and subsequent acceptance by the City, ongoing maintenance costs for the improvements would be supported through future fiscal year budgets in maintenance CFD 2017-1.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Project Map
2. Final Map
3. Agreement
4. Bonds – Improvements Offsite
5. Bonds – Improvements Onsite
6. Bond – Monuments
7. CFD Deferral Agreement
Item Title: 10.8
Final Map, Agreements, and Bonds for Tract Map 38766 Garbani Haven, by Garbani Road 134 Owner, LLC Item Page Number: 3
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
509 of 966
PROJECT MAP - TM38766
Garbani Road
Evans Road
Murrieta Road
Menifee Valley
Middle School
TM38766
Item Title: 10.8
Final Map, Agreements, and Bonds for Tract Map 38766 Garbani Haven, by Garbani Road 134 Owner, LLC Item Page Number: 4
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
510 of 966
No. 7874 STATEOFCALIFORNIALICENSEDLANDSURVEYORROBERT N. BEUSCHLEIN OF 10 SHEETSSHEET 1
Item Title: 10.8
Final Map, Agreements, and Bonds for Tract Map 38766 Garbani Haven, by Garbani Road 134 Owner, LLC Item Page Number: 5
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
511 of 966
OF 10 SHEETSSHEET 2
Item Title: 10.8
Final Map, Agreements, and Bonds for Tract Map 38766 Garbani Haven, by Garbani Road 134 Owner, LLC Item Page Number: 6
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
512 of 966
OF 10 SHEETSSHEET 3215HUNSAKERENWS
Θ HUNSAKERENWS
Θ HUNSAKERENWS
Item Title: 10.8
Final Map, Agreements, and Bonds for Tract Map 38766 Garbani Haven, by Garbani Road 134 Owner, LLC Item Page Number: 7
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
513 of 966
OF 10 SHEETSSHEET 4
Θ HUNSAKERENWS 321
45 Θ HUNSAKERENWS
LINE DATACURVE DATA
6 Item Title: 10.8
Final Map, Agreements, and Bonds for Tract Map 38766 Garbani Haven, by Garbani Road 134 Owner, LLC Item Page Number: 8
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
514 of 966
OF 10 SHEETSSHEET 5
Θ HUNSAKERENWS
#
87 6 9 10
10 Item Title: 10.8
Final Map, Agreements, and Bonds for Tract Map 38766 Garbani Haven, by Garbani Road 134 Owner, LLC Item Page Number: 9
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
515 of 966
OF 10 SHEETSSHEET 6
Θ HUNSAKERENWS
Θ HUNSAKERENWS
Item Title: 10.8
Final Map, Agreements, and Bonds for Tract Map 38766 Garbani Haven, by Garbani Road 134 Owner, LLC Item Page Number: 10
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
516 of 966
OF 10 SHEETSSHEET 7
Θ HUNSAKERENWS
Item Title: 10.8
Final Map, Agreements, and Bonds for Tract Map 38766 Garbani Haven, by Garbani Road 134 Owner, LLC Item Page Number: 11
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
517 of 966
OF 10 SHEETSSHEET 8
Θ HUNSAKERENWS
Item Title: 10.8
Final Map, Agreements, and Bonds for Tract Map 38766 Garbani Haven, by Garbani Road 134 Owner, LLC Item Page Number: 12
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
518 of 966
OF 10 SHEETSSHEET 9
Θ HUNSAKERENWS
Item Title: 10.8
Final Map, Agreements, and Bonds for Tract Map 38766 Garbani Haven, by Garbani Road 134 Owner, LLC Item Page Number: 13
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
519 of 966
OF 10 SHEETSSHEET 10
Θ HUNSAKERENWS
Item Title: 10.8
Final Map, Agreements, and Bonds for Tract Map 38766 Garbani Haven, by Garbani Road 134 Owner, LLC Item Page Number: 14
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
520 of 966
Item Title: 10.8
Final Map, Agreements, and Bonds for Tract Map 38766 Garbani Haven, by Garbani Road 134 Owner, LLC Item Page Number: 15
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
521 of 966
Item Title: 10.8
Final Map, Agreements, and Bonds for Tract Map 38766 Garbani Haven, by Garbani Road 134 Owner, LLC Item Page Number: 16
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
522 of 966
Item Title: 10.8
Final Map, Agreements, and Bonds for Tract Map 38766 Garbani Haven, by Garbani Road 134 Owner, LLC Item Page Number: 17
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
523 of 966
Item Title: 10.8
Final Map, Agreements, and Bonds for Tract Map 38766 Garbani Haven, by Garbani Road 134 Owner, LLC Item Page Number: 18
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
524 of 966
Item Title: 10.8
Final Map, Agreements, and Bonds for Tract Map 38766 Garbani Haven, by Garbani Road 134 Owner, LLC Item Page Number: 19
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
525 of 966
Item Title: 10.8
Final Map, Agreements, and Bonds for Tract Map 38766 Garbani Haven, by Garbani Road 134 Owner, LLC Item Page Number: 20
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
526 of 966
Item Title: 10.8
Final Map, Agreements, and Bonds for Tract Map 38766 Garbani Haven, by Garbani Road 134 Owner, LLC Item Page Number: 21
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
527 of 966
Item Title: 10.8
Final Map, Agreements, and Bonds for Tract Map 38766 Garbani Haven, by Garbani Road 134 Owner, LLC Item Page Number: 22
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
528 of 966
Item Title: 10.8
Final Map, Agreements, and Bonds for Tract Map 38766 Garbani Haven, by Garbani Road 134 Owner, LLC Item Page Number: 23
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
529 of 966
Item Title: 10.8
Final Map, Agreements, and Bonds for Tract Map 38766 Garbani Haven, by Garbani Road 134 Owner, LLC Item Page Number: 24
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
530 of 966
Item Title: 10.8
Final Map, Agreements, and Bonds for Tract Map 38766 Garbani Haven, by Garbani Road 134 Owner, LLC Item Page Number: 25
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
531 of 966
Item Title: 10.8
Final Map, Agreements, and Bonds for Tract Map 38766 Garbani Haven, by Garbani Road 134 Owner, LLC Item Page Number: 26
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
532 of 966
Item Title: 10.8
Final Map, Agreements, and Bonds for Tract Map 38766 Garbani Haven, by Garbani Road 134 Owner, LLC Item Page Number: 27
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
533 of 966
Item Title: 10.8
Final Map, Agreements, and Bonds for Tract Map 38766 Garbani Haven, by Garbani Road 134 Owner, LLC Item Page Number: 28
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
534 of 966
Item Title: 10.8
Final Map, Agreements, and Bonds for Tract Map 38766 Garbani Haven, by Garbani Road 134 Owner, LLC Item Page Number: 29
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
535 of 966
Item Title: 10.8
Final Map, Agreements, and Bonds for Tract Map 38766 Garbani Haven, by Garbani Road 134 Owner, LLC Item Page Number: 30
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
536 of 966
Item Title: 10.8
Final Map, Agreements, and Bonds for Tract Map 38766 Garbani Haven, by Garbani Road 134 Owner, LLC Item Page Number: 31
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
537 of 966
Item Title: 10.8
Final Map, Agreements, and Bonds for Tract Map 38766 Garbani Haven, by Garbani Road 134 Owner, LLC Item Page Number: 32
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
538 of 966
Item Title: 10.8
Final Map, Agreements, and Bonds for Tract Map 38766 Garbani Haven, by Garbani Road 134 Owner, LLC Item Page Number: 33
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
539 of 966
Item Title: 10.8
Final Map, Agreements, and Bonds for Tract Map 38766 Garbani Haven, by Garbani Road 134 Owner, LLC Item Page Number: 34
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
540 of 966
Item Title: 10.8
Final Map, Agreements, and Bonds for Tract Map 38766 Garbani Haven, by Garbani Road 134 Owner, LLC Item Page Number: 35
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
541 of 966
Item Title: 10.8
Final Map, Agreements, and Bonds for Tract Map 38766 Garbani Haven, by Garbani Road 134 Owner, LLC Item Page Number: 36
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
542 of 966
Item Title: 10.8
Final Map, Agreements, and Bonds for Tract Map 38766 Garbani Haven, by Garbani Road 134 Owner, LLC Item Page Number: 37
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
543 of 966
Item Title: 10.8
Final Map, Agreements, and Bonds for Tract Map 38766 Garbani Haven, by Garbani Road 134 Owner, LLC Item Page Number: 38
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
544 of 966
Item Title: 10.8
Final Map, Agreements, and Bonds for Tract Map 38766 Garbani Haven, by Garbani Road 134 Owner, LLC Item Page Number: 39
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
545 of 966
Item Title: 10.8
Final Map, Agreements, and Bonds for Tract Map 38766 Garbani Haven, by Garbani Road 134 Owner, LLC Item Page Number: 40
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
546 of 966
Item Title: 10.8
Final Map, Agreements, and Bonds for Tract Map 38766 Garbani Haven, by Garbani Road 134 Owner, LLC Item Page Number: 41
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
547 of 966
Item Title: 10.8
Final Map, Agreements, and Bonds for Tract Map 38766 Garbani Haven, by Garbani Road 134 Owner, LLC Item Page Number: 42
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
548 of 966
Item Title: 10.8
Final Map, Agreements, and Bonds for Tract Map 38766 Garbani Haven, by Garbani Road 134 Owner, LLC Item Page Number: 43
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
549 of 966
Item Title: 10.8
Final Map, Agreements, and Bonds for Tract Map 38766 Garbani Haven, by Garbani Road 134 Owner, LLC Item Page Number: 44
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
550 of 966
Item Title: 10.8
Final Map, Agreements, and Bonds for Tract Map 38766 Garbani Haven, by Garbani Road 134 Owner, LLC Item Page Number: 45
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
551 of 966
Item Title: 10.8
Final Map, Agreements, and Bonds for Tract Map 38766 Garbani Haven, by Garbani Road 134 Owner, LLC Item Page Number: 46
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
552 of 966
Item Title: 10.8
Final Map, Agreements, and Bonds for Tract Map 38766 Garbani Haven, by Garbani Road 134 Owner, LLC Item Page Number: 47
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
553 of 966
Item Title: 10.8
Final Map, Agreements, and Bonds for Tract Map 38766 Garbani Haven, by Garbani Road 134 Owner, LLC Item Page Number: 48
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
554 of 966
Item Title: 10.8
Final Map, Agreements, and Bonds for Tract Map 38766 Garbani Haven, by Garbani Road 134 Owner, LLC Item Page Number: 49
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
555 of 966
Item Title: 10.8
Final Map, Agreements, and Bonds for Tract Map 38766 Garbani Haven, by Garbani Road 134 Owner, LLC Item Page Number: 50
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
556 of 966
Item Title: 10.8
Final Map, Agreements, and Bonds for Tract Map 38766 Garbani Haven, by Garbani Road 134 Owner, LLC Item Page Number: 51
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
557 of 966
Item Title: 10.8
Final Map, Agreements, and Bonds for Tract Map 38766 Garbani Haven, by Garbani Road 134 Owner, LLC Item Page Number: 52
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
558 of 966
Item Title: 10.8
Final Map, Agreements, and Bonds for Tract Map 38766 Garbani Haven, by Garbani Road 134 Owner, LLC Item Page Number: 53
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
559 of 966
Item Title: 10.8
Final Map, Agreements, and Bonds for Tract Map 38766 Garbani Haven, by Garbani Road 134 Owner, LLC Item Page Number: 54
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
560 of 966
Item Title: 10.8
Final Map, Agreements, and Bonds for Tract Map 38766 Garbani Haven, by Garbani Road 134 Owner, LLC Item Page Number: 55
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
561 of 966
Item Title: 10.8
Final Map, Agreements, and Bonds for Tract Map 38766 Garbani Haven, by Garbani Road 134 Owner, LLC Item Page Number: 56
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
562 of 966
Item Title: 10.8
Final Map, Agreements, and Bonds for Tract Map 38766 Garbani Haven, by Garbani Road 134 Owner, LLC Item Page Number: 57
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
563 of 966
Item Title: 10.8
Final Map, Agreements, and Bonds for Tract Map 38766 Garbani Haven, by Garbani Road 134 Owner, LLC Item Page Number: 58
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
564 of 966
Item Title: 10.8
Final Map, Agreements, and Bonds for Tract Map 38766 Garbani Haven, by Garbani Road 134 Owner, LLC Item Page Number: 59
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
565 of 966
Item Title: 10.8
Final Map, Agreements, and Bonds for Tract Map 38766 Garbani Haven, by Garbani Road 134 Owner, LLC Item Page Number: 60
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
566 of 966
Item Title: 10.8
Final Map, Agreements, and Bonds for Tract Map 38766 Garbani Haven, by Garbani Road 134 Owner, LLC Item Page Number: 61
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
567 of 966
Item Title: 10.8
Final Map, Agreements, and Bonds for Tract Map 38766 Garbani Haven, by Garbani Road 134 Owner, LLC Item Page Number: 62
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
568 of 966
Item Title: 10.8
Final Map, Agreements, and Bonds for Tract Map 38766 Garbani Haven, by Garbani Road 134 Owner, LLC Item Page Number: 63
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
569 of 966
Item Title: 10.8
Final Map, Agreements, and Bonds for Tract Map 38766 Garbani Haven, by Garbani Road 134 Owner, LLC Item Page Number: 64
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
570 of 966
Item Title: 10.8
Final Map, Agreements, and Bonds for Tract Map 38766 Garbani Haven, by Garbani Road 134 Owner, LLC Item Page Number: 65
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
571 of 966
Item Title: 10.8
Final Map, Agreements, and Bonds for Tract Map 38766 Garbani Haven, by Garbani Road 134 Owner, LLC Item Page Number: 66
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
572 of 966
Item Title: 10.8
Final Map, Agreements, and Bonds for Tract Map 38766 Garbani Haven, by Garbani Road 134 Owner, LLC Item Page Number: 67
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
573 of 966
Item Title: 10.8
Final Map, Agreements, and Bonds for Tract Map 38766 Garbani Haven, by Garbani Road 134 Owner, LLC Item Page Number: 68
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
574 of 966
Item Title: 10.8
Final Map, Agreements, and Bonds for Tract Map 38766 Garbani Haven, by Garbani Road 134 Owner, LLC Item Page Number: 69
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
575 of 966
Item Title: 10.8
Final Map, Agreements, and Bonds for Tract Map 38766 Garbani Haven, by Garbani Road 134 Owner, LLC Item Page Number: 70
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
576 of 966
Item Title: 10.8
Final Map, Agreements, and Bonds for Tract Map 38766 Garbani Haven, by Garbani Road 134 Owner, LLC Item Page Number: 71
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
577 of 966
Item Title: 10.8
Final Map, Agreements, and Bonds for Tract Map 38766 Garbani Haven, by Garbani Road 134 Owner, LLC Item Page Number: 72
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
578 of 966
Item Title: 10.8
Final Map, Agreements, and Bonds for Tract Map 38766 Garbani Haven, by Garbani Road 134 Owner, LLC Item Page Number: 73
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
579 of 966
Item Title: 10.8
Final Map, Agreements, and Bonds for Tract Map 38766 Garbani Haven, by Garbani Road 134 Owner, LLC Item Page Number: 74
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
580 of 966
Item Title: 10.8
Final Map, Agreements, and Bonds for Tract Map 38766 Garbani Haven, by Garbani Road 134 Owner, LLC Item Page Number: 75
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
581 of 966
Item Title: 10.8
Final Map, Agreements, and Bonds for Tract Map 38766 Garbani Haven, by Garbani Road 134 Owner, LLC Item Page Number: 76
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
582 of 966
Item Title: 10.8
Final Map, Agreements, and Bonds for Tract Map 38766 Garbani Haven, by Garbani Road 134 Owner, LLC Item Page Number: 77
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
583 of 966
Item Title: 10.8
Final Map, Agreements, and Bonds for Tract Map 38766 Garbani Haven, by Garbani Road 134 Owner, LLC Item Page Number: 78
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
584 of 966
Item Title: 10.8
Final Map, Agreements, and Bonds for Tract Map 38766 Garbani Haven, by Garbani Road 134 Owner, LLC Item Page Number: 79
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
585 of 966
Item Title: 10.8
Final Map, Agreements, and Bonds for Tract Map 38766 Garbani Haven, by Garbani Road 134 Owner, LLC Item Page Number: 80
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
586 of 966
Item Title: 10.8
Final Map, Agreements, and Bonds for Tract Map 38766 Garbani Haven, by Garbani Road 134 Owner, LLC Item Page Number: 81
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
587 of 966
Item Title: 10.8
Final Map, Agreements, and Bonds for Tract Map 38766 Garbani Haven, by Garbani Road 134 Owner, LLC Item Page Number: 82
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
588 of 966
Item Title: 10.8
Final Map, Agreements, and Bonds for Tract Map 38766 Garbani Haven, by Garbani Road 134 Owner, LLC Item Page Number: 83
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
589 of 966
Item Title: 10.8
Final Map, Agreements, and Bonds for Tract Map 38766 Garbani Haven, by Garbani Road 134 Owner, LLC Item Page Number: 84
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
590 of 966
Item Title: 10.8
Final Map, Agreements, and Bonds for Tract Map 38766 Garbani Haven, by Garbani Road 134 Owner, LLC Item Page Number: 85
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
591 of 966
Item Title: 10.8
Final Map, Agreements, and Bonds for Tract Map 38766 Garbani Haven, by Garbani Road 134 Owner, LLC Item Page Number: 86
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
592 of 966
CITY OF MENIFEE
SUBJECT: Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
MEETING DATE: December 3, 2025
TO: Mayor and City Council
PREPARED BY: Russell Brown, Senior Planner
REVIEWED BY: Orlando Hernandez, Community Development Director APPROVED BY: Armando G. Villa, City Manager
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RECOMMENDED ACTION
1. Adopt a resolution denying Appeal No. PLN25-0193, determining the Project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Sections 15182 (“Projects Pursuant to a Specific Plan”) and 15183 (“Projects Consistent with a Community Plan or Zoning”), and approving Tentative Tract Map (TTM) No. 39115 and Plot Plan No. PLN24-0254, located north of Highway 74, south of Watson Road, east of Antelope Road, along the west side of Palomar Road.
DISCUSSION
On October 22, 2025, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing and voted unanimously to approve TTM No. 39115 (PLN24-0230) and Plot Plan (PP) No. PLN24-0254 along with the related environmental analysis (Project). The full Planning Commission staff report is attached for reference.
The Project was approved by the Planning Commission for a 192 single-family residential lot subdivision within Planning Areas (PA) 7A and 7B of the Menifee North Specific Plan (SP No. 260). The Project includes Density Bonus Law (DBL) as 5% of the base density (172 units) or nine units that would be restricted to very low-income units; in exchange for providing the very low-income units, the Project qualifies for a maximum 20% density bonus, and development standard waivers and concessions (or incentives). The Project includes two product/lot types: PA 7A consists of 75 lots and PA 7B consists of 117 lots. Unit sizes range from 2,111 square feet to 3,025 square feet and each lot or unit includes a two-car garage (min. 400 square feet).
Location
The Project site is generally located north of Highway 74, south of Watson Road, east of Antelope Road, along the west side of Palomar Road. The Project site encompasses approximately 27.35 gross acres (27.14 net acres), inclusive of five parcels identified by Assessor’s Parcel Numbers Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
Item Page Number: 1
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
593 of 966
City of Menifee Staff Report
Appeal of TTM 39115 “Menifee 27”
December 3, 2025
3 0
7 2
(APN) 329-110-024, -028, -041, -042, and -043. The site is currently vacant and undeveloped. It is primarily vegetated with unplanned, non-native grasses, along with sparse shrubs and a few ornamental trees.
IMAGE 1 – PROJECT LOCATION
Appeal
On October 21, 2025, the day prior to the Planning Commission hearing, the Appellant, Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (SAFER), submitted an objection letter for the Project, stating that CEQA exemptions per Sections 15182 and 15183 do not apply to the Project. On November 3, 2025, the City received an application and fee to appeal the October 22, 2025 Planning Commission decision to the City Council. No additional evidence or analysis was provided.
Environmental Determination
The Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. PC25-675 which determined the above Project exempt from CEQA per Sections 15182 (“Projects Pursuant to a Specific Plan”) and 15183 (“Projects Consistent with a Community Plan or Zoning”). Following the Project’s approval, a Notice of Exemption (NOE) was filed with the Riverside County Clerk’s Office and State Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation (LCI, formerly OPR) on October 23, 2025.
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
Item Page Number: 2
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
594 of 966
City of Menifee Staff Report
Appeal of TTM 39115 “Menifee 27”
December 3, 2025
3 0
7 2
The NOE and the 15182/15183 Exemption Checklist, as well as its technical appendices, can be accessed for review on the City website: https://www.cityofmenifee.us/325/Environmental- Notices-Documents. The City’s environmental consultant has reaffirmed that the use of the above-referenced exemptions is appropriate for this project. Based on their review, no further environmental analysis or documentation is required at this time.
Public Notice
Public notices were distributed on November 23, 2025 for the December 3, 2025 City Council hearing. Notices were published in a newspaper of general circulation (The Press Enterprise) and notices were sent to owners within 300 feet of the Project site boundaries and to all relevant agencies and interested parties. On-site postings were provided.
STRATEGIC PLAN OBJECTIVE
Thriving Economy
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with the recommended action.
ATTACHMENTS
1. October 22, 2025, PC Staff Report
2. Consistency Analysis and Checklist
3. Appeal Application
4. Resolution
5. Conditions of Approval
6. Public Hearing Notice
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
Item Page Number: 3
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
595 of 966
CITY OF MENIFEE
SUBJECT: Tentative Tract Map No. 39115 “Menifee 27”
MEETING DATE: October 22, 2025
TO: Planning Commission
PREPARED BY: Russell Brown, Senior Planner
APPROVED BY: Orlando Hernandez, Community Development Director APPLICANT: Melia Homes, Brian Taylor (Taylor and Clark) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RECOMMENDED ACTION
1. Determine Tentative Tract Map No. 39115 (PLN24-0230) and Plot Plan No. PLN24-0254 do not require additional environmental analysis and are in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Sections 15182 (“Projects Pursuant to a Specific Plan”) and 15183 (“Projects Consistent with a Community Plan or Zoning”) and direct staff to file a Notice of Exemption; and
2.Adopt a Resolution approving Tentative Tract Map No. 39115 (PLN24-0230) and Plot Plan No. PLN24-0254 for the “Menifee 27” residential project located north of Highway 74, south of Watson Road, and east of Antelope Road along the west side of Palomar Road.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Tentative Tract Map (TTM) No. 39115 (PLN24-0230) and Plot Plan (PP) No. PLN24-0254 proposes a subdivision of 192 single-family residential lots within Planning Area (PA) 7A and 7B of the Menifee North Specific Plan (SP No. 260). The Project utilizes Density Bonus Law (DBL) as 5% of the base density (172 units) or nine units that would be restricted to very low-income units; in exchange for providing the very low-income units, the Project qualifies for a maximum 20% density bonus, and development standard waivers and concessions (or incentives).
The Project includes two product/lot types: PA 7A consists of 75 lots and PA 7B consists of 117 lots. Unit sizes range from 2,111 square feet to 3,025 square feet and each lot or unit includes a two-car garage (min. 400 square feet).
LOCATION
The site is generally located north of Highway 74, south of Watson Road, east of Antelope Road, along the west side of Palomar Road. The Project site encompasses approximately 27.35 gross acres (27.14 net acres), inclusive of five parcels identified by Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APN) Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
Item Page Number: 4
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
596 of 966
City of Menifee Planning Commission
TTM No. 39115 “Menifee 27”
October 22, 2025
1 4
3 0
329-110-024, -028, -041, -042, and -043. The site is currently vacant and undeveloped. It is primarily vegetated with unplanned, non-native grasses, along with sparse shrubs and a few ornamental trees.
Project Location
GENERAL PLAN/ZONE
The Project site has a General Plan Land Use and Zoning designation of Specific Plan; and more specifically, the Project is located within PA 7A and 7B of SP No. 260. According to the Specific Plan, the combination of the two planning areas has a target residential density of 172 total dwelling units or 6.32 dwelling units per acre (Medium or Medium-High Density). The Project proposes 192 dwelling units for a residential density of 7.07 dwelling units per acre. The Project seeks to utilize California DBL to allow for the additional units. As discussed later in the staff report, the unique boundaries of the PAs were created to coincide with a specific project, which was approved but has since expired.
The Project site is surrounded by residentially zoned sites to the north, east and west and commercially zoned sites to the south. The proposed Project is compatible with the surrounding properties.
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
Item Page Number: 5
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
597 of 966
City of Menifee Planning Commission
TTM No. 39115 “Menifee 27”
October 22, 2025
1 4
3 0
General Plan/Zoning Specific Plan Land Use Map
DISCUSSION
Background
In 1993, the County of Riverside Board of Supervisors approved SP No. 260 and the corresponding Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The adopted Specific Plan provided for the development of 2,390 residential units on 1,635 acres between the unincorporated communities of Homeland, Romoland and Menifee. The adopted Specific Plan also included areas with Commercial and Business Park uses as well. To date, the Specific Plan has been officially amended five times for a plethora of reasons; including, separating the areas within the City of Menifee and the unincorporated area of Riverside County in the aforementioned communities.
Furthermore, Specific Plan Amendment No. 2 (2008) had a significant effect on the subject project site, including a Change of Zone which established PA 7 “A” and “B” designations while changing the land use map designation from Business Park to Medium High Density Residential (7A) and High Density Residential (7B). An underlying Tentative Tract Map (TTM No. 34118) was approved shortly thereafter, in line with the boundaries of the PAs, but has since expired. The Specific Plan Amendment included unique development standards in anticipation of TTM No. 34118, which consisted of a motor-court type project, however, the proposed Project seeks to deviate from the approved standards approved in the Specific Plan, as discussed in detail below.
Proposed Project:
Site Access/Circulation
The Project site is located along the west side of Palomar Road in the northeastern quadrant of the City. Regional access to the Project site is from I-215 via Ethanac Road and Highway 74.
Project site ingress and egress would be via two 40-foot-wide driveways on Palomar Road. The internal streets will be privately maintained as the street design does not meet the City Standard for residential streets. A waiver has been requested to deviate from City standards. See section below for additional information regarding waivers and/or incentives.
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
Item Page Number: 6
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
598 of 966
City of Menifee Planning Commission
TTM No. 39115 “Menifee 27”
October 22, 2025
1 4
3 0
Site Plan Exhibit – TTM No. 39115
Development Standards
The Development Standards for PA 7A and 7B can be found in Table III-10B and Table III – 11B, respectfully, of the Specific Plan and were approved with Specific Plan Amendment No. 2.
The City of Menifee Municipal Code (MMC) Section 9.180 and California Government Code Section 65915 allow for projects that are utilizing density bonus to also request unlimited waivers of development standards if those development standards have the effect of physically precluding the construction of a housing development that provides for 5% of the residential units as very low-income affordable units. The Project proposes 5% or nine of the residential units (of the base density of 172 units) as very low-income affordable and therefore can request development standard waivers. By providing affordable units, the Project qualifies for an increase in the number of residential units (or a density bonus) of up to 20%. The Project includes a density bonus of Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
Item Page Number: 7
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
599 of 966
City of Menifee Planning Commission
TTM No. 39115 “Menifee 27”
October 22, 2025
1 4
3 0
approximately 12%. The proposed Project is requesting a waiver of the development standards listed below.
TABLE 1 – Waiver of Development Standards
Development Standards Specific Plan Req. Proposed SDBL
PLANNING AREA 7A Table III – 10B
Lot Size 4,000 SF (Min.) 2,625 SF (Min.)*
Lot Dimensions 40’ X 90’ 35’ X 75’ *
Lot Frontage 40’ 35’ *
Front Yard 10’ 3’ *
Side Yard (Int.) 5’ 4’
Garage Separation 30’ 8’
Building Separation 10’ 8’
Lot Coverage 50% 65% *
PLANNING AREA 7B Table III – 11B
Lot Size (Min.) 7,200 SF (Min.) 2,625 SF (Min.)
Lot Dimensions (Min.) 60’ X 100’ 35’ X 75’
Front Yard Setback 10’ 3’
Side Yard (Int.) 5’ 4’
Garage Separation 30’ 8’
*Majority of the lots meet the minimum requirement of the SP (69 of 75 lots) Additional Waivers- Landscaping
7B - Front Yard Tree Requirements. According to MMC Section 9.195.050(A), front yard landscaping must include at least one fifteen-gallon size tree per lot, one five-gallon size tree per lot, and a variety of drought tolerant shrubs and ground cover. The applicant has requested a waiver to the requirement for two trees in every front yard within PA 7B; the Project will provide drought tolerant shrubs and ground cover.
7A and 7B - Street Tree Landscaping. The City requires at least one street tree at the front of each residential lot and in the street side yard. The applicant is seeking a waiver for parkway landscaping.
Absent these requested waivers, the Project would not be able to achieve the 192 single-family residential homes including nine that are very low-income affordable due to the required size of the lots and setbacks/building separation per the Specific Plan. The 7,200 and 4,000 square-foot minimum lot sizes and the various setback requirements physically preclude the development of 192 single-family lots on this Project site which is prohibited per MMC Section 9.180 and California Government Code Section 65915.
Parking
Pursuant to the Specific Plan and the City of Menifee Development Code, each single-family home shall have two parking spaces within an enclosed garage (192 units = 384 garage parking spaces). In addition to garage parking, 135 surface parking spaces are provided (exclusive of Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
Item Page Number: 8
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
600 of 966
City of Menifee Planning Commission
TTM No. 39115 “Menifee 27”
October 22, 2025
1 4
3 0
driveway parking in PA 7A) for residents and guests. A total of 519 parking spaces are provided, exceeding the minimum amount of parking required per the development code.
Landscaping and Open Space
The Project proposes a total of 151,491 square feet or approximately 13% of the Project site of landscape area to be maintained by a Homeowner’s Association (HOA). The landscaping plan would incorporate a variety of tree sizes, including 36-inch box trees, 24-inch box trees, and 15- gallon trees. A total of 149 trees are proposed throughout the Project site, including 26 street trees strategically placed along Palomar Road to enhance streetscape aesthetics and provide shade.
The proposed Project would provide a combination of private and common open space designed to support the recreational and aesthetic needs of future residents. A total of 248,126 square feet of private open space would be distributed throughout the proposed Project, with each lot averaging approximately 1,292 square feet of private outdoor areas.
Conceptual Landscape Plan
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
Item Page Number: 9
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
601 of 966
City of Menifee Planning Commission
TTM No. 39115 “Menifee 27”
October 22, 2025
1 4
3 0
The prominent common open space areas consist of a 2,700 square-foot linear paseo, an 11,000 square-foot tot lot area and a 17,640 square-foot recreation/pool area, along with large landscape basins and landscaped project entryways.
The linear paseo will include passive landscaping and a sidewalk that allows for improved access and connectivity to the centralized recreation/pool area. The tot lot area is located near the main entrance/southern driveway to the Project site and will include a play structure, rubberized play surface, benches, trash receptacles and a bike rack. The centralized recreation area includes a 24’ x 34’ (816 square feet) pool, restroom building with showers, two shade structures, picnic tables and lounge chairs, bike racks and mailbox clusters. Six parking stalls (including two ADA stalls) are located immediately south of the pool area. Decorative concrete paving is incorporated at the Project’s main entrances as well at highly trafficked crosswalks throughout the Project site.
Community Pool and Recreation Area Tot Lot
Community Park – PA 10
The Menifee North Specific Plan and more specifically, PA 10, include a 12.5-acre site, 10 acres of which will become a Community Park. In 2024, a Park Development Agreement was prepared by the property owner of the current project site (PA 7A and 7B) and was recorded with the County Clerk, outlining the project’s Quimby (parkland/open space) obligations. Furthermore, in conjunction with the Park Development Agreement, the property owner executed an Irrevocable Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
Item Page Number: 10
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
602 of 966
City of Menifee Planning Commission
TTM No. 39115 “Menifee 27”
October 22, 2025
1 4
3 0
Offer to Dedicate (IOD) and dedicated the parcels of land in PA 10 to the City, to satisfy the majority of their Quimby obligation. Future residential developers in the Menifee North Specific Plan will be required to fund and construct the park improvements. The exhibit below shows the proximity between the current Project site and the park site, PA 10.
Project Site Proximity
Architecture
The Project includes two product/lot types: PA 7A consists of 75 lots and PA 7B consists of 117 lots. Unit sizes range from 2,111 square feet to 3,025 square feet. Each lot or unit includes a two- car garage (min. 400 square feet). The Project proposes three architectural styles within each PA.
All building elevations along Palomar Road will be enhanced elevations.
The larger lots within PA 7A, reflect Spanish, Prairie, and Farmhouse architectural styles. The Spanish style features stucco exteriors with tile roofs, arched entryways, and decorative shutters, characterized by warm, earthy color schemes such as creamy beige, tanbark brown, and stone lion gray tones. The Prairie style would include horizontal lines, low-pitched roofs, and lap siding, presented in neutral palettes such as sand dune, eaglet beige, and first star gray, accented by white trim and natural wood tones. The Farmhouse style would be characterized by simple forms, gabled roofs, and board-and-batten siding, with color schemes featuring pure white, eaglet beige, and modern gray complemented by dark trim elements such as iron ore and messenger bag brown.
The smaller lots within PA 7B, reflect Ranch, Traditional, and Cottage architectural styles. The Ranch style emphasizes broad facades, and simple detailing, with a range of neutral color schemes such as pure white, diverse beige, and requisite gray, paired with high-reflective white Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
Item Page Number: 11
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
603 of 966
City of Menifee Planning Commission
TTM No. 39115 “Menifee 27”
October 22, 2025
1 4
3 0
and iron ore accents. The Traditional style features symmetrical facades, gable roofs, and modest detailing, highlighted with color palettes including repose gray, modern gray, and lotus pod with subtle accent colors like maroon and black fox. The Cottage style presents cozy, storybook- inspired designs with prominent front porches, enhanced by temperate taupe, believable buff, and Serengeti grass hues, combined with natural stone elements for added texture.
Each plan option would offer three distinct color schemes, as described above, designed to create visual diversity while maintaining neighborhood cohesion. The color schemes integrate a complementary mix of light and dark tones, featuring painted stucco, wood trims, decorative shutters, and roofing materials ranging from flat slate to low-profile “S” tiles.
PA 7A – Plan 1
Plan 2
Plan 3
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
Item Page Number: 12
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
604 of 966
City of Menifee Planning Commission
TTM No. 39115 “Menifee 27”
October 22, 2025
1 4
3 0
PA 7B – Plan 1
Plan 2
Plan 3
Recreation Center
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
Item Page Number: 13
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
605 of 966
City of Menifee Planning Commission
TTM No. 39115 “Menifee 27”
October 22, 2025
1 4
3 0
Walls, Fencing, and Monument Signage
The conceptual landscape plan for the Project includes a six-foot tall decorative block wall along the majority of the perimeter of the Project. The perimeter walls will be designed as split-face block with a decorative cap. Additionally, a six-foot-high tube steel fence is proposed to surround the infiltration basins and a 14-foot-wide tube steel maintenance access gate would be provided to allow service access to the basins. Vinyl side yard fencing with a height of six feet is proposed internally between each lot. A Project entry monument sign is proposed for the main entrance along Palomar Road and will incorporate stone veneer and landscaping at the base.
Monument Sign
Senate Bill 330 – Housing Crisis Act of 2019
Senate Bill (SB) 330 was created to help address the shortage of housing within California by reducing barriers to housing development through expedited processing and/or freezing fees associated with development. The Project proposes to use the provisions of SB 330 to freeze the Development Impact Fees (DIF) and the City of Menifee User (application processing) Fees to the fees in effect at the time of Project submittal (November 25, 2024). Upon the completion of the 2.5-year freeze, the DIF and User Fees in effect at that time will be required. Should construction commence within 2.5 years of the final approval date, the DIF and User Fees will become vested per SB330. If the developer does not commence construction within 2.5 years of the date of final approval, then the DIF and user Fees shall be those in place when developer commences construction.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
The City of Menifee Community Development Department determined the Project does not require additional environmental analysis and is in compliance with CEQA pursuant to Sections 15182 (“Projects Pursuant to a Specific Plan”) and 15183 (“Projects Consistent with a Community Plan or Zoning”).
The General Plan EIR analyzed the environmental impacts associated with buildout of the City of Menifee’s 2013 General Plan, including development consistent with SP No. 260. As discussed herein, the proposed Project is consistent with the land use designation and development assumptions analyzed in the General Plan EIR. The Project site is designated as Medium-High Density Residential and High Density Residential under SP No. 260. The proposed Project would develop a 192-unit single-family residential community, which includes up to a 20% density bonus pursuant to State DBL. This results in a density of approximately 7.02 dwelling units per acre, Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
Item Page Number: 14
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
606 of 966
City of Menifee Planning Commission
TTM No. 39115 “Menifee 27”
October 22, 2025
1 4
3 0
which remains consistent with the assumptions of the General Plan EIR due to the statutory consistency provision for qualifying density bonus projects. As such, the General Plan EIR adequately anticipated and analyzed the impacts of this Project, identified applicable Mitigation Measures necessary to reduce impacts of the Project, and the Project implements the applicable Mitigation Measures. The proposed Project, therefore, qualifies for an exemption from additional environmental review as set forth in CEQA Guidelines Sections 15182 and 15183.
FINDINGS
Findings for TTM No. 39115 (PLN24-0230) and PP No. PLN24-0254 are included in the attached resolution.
PUBLIC NOTICE
Public notices were distributed on October 12, 2025 for the October 22, 2025 Planning Commission hearing. Notices were published in a newspaper of general circulation (The Press Enterprise) and notices were sent to owners within 300 feet of the Project site boundaries and to all relevant agencies and interested parties. On-site postings were provided.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Project Exhibits
2. Resolution
3. Exhibit A – Conditions of Approval
4. Final Environmental Checklist/Analysis
5. Public Hearing Notice
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
Item Page Number: 15
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
607 of 966
Menifee 27 Residential Project
CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 and 15182
Consistency Analysis and Checklist
Lead Agency:
City of Menifee
29844 Haun Road
Menifee, CA 92586
Project Applicant:
Melia Homes
9860 Irvine Center Drive
Irvine, CA 92618
CEQA Consultant:
3333 Michelson Drive, Suite 500
Irvine, CA 92612
October 2025
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
Item Page Number: 16
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
608 of 966
CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist
City of Menifee Menifee 27 Residential Project
This page intentionally left blank.
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
Item Page Number: 17
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
609 of 966
CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist
City of Menifee Menifee 27 Residential Project
i
Contents
1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................... 1
1.1. OVERVIEW OF CEQA GUIDELINES SECTIONS 15183 AND 15182 ................................................... 1
1.2. PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS .............................................................................................. 2
1.3. PROJECT OVERVIEW ...................................................................................................................................... 3
1.4. APPLICABILITY OF CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15183 ........................................................................ 4
1.5. APPLICABILITY OF CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15182 ........................................................................ 5
2. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING .............................................................................................................. 7
2.1. PROJECT LOCATION ...................................................................................................................................... 7
2.2. EXISTING PROJECT SITE ................................................................................................................................. 7
2.3. EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING DESIGNATION OF THE PROJECT SITE ...................................... 7
2.4. SURROUNDING LAND USES, GENERAL PLAN, AND ZONING DESIGNATIONS ............................... 7
3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION .................................................................................................................. 23
3.1. PROJECT OVERVIEW ................................................................................................................................... 23
3.2. PROJECT FEATURES ...................................................................................................................................... 23
3.3. DENSITY BONUS LAW................................................................................................................................. 26
3.4. CONSTRUCTION ........................................................................................................................................... 27
3.5. OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS ............................................................................................................ 27
3.6. PRIOR ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT(S) FOR ANALYZING CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15183 AND 15182 ................................................................................................................................................... 35
3.7. LOCATION OF PRIOR ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT(S) ANALYZING THE EFFECTS OF INFILL PROJECTS ....................................................................................................................................................... 35
3.8. DISCRETIONARY APPROVALS ................................................................................................................... 35
4. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST ........................................................................................................ 35
4.1. CHECKLIST FORM ......................................................................................................................................... 35
4.2. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED ........................................................................ 36
4.3. DETERMINATION (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE LEAD AGENCY) ......................................................... 37
4.4. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ...................................................................................... 38
5. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS ......................................................................................................... 40
5.1. AESTHETICS .................................................................................................................................................... 40
5.2. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES .......................................................................................... 48
5.3. AIR QUALITY .................................................................................................................................................. 53
5.4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES .......................................................................................................................... 63
5.5. CULTURAL RESOURCES ............................................................................................................................... 71
5.6. ENERGY .......................................................................................................................................................... 78
5.7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS ............................................................................................................................... 83
5.8. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ............................................................................................................... 92
5.9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ............................................................................................. 101
5.10. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY .................................................................................................... 110
5.11. LAND USE AND PLANNING ..................................................................................................................... 120
5.12. MINERAL RESOURCES ................................................................................................................................ 123
5.13. NOISE ............................................................................................................................................................ 126
5.14. POPULATION AND HOUSING ................................................................................................................. 136
5.15. PUBLIC SERVICES ........................................................................................................................................ 140
5.16. RECREATION ................................................................................................................................................ 146
5.17. TRANSPORTATION ..................................................................................................................................... 149
5.18. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES ................................................................................................................ 157 Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
Item Page Number: 18
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
610 of 966
CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist
City of Menifee Menifee 27 Residential Project
ii
5.19. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ........................................................................................................... 162
5.20. WILDFIRE ...................................................................................................................................................... 169
6. DOCUMENT PREPARERS AND CONTRIBUTORS ........................................................................... 174
7. REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................. 175
Tables
TABLE 2-1: SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING DESIGNATIONS................................................................................... 8 TABLE 3-1: PLANNING AREA 7A DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY ............................................................................................... 23 TABLE 3-2: PLANNING AREA 7B DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY ............................................................................................... 23 TABLE AES-1: CONSISTENCY WITH SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ................................................................................. 43 TABLE AQ-1: SCAQMD REGIONAL DAILY EMISSIONS THRESHOLDS ................................................................................ 56 TABLE AQ-2: UNMITIGATED REGIONAL PROJECT CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES ................................................. 57 TABLE AQ-3: MITIGATED REGIONAL CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES ..................................................................... 58 TABLE AQ-4: REGIONAL PROJECT OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS ............................................................................................ 58 TABLE AQ-5: LOCALIZED CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES ....................................................................................... 59 TABLE E-1: ENERGY CONSUMPTION ESTIMATES DURING CONSTRUCTION ........................................................................ 79 TABLE E-2: ENERGY CONSUMPTION ESTIMATES DURING PROJECT OPERATION ................................................................ 80 TABLE GHG-1: PROJECT CONSTRUCTION GHG EMISSIONS ............................................................................................ 94 TABLE GHG-2: PROJECT TOTAL GHG EMISSIONS............................................................................................................ 95 TABLE GHG-3: PROJECT CONSISTENCY WITH 2022 SCOPING PLAN .............................................................................. 96 TABLE GHG-4: PROJECT WRCOG SUBREGIONAL CAP CONSISTENCY SUMMARY ........................................................ 98 TABLE N-1: SUMMARY OF LONG-TERM 24-HOUR AMBIENT NOISE LEVEL MEASUREMENTS ............................................ 128 TABLE N-2: CITY OF MENIFEE EXTERIOR STATIONARY NOISE STANDARD ......................................................................... 129 TABLE N-3: VIBRATION CRITERIA FOR POTENTIAL VIBRATION ANNOYANCE .................................................................... 129 TABLE N-4: VIBRATION DAMAGE CRITERIA ....................................................................................................................... 129 TABLE N-4: TYPICAL CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT NOISE LEVELS ..................................................................................... 130 TABLE N-5: CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVELS AT THE NEARBY SENSITIVE RECEPTORS ......................................................... 131 TABLE N-6: TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS WITHOUT AND WITH PROPOSED PROJECT – EXISTING AND OPENING YEAR (2028) 132
TABLE N-7: VIBRATION SOURCE AMPLITUDES FOR CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT ............................................................. 133 TABLE N-8: POTENTIAL CONSTRUCTION VIBRATION ANNOYANCE IMPACTS AT NEAREST RECEPTOR .............................. 133 TABLE N-9: POTENTIAL CONSTRUCTION VIBRATION DAMAGE IMPACTS AT NEAREST RECEPTOR ..................................... 134 TABLE POP-1: POPULATION TRENDS ................................................................................................................................ 137 TABLE TRA-1: CONSISTENCY WITH SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ............................................................................... 152
Figures
FIGURE 2-1: REGIONAL LOCATION........................................................................................................................................ 9 FIGURE 2-2: LOCAL VICINITY .............................................................................................................................................. 11 FIGURE 2-3: AERIAL VIEW................................................................................................................................................... 13 FIGURE 2-4A: EXISTING SITE PHOTOS ................................................................................................................................ 15 FIGURE 2-4B: EXISTING SITE PHOTOS................................................................................................................................. 17 FIGURE 2-5: GENERAL PLAN LAND USE .............................................................................................................................. 19 FIGURE 2-6: ZONING DESIGNATION .................................................................................................................................. 21 FIGURE 3-1: CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN ................................................................................................................................. 29 FIGURE 3-2A: LANDSCAPE PLAN ......................................................................................................................................... 31 FIGURE 3-2B: LANDSCAPE PLAN ......................................................................................................................................... 33 Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
Item Page Number: 19
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
611 of 966
CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist
City of Menifee Menifee 27 Residential Project
iii
Appendices
APPENDIX A A IR QUALITY, ENERGY, AND GREENHOUSE GAS IMPACT ANALYSIS
APPENDIX B H ABITAT ASSESSMENT
APPENDIX C A RCHAEOLOGICAL AND PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES STUDY
APPENDIX D G EOTECHNICAL EVALUATION
APPENDIX E P HASE I ESA
APPENDIX F P RELIMINARY HYDROLOGY REPORT
APPENDIX G P RELIMINARY WQMP
APPENDIX H N OISE AND VIBRATION IMPACT ANALYSIS
APPENDIX I VMT SCOPING FORM
APPENDIX J C ONCEPTUAL ELEVATIONS
APPENDIX K T RAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
Item Page Number: 20
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
612 of 966
CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist
City of Menifee Menifee 27 Residential Project
iv
This page intentionally left blank.
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
Item Page Number: 21
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
613 of 966
CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist
City of Menifee Menifee 27 Residential Project
1 1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. OVERVIEW OF CEQA GUIDELINES SECTIONS 15183 AND 15182 CEQA Guidelines Section 15183
This CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist evaluates whether the potential environmental impacts of the proposed Project are addressed in the 2013 City of Menifee General Plan Environmental Impact Report (GP EIR) (State Clearinghouse Number [SCH] No. 2012071033) pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15183, Projects Consistent with a Community Plan, General Plan, or Zoning (Exemption Checklist).
As set forth in California Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21083.3(b) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(a), projects that are “consistent with the development density established by the existing zoning, community plan or general plan policies for which an EIR was certified shall not require additional environmental review, except as might be necessary to examine whether there are project-specific significant effects which are peculiar to the project or its site.” CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(c) further state s that “[i]f an impact is not peculiar to the parcel or to the project, has been addressed as a significant effect in the prior EIR, or can be substantially mitigated by the imposition of uniformly applied development policies or standards […] then an additional EIR need not be prepared for the project solely on the basis of that impact.”
In Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. City of Turlock , 138 Cal.App.4th 273 (2006), the court stated , “The foregoing construction of the terms “peculiar to” and “project- specific” promotes efficiency by reducing delay and needless paperwork and, therefore, is consistent with the purpose underlying the streamlined review of Guidelines section 15183.”
The court went on to state that “Applying these definitions, a physical change in the environment will be peculiar to the [ Project] if that physical change belongs exclusively or especially to the [Project] or if it is characteristic of only the [Project].”
Similarly, in Gilroy Citizens for Responsible Planning v. City of Gilroy, 140 Cal.App.4th 911 (2006), the court found that because the project would have significant air quality impacts and because the GP EIR concluded the same, there was nothing peculiar about the project. There is nothing peculiar about a project with significant impacts if the EIR already analyzed and determined those projects to be significant.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15182
The purpose of this CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist is to evaluate the consistency of the proposed Project to the previously certified Menifee North Specific Plan No. 260. As described by Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines, a CEQA Exemption Study is prepared primarily to provide the Lead Agency with information to use as the basis for determining whether a project would have a significant effect on the environment.
According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15182, development projects that are undertaken pursuant to a specific plan for which an EIR was previously prepared are exempt from further CEQA review if the projects are in conformity with that specific plan and the conditions described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 (relating to the preparation of a supplemental EIR) are not present. (Gov. Code, § 65457, subd. (a); Guidelines, § 15182, subd. (c), § 15162, subd. (a)) CEQA Guidelines Section 15182(c) Residential Proj ects Implementing Specific Plans states that this includes, but not limited to, land subdivisions, zoning changes, and residential planned unit developments.
Pursuant to Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, when an EIR has been certified or a negative declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for the project unless the lead Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
Item Page Number: 22
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
614 of 966
CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist
City of Menifee Menifee 27 Residential Project
2 agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence, that one or more of the following conditions are met:
1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;
2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or 3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete, shows any of the following:
a) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration.
b) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than identified in the previous EIR.
c) Mitigation Measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponent declines to adopt the Mitigation Measures or alternatives. d) Mitigation Measures or alternatives that are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponent declines to adopt the Mitigation Measures or alternatives.
Under Section 15182, where if the agency finds that pursuant to Section 15162, no subsequent EIR or negative declaration would be required, the agency can approve the activity as being within the scope of the project covered by the previous CEQA documentat ion for the Specific Plan, and no additional CEQA document is required.
1.2. PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS
City of Menifee General Plan
The Menifee City Council adopted the General Plan (GP) and certified the associated Environmental Impact Report (herein, “GP EIR;” SCH No. 2012071033) on December 18, 2013. Three addendums to the GP EIR have been implemented since its initial adoption in 2013. The first addendum was adopted on February 5, 2014, as a result of the City’s 5th Cycle Housing Element Update to meet Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) requirements. The second addendum addressed minor zoning and land use changes resulting from the City’s update of the G P Land Use Element adopted on March 18, 2020. The final and most recent addendum includes updated information associated with minor changes made to the City’s G P Circulation Element to alleviate a conflict between the development of Wickerd Road and the 2005 Cantalena Specific Plan.
The goal of the GP is to continue to enhance the community’s quality of life, promote a cycle of investment and reinvestment in the community, and provide strategies to achieve these goals across a planning horizon into the year 2030. The GP includes the required State elements such as Land Use, Housing, Circulation, Open Space and Conservation, Safety, and Noise, as well as additional elements addressing Community Design and Economic Development.
The accompanying GP EIR was prepared in conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA; California Public Resources Code, Sections 21000, et seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines (California Code oof Regulations Title 14, Sections 15000, et seq.). The GP EIR evaluated the potential environmental effects from implementation of the GP, and development pursuant to the GP is subject to Mitigation Measures identified in the GP EIR and the requirements of the City’s Development Code. A project is consistent with the GP if the development density does not exceed what was contemplated and analyzed for the parcel(s) in Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
Item Page Number: 23
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
615 of 966
CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist
City of Menifee Menifee 27 Residential Project
3 the GP EIR and complies with the associated standards applicable to that development density as set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(i)(2). Development density standards can include the number of dwelling units per acre, the number of people in a given area, floor area ratio (FAR), and other measures of building intensity, building height, size limitations, and use restrictions.
Menifee North Specific Plan
In 1993, the County of Riverside Board of Supervisors approved the Menifee North Specific Plan No. 260 and certified the associated Menifee North Specific Plan EIR No. 329. The adopted Specific Plan provided for the development of 2,390 residential units on 1,635.3 acres between the communities of Homeland and Romoland in southwestern Riverside County. The adopted Specific Plan also included areas with Commercial, Business Park, and Commercial/Business Park uses.
The Menifee North Specific Plan EIR was intended to serve as the Master Environmental Document for the Menifee North Specific Plan and all subsequent development projects undertaken pursuant to and within the Specific Plan boundaries. EIR No. 329 analyzed 2,654 dwelling units, although the plan was approved for only 2,390 units. To date, the Specific Plan has been amended five times as described below. • Amendment No. 1 (2004): Increased the total number of residential units to 2,602, eliminated 18 acres of commercial land (Planning Area 1), and re-designated Planning Area 32 from Medium to Medium-High Density Residential.
• Amendment No. 2 (2008): Reduced the Specific Plan area by approximately 30 acres, increased residential units to 2,815, modified land use and unit counts in multiple planning areas, and updated the circulation plan. The incorporation of the City of Menifee left approximately 775 acres of the plan area within City jurisdiction.
• Substantial Conformance No. 1 (2016): Removed all portions of the Specific Plan west of Briggs Road, reducing the plan area to 829.2 acres and 2,025 units within the County. The remaining 816.2 acres and 889 units were located within the City of Menifee. • Substantial Conformance No. 2 (2020): Adjusted boundaries, acreages, and unit allocations in Planning Areas 24–28, maintained the 2,025-unit cap, reduced minimum lot sizes in Planning Area 25, revised park and basin locations, and corrected land use designations for Planning Areas 26 and 28.
• Amendment No. 3 (2020): Modified Planning Areas 11–14 and formally removed areas outside City boundaries. An updated consolidated Specific Plan document was not prepared. • Amendment No. 4 (2022): Increased the acreage of Planning Area 2 from 138.8 to 145.2 acres to reflect the approval of TTM 38156.
• Amendment No. 5 (2024): Modified Planning Areas 9, 22, and 23A. The amendment reduced the overall Specific Plan acreage from 905.2 to 821.0 acres and increas ed the Medium High Density Residential land use by 44.6 acres, and decreas ed the Medium Density, High Density, and Very High Density Residential land uses by 30.4, 18.1, and 0.7 acres, respectively.
The Menifee North Specific Plan Amendment No. 5, Addendum to EIR No. 329, was prepared pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162, 15164, and 15168(c) , and was adopted by the Menifee City Council in May 2024 (SCH No. 1989100207). The Addendum evaluated the Project’s potential environmental effects in light of those effects previously disclosed in EIR No. 329.
1.3. PROJECT OVERVIEW
The Project applicant proposes to develop a 192 -unit single-family residential subdivision across a 27.35- gross-acre site (27.14 net acres). The proposed subdivision would consist of detached two-story homes with attached garages and private open space. The proposed Project would also include associated improvements such as private roadways, common open space areas, landscaping, utility infrastructure, and stormwater management facilities. Approvals required for the proposed Project include a Tentative Tract Map and Design Review. No off-site improvements are proposed as part of the proposed Project.
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
Item Page Number: 24
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
616 of 966
CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist
City of Menifee Menifee 27 Residential Project
4 The Project site is designated as Planning Area 7A (Medium-High Density Residential) and Planning Area 7B (High Density Residential) by the Menifee North Specific Plan. Planning Area 7A permits up to 85 units across approximately 15.2 acres (5.6 dwelling units per acre [du/ac] ), while Planning Area 7B permits up to 87 units on approximately 11.9 acres (7.3 du/ac). The proposed Project would result in 75 units within Planning Area 7A (4.93 du/ac) and 117 units in Planning Area 7B (9.83 du/ac), consistent with the allowable densities under the Menifee North Specific Plan with the benefits allowable under State Density Bonus Law.
1.4. APPLICABILITY OF CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15183
As set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(d), the Exemption Checklist applies to projects which meet the following conditions.
The project is consistent with:
a. A community plan adopted as part of a general plan;
b. A zoning action which zoned or designated the parcel on which the project would be located to accommodate a particular density of development; or
c. A general plan of a local agency.
And:
An EIR was certified by the lead agency for the zoning action, the community plan, or the general plan.
Additionally, the Exemption Checklist applies only to the extent that all feasible M itigation Measures identified in the applicable general plan are implemented by the public agency with jurisdiction to require such Mitigation Measures as set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(e).
The GP EIR analyzed the environmental impacts associated with buildout of the City of Menifee’s 2013 GP, including development consistent with the Menifee North Specific Plan (SP No. 260). As discussed herein, the proposed Project is consistent with the land use designation and development assumptions analyzed in the GP EIR. The Project site is designated as Medium-High Density Residential and High Density Residential under the Menifee North Specific Plan . The proposed Project would develop a 192-unit single-family residential community, which includes a 20 percent density bonus pursuant to State Density Bonus Law. This results in a density of approximately 7.02 dwelling units per acre, which remains consistent with the assumptions of the GP EIR due to the statutory consistency provision for qualifying density bonus projects. As such, the GP EIR adequately anticipated and analyzed the impacts of this Project, identified applicable Mitigation Measures necessary to reduce impacts of the Project, and the Project implements the applicable Mitigation Measures.
The proposed Project, therefore, qualifies for an exemption from additional environmental review as set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.
Specifically, the Project qualifies for the exemption because the following findings can be made:
1. The Project is consistent with the development density established by existing zoning, community plan, or general plan policies for which an EIR was certified. The proposed Project would develop 192 single-family residential homes. The site is located within the Menifee North Specific Plan and is designated for residential development in Planning Areas 7A and 7B, which allow for medium-high and high-density residential uses, respectively. The proposed development, including the density bonus units, is consistent with the residential land use and development intensity analyzed in the GP EIR and zoning framework.
2. There are no Project -specific effects which are peculiar to the Project or its site. The Project site is currently vacant and undeveloped , located in a developed portion of the City of Menifee and surrounded by residential and commercial land uses. The site does not contain any sensitive or unique environmental features that would result in unusual environmental effects. The proposed Project would not result in any site-specific effects that differ from those analyzed in the GP EIR. The proposed Project Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
Item Page Number: 25
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
617 of 966
CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist
City of Menifee Menifee 27 Residential Project
5 includes typical residential infrastructure improvements, such as private streets, sidewalks, drainage basins, utility connections, and landscaped open space, consistent with nearby development.
3. There are no significant effects which were not analyzed in the G P EIR. As further detailed in the CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist , the potential environmental impacts of the Project were adequately addressed in the GP EIR. The GP EIR identified that the GP would have significant and unavoidable environmental effects related to Agriculture and Forestry Resources, Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Noise, and Transportation. The GP EIR also identified environmental impact areas for which Mitigation Measures are required to reduce potential environmental impacts to a less- than-significant level related to Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Tribal Cultural Resources . The proposed Project would not result in new or more severe impacts than those previously analyzed.
4. There are no potentially significant off -site and/or cumulative impacts that were not evaluated in the G P EIR. The proposed Project is consistent with the density and land use characteristics of the development considered by the GP EIR and would represent a small part of the growth that was forecasted for build-out of the GP. The GP EIR considered the incremental impacts of the Project, and, as explained further in the CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist below, no potentially significant off-site or cumulative impacts have been identified, which were not previously evaluated.
5. There is no substantial new information which would result in more severe impacts than anticipated in the GP EIR. There is no new information of substantial importance that would change the conclusions of the GP EIR. The physical conditions of the site and surrounding area remain consistent with what was analyzed in 2013. There have been no substantial changes to the regulatory framework that would result in new or more severe impacts. As demonstrated in the CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist, the proposed Project does not introduce new impacts or increase the severity of previously disclosed impacts.
6. The Project will implement applicable Mitigation Measures identified in the G P EIR.
As explained in the Exemption Checklist below, the proposed Project will undertake feasible Mitigation Measures specified in the GP EIR through Project design, compliance with regulations and ordinances, the Project’s Standard Conditions of approval, and City permit processing.
1.5. APPLICABILITY OF CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15182
The City of Menifee is designated the Lead Agency, in accordance with Section 15050 of the CEQA Guidelines. The Lead Agency is the public agency which has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project which may have significant effects upon the environment. The proposed Project has been determined to be consistent with the certified Menifee North Specific Plan EIR (SP EIR). Staff has determined that the proposed Project is in conformity with the Menifee North Specific Plan and the certified SP EIR that analyzed the impacts of development of the proposed Medium- High Density Residential and High Density Residential land uses. Staff has reviewed the certified SP EIR and has determined that the proposed Project does not require the preparation of a subsequent Environmental Impact Report as none of the conditions described in Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code Regs. 15162) exist. Specifically, there are no substantial changes proposed by the Project that will require major revisions of the SP EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; no substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the proposed Project are undertaken that will require major revisions of the SP EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; and there is no new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the SP EIR was adopted, showing that:
a) The proposed Project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the certified EIR; b) There are significant effects previously examined that will be substantially more severe than shown in the certified EIR;
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
Item Page Number: 26
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
618 of 966
CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist
City of Menifee Menifee 27 Residential Project
6 c) There are M itigation Measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the proposed project, but the City declines to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or d) Mitigation Measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the City declines to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.
The City of Menifee has determined, based on this CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist document, that the potential impacts are consistent with those previously identified that can be reduced to below the level of significance through the implementation of the previously adopted Standard Conditions of Approval and Mitigation Measures for the approved Specific Plan; that the proposed Project qualifies for an exemption to further CEQA review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15182, Projects Pursuant to a Specific Plan , and Section 15162, Subsequent EIRs and Negative Declarations; and therefore, a CEQA Exemption is deemed the appropriate document to provide the necessary environmental clearance.
This CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist has been prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, which allows for streamlined environmental review for projects consistent with the development density established by existing zoning, community plans, or general plans for which an EIR was certified. In addition, this document includes a consistency analysis prepared in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21083.3 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15182, which provide a separate statutory exemption for residential projects consistent with a specific plan for which an EIR has been certified.
Although the checklist and environmental evaluation are structured around the Section 15183 framework, the analysis also demonstrates that the proposed Project is consistent with the development assumptions and mitigation requirements of the certified SP EIR. While only Mitigation Measures from the GP EIR are applied as project-specific mitigation, relevant and applicable Mitigation Measures from the SP EIR would also apply to the proposed Project and would serve to further reduce or avoid potential environmental impacts.
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
Item Page Number: 27
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
619 of 966
CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist
City of Menifee Menifee 27 Residential Project
7 2. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
2.1. PROJECT LOCATION
The Project site is situated in the northeast portion of the City of Menifee within Riverside County. The Project site is located north of State Route 74 (SR-74), west of Palomar Road, east of Antelope Road, and south of Watson Road. Regional access to the site is provided via SR-74 and Interstate 215 (I-215). Local access to the Project site is provided via Palomar Road. The Project site and the surrounding area are shown in Figure 2-1, Regional Location, and Figure 2-2, Local Vicinity.
2.2. EXISTING PROJECT SITE
The Project site encompasses approximately 27.35 gross acres ( 27.14 net acres), inclusive of five parcels identified by Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APN) 329 -110-024, -028, -041, -042, and - 043. The site is currently vacant and undeveloped. It is primarily vegetated with unplanned, non-native grasses, along with sparse shrubs and a few ornamental trees. A portion of the site is heavily disturbed and is presently used as an informal access roadway.
An existing chain-link fence runs along portions of the western perimeter of the site, while a block wall is located along the majority of the northern boundary. Additionally, a 32 -foot-wide storm drain easement, owned by Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, extends along the western boundary of the Project site. Existing conditions of the Project site and adjacent uses are shown in Figure 2- 3, Aerial View, and Figures 2-4a and 2-4b, Existing Site Photos.
2.3. EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING DESIGNATION OF THE PROJECT SITE The Project site is located within the Menifee North Specific Plan (SP No. 260) area and is designated as Planning Area 7A (Medium-High Density) and Planning Area 7B (High Density) by the Specific Plan, as shown on Figure 2-5, General Plan Land Use, and Figure 2-6, Zoning Designation. Planning Area 7A encompasses approximately 15.2 acres of the northern portion of the Project site and is designated for medium high - density residential development, which allows for up to 85 dwelling units, equating to a maximum density of
5.6 dwelling units per acre (du/ac). Planning Area 7B encompasses approximately 11.9 acres of the southern portion of the Project site and is designated for high-density residential development, allowing for up to 87 dwelling units, with a maximum permitted density of 7.3 du/ac. The combination of the two planning areas has a target residential density of 172 total dwelling units or 6.32 dwelling units per acre. These residential designations are intended to accommodate a range of housing types, including single-family attached and detached homes, townhomes, and multi-family residential units.
2.4. SURROUNDING LAND USES, GENERAL PLAN, AND ZONING
DESIGNATIONS
The surrounding land uses are described in Table 2-1 along with the GP land use and zoning designations.
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
Item Page Number: 28
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
620 of 966
CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist
City of Menifee Menifee 27 Residential Project
8 Table 2-1: Surrounding Land Use and Zoning Designations Direction Existing Use General Plan Land Use Zoning
North Residential Menifee North Specific Plan
Menifee North Specific Plan:
Planning Area 5 and 6
(Medium Density Residential)
East Palomar Road followed by
vacant and undeveloped land Menifee North Specific Plan Menifee North Specific Plan:
Planning Area 11A (Very High
Density Residential) and 12A
(Commercial/Very High Density
Residential)
South Commercial and undeveloped
land
Menifee North Specific Plan
and Commercial Retail (CR)
0.20 - 0.35
Menifee North Specific Plan:
Planning Area 8 (Commercial)
and Commercial Retail (CR)
West Residential 8.1-14 du/ac Residential
(8.1-14 R)
Medium Density Residential
(MDR)
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
Item Page Number: 29
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
621 of 966
Regional Location
Figure 2-1Menifee 27 Residential
City of
Menifee
Citrus Ave Citrus Ave
N Perris Blvd
Murrieta Rd
Foothill Dr
Nuevo RdE Nuevo R d
74 McLaughlin R d
Murrieta Rd
Murrieta Rd
Trumb
le R
d
Mapes Rd
S G St
Ethanac Rd
Dawson Rd
Watson Rd Watson Rd
Byers Rd
Rouse Rd
Case Rd
Goetz Rd
Ellis Ave
Evans Rd
Barne
tt Rd
Pico Ave
Benigni Ave
Palomar Rd
San Jacinto Ave
Dunlap
Dr
Encanto Dr
Red
la
nds Ave
Murrieta Rd
Ethanac Rd
US
Highw
ay 7 4
Ellis
Romoland
P erris
215
La La
dera Rd
Antelope Rd
Thorn
hill D r
Chamb ers Ave
McCa ll Blv d
Menifee Lakes
Country Club
Sun City
Apricot Ave Conto ur Ave
Nuevo
Watson Rd
Alica nte Dr
All en Ave Allen Ave
Mapes Rd La Huert a Rd
Central Ave
Gun
ther Rd
Menifee Rd
Briggs
Rd
Mounta in Ave
Matthews Rd
Briggs Rd
Homeland
Linde
nb
erg
er Rd
Olive Ave
Mc Call Blvd
Simpson Rd
Menif
ee R
d
Domenigoni Pkwy
Matthews Rd Double Butte
County Park
Sources: Esri, TomTom, Garmin, FAO, NOAA, USGS, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community
0 1 2
Miles
±
Legend
Project Boundary
Menifee
Perris
Unincorporated
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
Item Page Number: 30
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
622 of 966
CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist
City of Menifee Menifee 27 Residential Project
10 This page intentionally left blank.
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
Item Page Number: 31
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
623 of 966
Local Vicinity
Figure 2-2Menifee 27 Residential
City of
Menifee
Watson Road
Eller Way
Blue Diamond Lane Blue Diamond Lane
Ante
lope Roa
d
Bruner Road
Adams Avenue
Jackson A
venue
Van Buren Av
enue
3rd Stree
t
4th Street
Northwinds Drive
Macintosh C
our
t
Baroni Road
Moreland Road
Tr
adewinds Drive
Tradewinds Drive
Westwinds Drive
Cider Street
Red Apple Road
Palom
ar Road
Ethanac Road
Matt
hews Road
Pinacate Road
CA 74
Romoland
McLaughlin Road
Antelope Road
Palomar Roa
d
Matthews Road
Palomar
Ro
ad
B.P. Recycling
Patelli Way
Stone Lane
Win
ner Circ
le D
rive
Alicante Drive
Menifee Ro
ad
Matthews Road
M
enifee Road
SCE Menifee
Service Center
Valley
Substation
Map data © OpenStreetMap contributors, Microsoft, Facebook, Google, Esri Community Maps contributors, Map layer by Esri 0 1,000 2,000
US Feet
±
Legend
Project Boundary
Watson Road
Palomar Road
Matthews Road
Menifee Road
74 74
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
Item Page Number: 32
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
624 of 966
CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist
City of Menifee Menifee 27 Residential Project
12 This page intentionally left blank.
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
Item Page Number: 33
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
625 of 966
Aerial View
Figure 2-3Menifee 27 Residential
City of Menifee
0 200 400
US Feet
±
Legend
Project Boundary
Cider Street
Palomar Road
Aerial Source: Nearmap 2025
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
Item Page Number: 34
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
626 of 966
CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist
City of Menifee Menifee 27 Residential Project
14 This page intentionally left blank.
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
Item Page Number: 35
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
627 of 966
Existing Site Photos
Figure 1-4aMenifee 27 Residential
City of Menifee
Key
Viewpoint location
Direction of sight
View of Project site from southern end off property facing north.
Loma Linda University, County
of Riverside, Bureau of Land
Key
Viewpoint location
Direction of sight
View of Project site from southwestern corner of property facing east.
Loma Linda University, County
of Riverside, Bureau of Land
Original Photo Source: Stantec 2024 Original Photo Source: Stantec 2024 Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
Item Page Number: 36
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
628 of 966
CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist
City of Menifee Menifee 27 Residential Project
16 This page intentionally left blank.
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
Item Page Number: 37
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
629 of 966
Existing Site Photos
Figure 1-4bMenifee 27 Residential
City of Menifee
Key
Viewpoint location
Direction of sight
View of Project site from northern end off property facing south.
Loma Linda University, County
of Riverside, Bureau of Land
Key
Viewpoint location
Direction of sight
View of Project site from eastern edge of property on Palomar Road facing west.
Loma Linda University, County
of Riverside, Bureau of Land
Original Photo Source: Stantec 2024 Original Photo Source: Stantec 2024 Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
Item Page Number: 38
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
630 of 966
CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist
City of Menifee Menifee 27 Residential Project
18 This page intentionally left blank.
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
Item Page Number: 39
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
631 of 966
General Plan Land Use
Figure 2-5Menifee 27 Residential
City of
Menifee
Esri, NASA, NGA, USGS, FEMA, Sources: Esri, TomTom, Garmin, FAO, NO
AA, USGS, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community
0 1,000 2,000
US Feet
±
Legend
Project Boundary
Rural Residential 1 ac min (RR-1)
20.1-24 du/ac Residential (20.1-24 R)
2.1-5 du/ac Residential (2.1-5 R)
8.1-14 du/ac Residential (8.1014 R)
Commercial Retail (CR) 0.2-0.35 FAR
Heavy Industrial (HI) 0.15-0.5 FAR
Business Park (BP) 0.25-0.60 FAR
Recreation (OS-R)
Public/Quasi Public Facilities (PF)
Specific Plan (SP)
Public Utility Corridor (PUC)
Railroad
GP Land Use Designa
tion
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
Item Page Number: 40
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
632 of 966
CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist
City of Menifee Menifee 27 Residential Project
20 This page intentionally left blank.
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
Item Page Number: 41
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
633 of 966
Zoning Designation
Figure 2-6Menifee 27 Residential
City of
Menifee
Esri, NASA, NGA, USGS, FEMA, Sources: Esri, TomTom, Garmin, FAO, NO
AA, USGS, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community
0 1,000 2,000
US Feet
±
Legend
Project Boundary
Rural Residential 1-acre minimum (RR-1)
High Density Residential (HDR)
Low Density Residential-2 (LDR-2) [7,200 SF]
Medium Density Residential (MDR)
Commercial Retail (CR)
Heavy Industrial (HI)
Business Park/Light Industrial (BP)
Open Space-Recreation (OS-R)
Public/Quasi-Public Facilities (PF)
Specific Plan (SP)
Public Utility Corridor (PUC)
Rail (RX)
Zoning Designa
tion
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
Item Page Number: 42
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
634 of 966
CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist
City of Menifee Menifee 27 Residential Project
22 This page intentionally left blank.
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
Item Page Number: 43
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
635 of 966
CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist
City of Menifee Menifee 27 Residential Project
23 3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3.1. PROJECT OVERVIEW
The Project applicant proposes to subdivide the 27.35 -acre site into 192 single -family residential lots, resulting in an overall proposed density of 7.02 dwelling units per acre. The subdivision would be developed across two planning areas: Planning Area 7A, which would accommodate 75 units at a density of 4.93 dwelling units per acre, and Planning Area 7B, which would accommodate 117 units at a density of 9.83 dwelling units per acre. The proposed Project would also include associated improvements such as landscaping, parking, private roadways, common and private open space areas, and utility and stormwater infrastructure. Figure 3-1, Conceptual Site Plan , illustrates the Project as proposed. The proposed Project would require approval of a Tentative Tract Map (TTM) and design review from the City of Menifee.
3.2. PROJECT FEATURES
Development Summary
Each residence would be constructed as a two-story, single-family detached home, featuring a private porch and an attached two-car garage. As part of the proposed Project’s commitment to affordable housing, nine units (5 percent of the base density) would be reserved for very low -income households, qualifying the proposed Project for benefits under California’s State Density Bonus Law (Government Code Section 65915).
These benefits would include a 20 percent density bonus, development standard waivers or reductions, one concession/incentive, and the use of State Density Bonus parking ratios as permitted under the City of Menifee Development Code Chapter 9.180.
The proposed Project would consist of two residential plan options, each with three distinct product types to provide architectural and design variety. Lot sizes would vary, with plan option 1 featuring a minimum lot size of 4,050 square feet (SF) and plan option 2 featuring a minimum lot size of 2,625 SF. The residential units would range in size from 2,111 to 3,025 SF and would include a minimum of four bedrooms and three bathrooms. All units would maintain minimum setbacks of 3 feet from the front yard and 4 feet from the side yard property lines. A summary of the proposed residential units is provided in Tables 3-1 and 3-2, below.
Table 3-1: Residential Plan 1 Development Summary
Product Type
(Plan 1)
No. of Units Bedrooms Bath Unit (SF) Garage (SF) Porch (SF) 1 34 5 3 2,608 451 24
2 34 5 3 2,831 427 22
3 35 5 4 3,025 430 88
Table 3-2: Residential Plan 2 Development Summary
Product Type
(Plan 2)
No. of Units Bedrooms Bath Unit (SF) Garage (SF) Porch (SF) 1 29 4 3 2,111 434 31
2 30 5 3 2,309 436 30
3 30 5 3 2,521 434 30
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
Item Page Number: 44
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
636 of 966
CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist
City of Menifee Menifee 27 Residential Project
24 Architectural Summary
The proposed Project would offer three product types and architectural styles for plan option 1 and three product types and architectural styles for plan option 2.
In plan option 1, the homes would reflect Spanish, Prairie, and Farmhouse architectural styles. The Spanish style would feature stucco exteriors with tile roofs, arched entryways, and decorative shutters, characterized by warm, earthy color schemes such as creamy beige, tanbark brown, and stone lion gray tones. The Prairie style would include horizontal lines, low-pitched roofs, and lap siding, presented in neutral palettes such as sand dune, eaglet beige, and first star gray, accented by white trim and natural wood tones. The Farmhouse style would be characterized by simple forms, gabled roofs, and board -and-batten siding, with color schemes featuring pure white, eaglet beige, and modern gray complemented by dark trim elements such as iron ore and messenger bag brown.
In plan option 2, the homes would offer Ranch, Traditional, and Cottage architectural styles. The Ranch style would emphasize broad facades, and simple detailing, with a range of neutral color schemes such as pure white, diverse beige, and requisite gray, paired with high -reflective white and iron ore accents. The Traditional style would feature symmetrical facades, gable roofs, and modest detailing, highlighted with color palettes including repose gray, modern gray, and lotus pod with subtle accent colors like maroon and black fox. The Cottage style would present cozy, storybook -inspired designs with prominent front porches, enhanced by temperate taupe, believable buff, and Serengeti grass hues, combined with natural stone elements for added texture.
Each plan option would offer three distinct color schemes, as described above, designed to create visual diversity while maintaining neighborhood cohesion. The color schemes integrate a complementary mix of light and dark tones, featuring painted stucco, wood trims, decorative shutters, and roofing materials ranging from flat slate to low -profile “S” tiles. Conceptual renderings and detailed color boards illustrating the proposed architectural styles and color palettes are provided in Appendix J, Conceptual Elevations.
Parking and Access
The proposed Project would provide a total of 723 parking spaces to serve future residents and guests.
Parking would include 384 spaces within garages (two per residential unit), 204 spaces in private driveways, 86 on-street parallel parking spaces, and 49 off-street head-in parking stalls distributed throughout the community.
Access to the Project site would be provided via two new driveways on Palomar Road, with the southern driveway having a width of 50 feet and the northern driveway having a width of 40 feet , which would provide access to all 192 proposed residences. Internal circulation would be provided via the construction of private internal streets designed to meet local circulation , with roadway widths ranging from 24 to 28 feet to accommodate two-way vehicle travel and emergency vehicle movements, depending on the location within the site. Several street sections would include 8 -foot-wide parallel parking lanes on both sides to provide on-street guest parking, while other sections either omit parking lanes entirely or provide a single parking lane, approximately 18 feet wide, on one side of the street. Six- foot-wide sidewalks would be provided throughout the community, with landscaped parkways included in select sections to enhance the streetscape and pedestrian environment. Curb and gutter improvements would also be constructed along both sides of the internal streets to manage stormwater runoff and define vehicular and pedestrian space.
Fencing and Walls
The proposed Project includes a variety of perimeter and interior fencing, and walls designed to provide privacy, security, and site screening. A 6 -foot-high split-face concrete block wall (finished on one side) is Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
Item Page Number: 45
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
637 of 966
CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist
City of Menifee Menifee 27 Residential Project
25 proposed along the southern, eastern, and western boundaries of the Project site. A 6-foot-high vinyl fence would be installed between individual residential lots to provide separation and privacy for future residents.
Additionally, a 6-foot-high tube steel fence is proposed to surround the infiltration basins along any sides that face residential lots, and a 14 -foot-wide tube steel maintenance access gate would be provided to allow service access to the basins. The existing 6 -foot-tall block wall located a long the northern Project boundary would remain in place and be integrated into the Project’s perimeter improvements.
Landscaping
The proposed Project would include approximately 151,491 SF of landscaped area, representing 13 percent of the total site. The landscaping plan would incorporate a variety of tree sizes, including 36 -inch box trees, 24-inch box trees, and 15-gallon trees. A total of 149 trees are proposed throughout the Project site, including 26 street trees strategically placed along Palomar Road to enhance streetscape aesthetics and provide shade.
Landscaping improvements would be located along the eastern and western boundaries of the Project site, within the two proposed stormwater basin areas, and within the two recreational open space areas. All landscaping, including trees, would be maintained by the Homeowners Association (HOA) to ensure long - term visual quality and neighborhood character. Figure 3-2 a, Conceptual Landscape Plan A, and Figure 3- 2b, Conceptual Landscape Plan B, illustrate the site’s landscape plan as proposed.
Photovoltaic (PV) Solar
Consistent with the 2022 California Energy Code (Title 24 Part 6), the proposed Project would include photovoltaic (PV) solar panels on the rooftops of each residence and meet all other Title 24 Part 6 requirements related to energy efficiency and low impact development (LID) standards.
Open Space
The proposed Project would provide a combination of private and common open space designed to support the recreational and aesthetic needs of future residents. A total of 248,126 SF of private open space would be distributed throughout the proposed Project, with each lot averaging approximately 1,292 SF of private outdoor areas. In addition to private open space, the proposed Project would include approximately 41,767 SF of common open space, which would be divided among several functional areas, including: 13,098 SF of landscaped open space along the southern Project boundary, a 17,640 SF recreation center featuring a 806 SF restroom and shower area, a 768 SF swimming pool, and an 11,029 SF tot lot with a rubberized safety surface.
Infrastructure Improvements
Lighting
Proposed outdoor lighting would be typical of single -family residential uses and would consist of wall- mounted lighting and pole -mounted lights along the proposed internal roadway. The proposed Project’s outdoor lighting would be directed downward and shielded to minimize off-site and would be designed in compliance with the provisions of City of Menifee Municipal Code Section 9.205, Outdoor Lighting Standards.
Electric and Natural Gas
The proposed Project would be serviced by Southern California Edison for electricity and Southern California Gas for natural gas. There are existing overhead electric lines along Palomar Road, east of the Project site.
In addition, existing gas lines are located within the vicinity of the Project site.
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
Item Page Number: 46
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
638 of 966
CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist
City of Menifee Menifee 27 Residential Project
26 Water and Sewer
Potable water service for the proposed Project would be provided via the installation on -site eight-inch water line located within the proposed Project’s internal private roadways. The on-site system would connect to an existing eight- inch public water line located in Palomar Road. Sanitary sewer service would be provided through the installation of eight-inch sewer lines within the internal private roadways, which would connect to an existing 15-inch sewer main located along the western boundary of the Project site.
Stormwater Drainage
Stormwater from the Project site would be managed through a combination of on-site infiltration basins and underground drainage infrastructure designed to comply with applicable municipal stormwater management standards. The Project proposes two infiltration basins: the first basin would be located in the southwestern portion of the site and would encompass a 92,039 SF lot area with a 72,325 SF surface area; the second basin would be located in the northwestern corner of the site and would encompass a 41,35 8 SF lot area with a 34,670 SF surface area.
A new 24 -inch storm drain line would be installed within the proposed private roadways to convey stormwater to these on -site basins. The basins would ultimately discharge to an existing Riverside County Flood Control district 48-inch storm drain line located along the western boundary of the Project site.
Street, Sidewalk, Curb, and Gutter
The proposed Project includes the dedication of a n additional nine-foot-wide right-of-way along Palomar Road, which would include construction of a six -foot sidewalk and a five -foot parkway improvement. In addition, the roadway would be widened by 12 feet, accompanied by the installation of a 6-inch curb and gutter system.
3.3. DENSITY BONUS LAW
The Density Bonus Law (DBL) (California Government Code Section 65915) encourages the development of affordable housing by allowing additional density on a property above the maximum density in a jurisdiction’s general plan. The Project must reserve an allotted number of affordable dwelling units below market rate in exchange for the density increase. Reductions in required development standards such as setbacks may also be granted to qualifying applicants. Additional provisions under the DBL include incentives or concessions providing cost reductions, waivers of development standards that would physically preclude the construction of a development with incentives granted, and reductions of parking requirements. Incentives are limited in number and granted on a sliding scale based on the percentage of affordable housing that is provided. Waivers are potentially unlimited in number. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65915(d), incentives or concessions shall be granted unless (a) “the concession or incentive does not result in identifiable and actual cost reductions… to provide for affordable housing costs… or for rents for the targeted units to be set”; (b) “the concession or incentive would have a specific, adverse impact…upon public health and safety or on any real property that is listed in the California Register of Historical Resources and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact without rendering the development unaffordable to low -income and moderate -income households”; or (c) “the concession or incentive would be contrary to state or federal law.” Waiver requests must be similarly granted when a development standard would physically preclude construction of a DBL-qualified project, unless the waiver would have a specific adverse impact that cannot be mitigated or avoided, would have an adverse impact on a property listed in the California Register of Historical Resources, or would be contrary to State or federal law.
The DBL specifies that “the granting of a density bonus shall not be interpreted, in and of itself, to require a general plan amendment, zoning change, or other discretionary approval.” Similarly, pursuant to Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
Item Page Number: 47
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
639 of 966
CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist
City of Menifee Menifee 27 Residential Project
27 Government Code Section 65589.5 (the “Housing Accountability Act”), the receipt of a density bonus, incentive, concession, waiver, or reduction of development standards pursuant to the DBL is not a valid basis on which to conclude that a proposed housing d evelopment project is inconsistent, not in compliance, or not in conformity with otherwise applicable local land use plan, policies, programs, or standards.
The Project site is located within the Menifee North Specific Plan and is designated as Planning Area 7A (Medium-High Density Residential) and Planning Area 7B (High Density Residential). Planning Area 7A allows a maximum density of 5.6 du/ac, while Planning Area 7B allows a maximum density of 7.3 du/ac. As described previously, the proposed Project would subdivide the 27.35 -acre site into 192 single -family residential lots, resulting in an overall Project density of 7.02 du/ac. Specifically, the proposed Project would result in 75 units within Planning Area 7A (4.93 du/ac) and 117 units in Planning Area 7B (9.83 du/ac) , which would exceed the maximum allowed density in each respective planning area. However, the Applicant has requested a density bonus consistent with State law for affordable housing to allow for the development of additional units. Pursuant to the DBL, the Project would be allowed to exceed the maximum site density.
State law allows the City to approve an increase in density for affordable housing projects without requiring approval of a general plan amendment or zone change.
3.4. CONSTRUCTION
Construction activities for the proposed Project would occur over one phase, beginning the second quarter of 2026. Construction would occur in the following stages: (1) site preparation and grading; (2) building construction; (3) paving; and (4) architectural coatings. Since the Project site is within a one-fourth mile radius from an occupied residence, construction shall be permitted Monday through Saturday from 6:30 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. and prohibited on Sunday or nationally recognized holidays unless approval is obtained from the City Building Official or City Engineer, pursuant to the City’s Municipal Code Section 8.01.010.
The proposed Project grading would include 258,606 cubic yards (CY) of cut and 261,797 CY of fill.
Therefore, the total import required for the proposed Project would be approximately 3,191 cubic CY.
3.5. OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS
Upon completion, the proposed Project would operate as a privately managed residential community consisting of 192 single-family detached homes. The residences would be individually owned, with ongoing maintenance of common areas , including private driveways, guest parking, shared open space, and stormwater facilities, conducted by the Homeowners’ Association (HOA). Residential operations would be typical of medium-density urban housing and would include standard activities such as vehicle ingress/egress, waste collection, landscaping maintenance, and utility usage. The proposed Project is anticipated to be operational by 2028.
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
Item Page Number: 48
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
640 of 966
CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist
City of Menifee Menifee 27 Residential Project
28 This page intentionally left blank.
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
Item Page Number: 49
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
641 of 966
Menifee 27 Residential
City of Menifee
Figure 3-1
TRGTRGTRGTRG TRG TRGTRG TRGTRG TRG
TRG
TRG TRGTRG TRGTRG
TRGTRGTRGTRGTRGTRGTRGTRG TRGTRG TRGTRG TRG TRGTRGTRGTRGTRGTRG TRGTRG
G R TG R TG R TG R TG R TG R TG R TG R T G R TG R T G R TG R T G R T G R TG R TG R TG R T G R TG R T
T R GT R GT R GT R GT R GT R GT R GT R G
TRG TRG TRGTRG TRG TRG
TRG TRG TRG TRGTRG TRG TRG
TRG TRG TRG TRGTRG TRG TRG
G R T G R TG R T G R T G R T
TRACT MAP No. 39115 - SITE PLAN
IN THE CITY OF MENIFEE, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
TRGTRGTRGTRG TRG TRGTRG TRGTRG TRG
TRG
TRG TRGTRG TRGTRG
TRGTRGTRGTRGTRGTRGTRGTRG TRGTRG TRGTRG TRG TRGTRGTRGTRGTRGTRG TRGTRG
G R TG R TG R TG R TG R TG R TG R TG R T G R TG R T G R TG R T G R T G R TG R TG R TG R T G R TG R T
G R TG R TG R TG R TG R TG R TG R TG R T
TRG TRG TRGTRG TRG TRG
TRG TRG TRG TRGTRG TRG TRG
TRG TRG TRG TRGTRG TRG TRG
G R T G R TG R T G R T G R T
TRACT MAP No. 39115 - SITE PLAN
IN THE CITY OF MENIFEE, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA Legend
Feet
0 120
60 240
Conceptual Site Plan
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
Item Page Number: 50
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
642 of 966
CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist
City of Menifee Menifee 27 Residential Project
30 This page intentionally left blank.
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
Item Page Number: 51
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
643 of 966
Menifee 27 Residential
City of Menifee
Figure 3-2a
W
W
W
W
W
W
SDSD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
UTILITY LEGEND
STORM DRAIN
SEWER
STREET CENTERLINE
RIGHT OF WAY
SD SD SD
S S
NO
PARKING
91011121314151617181920212223
3130292827262524 343332 4342414039383736 44
4546474849505152535556575859606162636465
7372717069686766 767574 83828180797877 84
858687888990919293949596979899100101102103
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
LOT A
41,358 SF
BASIN LOT AREA
34,670 SF
BASIN SURFACE
LOT C
OPEN SPACE LOT
17,640 SF
35 54
LOT F
OPEN SPACE LOT
2,700 SF
TURF
TURF
EQUIPMENT RM.
8'-10" CLG.
WOMEN'S
RESTROOM
10'-0" CLG.
MEN'S
RESTROOM
10'-0" CLG.JANITORS
ROOM
10'-0" CLG.
ELECTRICAL RM.
10'-0" CLG.
CHLORINE
TANK
100 GAL
1.5 1.5
POOL
FILTER
SAND
TR-140C
POOL
FILTER
SAND
TR-140C
HEATER
B-R337A
SERVICE
CLEARANCE
POOL
HEATER
B-R337A
SERVICE
CLEARANCE
POOL
3 3
SPA
FILTER
SAND
TR-140C3
CONTROLLERCLEARANCECHEMICAL
PANEL
POOL AND SPAELECTRICALCL
EARANCE
HEATER
B-R337A
SERVICE
CLEARANCE
SPA
HO ACID
TANK
35 GAL
W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W W W W W W
W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
S
S
S
S
S
SSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
SSSSSSSSSSSSSS
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SDSDSD SDSDSD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SDSD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
PL 2
PL 1
PL 2
PL 1
PL 2
PL 1
PL 2
PL 1
PL 2
PL 1
PL 2
PL 1
PL 2
PL 1
PL 2
PL 1
PL 2
PL 1
PL 2
PL 1
PL 2
PL 1
PL 3
PL 2
PL 1
PL 2
PL 1
PL 2
PL 2
PL 1
PL 2
PL 1
PL 2
PL 1
PL 1
PL 2
PL 1
PL 1
PL 2
PL 1
PL 1
PL 2
PL 1
PL 2
PL 1
PL 1
PL 2
PL 1
PL 2
PL 1
PL 1
PL 2
PL 1
PL 2
PL 1
PL 1
PL 2
PL 1
PL 2
PL 1
PL 1
PL 2
PL 1
PL 2
PL 1
PL 1
PL 2
PL 1PL 2
PL 1
PL 2
PL 1PL 2
PL 1PL 2
PL 1PL 2
PL 1PL 2
PL 1PL 2
PL 1PL 2
PL 1PL 2
PL 1PL 2
PL 1PL 1
3 TYPICAL BUILDING ENVELOPES SHOWN FOR
REFERENCE.
CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN
0'MENIFEE 27
PREPARED FOR MELIA HOMES INC.
9860 IRVINE CENTER DRIVE, IRVINE, CA 92618
NORTH 40' 80' 120'
INDEX MAP
THIS SHEET
1/8/2025
OVERALL SITE PLAN
"A" STREET
"B" STREET
"G" STREET
"E" STREET
PALOMAR RD
"C" STREET
"G" STREET
ENLARGEMENT
1"=20'
MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET 4
VINES AT 15' O.C.
MAILBOX
CLUSTER
HARDSCAPE SCHEDULE
SYMBOL DESCRIPTION COLOR QTY
3" THICK STABILIZED DECOMPOSED GRANITE
DESERT
GOLD
20,842
SF
DRAINAGE BASIN HYDROSEED SCHEDULE - WUCOLS - LOW
SYMBOL SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME PURITY/
GERMINATION
BULK
(LBS/ACRE)
AGROTIS EXARATA BENT GRASS 98/80 4.0
BACCHARIS PILULARIS COYOTE BRUSH 2/40 2.0
BROMUS CARINATUS CALIFORNIA BROME
GRASS 95/80 1.5
HELIOTROPIUM CURASSAVICUM SALT HELIOTROPE 20/60 2.0
HEMIZONIA FASCICLATA FASCICLED TARWEED 10/25 1.0
LASTHENIA CALIFORNICA COASTAL GOLDFIELDS 90/85 0.25
LEYMUS CONDENSATUS GIANT WILD RYE 80/80 8.0
LOTUS SCOPARIUS DEERWEED 90/60 6.0
LUPINUS BICOLOR DOVE LUPINE 98/80 0.25
MIMULUS GATTATUS SEEP MONKEY
FLOWER 10/60 1.0
PLANTAGO OVATA PLANTAIN 98/75 10.0
TRIFOLIUM TRIDENTATUM TOMCAT CLOVER 90/80 2.0
VULPIA MICROSTACHYS SMALL FESCUE 90/80 6-8
TOTAL HYDROSEED AREA: 55,431 SF
BASIN PLANT SCHEDULE
SYMBOL BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME SIZE WUCOLS QTY
BASIN TREE
CERCIS OCCIDENTALIS
WESTERN REDBUD 15 GAL L 17
CHILOPSIS LINEARIS
DESERT WILLOW 15 GAL L 24
BACKGROUND SHRUBS
LEUCOPHYLLUM FRUTESCENS `GREEN CLOUD`
GREEN CLOUD TEXAS SAGE 5 GAL L 3,695
WESTRINGIA X 'WYNYABBIE GEM'
WYNYABBIE GEM COAST ROSEMARY 5 GAL L
BASIN BOTTOM
CAREX DIVULSA
EUROPEAN GREY SEDGE
PLUGS
@ 12"
OC L
51,076
SF
OVERALL SITE PLAN PLANT SCHEDULE
SYMBOL BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME SIZE WUCOLS QTY
ACCENT TREES
LAGERSTROEMIA INDICA X FAURIEI
'MUSKOGEE'
MUSKOGEE CRAPE MYRTLE
36" BOX M 14
SYAGRUS ROMANZOFFIANA
QUEEN PALM 16` BTH M 8
OVERALL SITE PLAN
PISTACIA CHINENSIS 'KEITH DAVEY'
KEITH DAVEY CHINESE PISTACHE 24" BOX M 9
PLATANUS X ACERIFOLIA 'BLOODGOOD'
BLOODGOOD LONDON PLANE TREE 24" BOX M 8
PODOCARPUS GRACILIOR
FERN PINE 24" BOX M 27
RHUS LANCEA
AFRICAN SUMAC 24" BOX L 14
ULMUS PARVIFOLIA 'DRAKE'
DRAKE LACEBARK ELM 24" BOX L 28
ACCENT
AGAVE DESMETIANA 'VARIEGATA'
VARIEGATED SMOOTH AGAVE 5 GAL L
931ALOE X `BLUE ELF`
BLUE ELF ALOE 1 GAL L
DIANELLA REVOLUTA 'LITTLE REV'
LITTLE REV FLAX LILY 1 GAL L
BACKGROUND SHRUBS
LAURUS NOBILIS 'MONRIK'
LITTLE RAGU® SWEET BAY 5 GAL L
524
LEUCOPHYLLUM FRUTESCENS `GREEN
CLOUD`
GREEN CLOUD TEXAS SAGE
5 GAL L
OLEA EUROPAEA 'MONTRA'
LITTLE OLLIE® OLIVE 5 GAL L
WESTRINGIA X 'WYNYABBIE GEM'
WYNYABBIE GEM COAST ROSEMARY 5 GAL L
GROUND COVERS
BACCHARIS PILULARIS `TWIN PEAKS`
TWIN PEAKS COYOTE BRUSH 5 GAL L
931
MYOPORUM PARVIFOLIUM `FINE LEAF FORM`
FINE LEAF TRAILING MYOPORUM 5 GAL L
ROSMARINUS OFFICINALIS `PROSTRATUS`
DWARF ROSEMARY 5 GAL L
SENECIO MANDRALISCAE
BLUE FINGERS 1 GAL L
WESTRINGIA FRUTICOSA 'WES05' TM
MUNDI COAST ROSEMARY 1 GAL L
MIDGROUND SHRUBS
BOUTELOUA GRACILIS 'BLONDE AMBITION'
BLONDE AMBITION BLUE GRAMA 1 GAL L
1,197
HESPERALOE PARVIFLORA
RED YUCCA 1 GAL L
LOMANDRA LONGIFOLIA 'BREEZE'
BREEZE™ MAT RUSH 1 GAL L
MUHLENBERGIA CAPILLARIS
PINK MUHLY GRASS 5 GAL L
ROSMARINUS OFFICINALIS 'TUSCAN BLUE'
TUSCAN BLUE ROSEMARY 5 GAL L
SALVIA GREGGII
AUTUMN SAGE 1 GAL L
SALVIA LEUCOPHYLLA
PURPLE SAGE 5 GAL L
WESTRINGIA FRUTICOSA 'MORNING LIGHT'
MORNING LIGHT COAST ROSEMARY 5 GAL L
VINES
HARDENBERGIA VIOLACEA
LILAC VINE 5 GAL M 31
PLANTING SCHEDULE & IRRIGATION CALCULATIONS
2CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN
MENIFEE 27
PREPARED FOR MELIA HOMES INC.
9860 IRVINE CENTER DRIVE, IRVINE, CA 92618
1/8/2025
HARDSCAPE SCHEDULE
SYMBOL DESCRIPTION COLOR QTY
3" THICK STABILIZED DECOMPOSED GRANITE
DESERT
GOLD
20,842
SF
DRAINAGE BASIN HYDROSEED SCHEDULE - WUCOLS - LOW
SYMBOL SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME PURITY/
GERMINATION
BULK
(LBS/ACRE)
AGROTIS EXARATA BENT GRASS 98/80 4.0
BACCHARIS PILULARIS COYOTE BRUSH 2/40 2.0
BROMUS CARINATUS CALIFORNIA BROME
GRASS 95/80 1.5
HELIOTROPIUM CURASSAVICUM SALT HELIOTROPE 20/60 2.0
HEMIZONIA FASCICLATA FASCICLED TARWEED 10/25 1.0
LASTHENIA CALIFORNICA COASTAL GOLDFIELDS 90/85 0.25
LEYMUS CONDENSATUS GIANT WILD RYE 80/80 8.0
LOTUS SCOPARIUS DEERWEED 90/60 6.0
LUPINUS BICOLOR DOVE LUPINE 98/80 0.25
MIMULUS GATTATUS SEEP MONKEY
FLOWER 10/60 1.0
PLANTAGO OVATA PLANTAIN 98/75 10.0
TRIFOLIUM TRIDENTATUM TOMCAT CLOVER 90/80 2.0
VULPIA MICROSTACHYS SMALL FESCUE 90/80 6-8
TOTAL HYDROSEED AREA: 55,431 SF
BASIN PLANT SCHEDULE
SYMBOL BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME SIZE WUCOLS QTY
BASIN TREE
CERCIS OCCIDENTALIS
WESTERN REDBUD 15 GAL L 17
CHILOPSIS LINEARIS
DESERT WILLOW 15 GAL L 24
BACKGROUND SHRUBS
LEUCOPHYLLUM FRUTESCENS `GREEN CLOUD`
GREEN CLOUD TEXAS SAGE 5 GAL L 3,695
WESTRINGIA X 'WYNYABBIE GEM'
WYNYABBIE GEM COAST ROSEMARY 5 GAL L
BASIN BOTTOM
CAREX DIVULSA
EUROPEAN GREY SEDGE
PLUGS
@ 12"
OC L
51,076
SF
OVERALL SITE PLAN PLANT SCHEDULE
SYMBOL BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME SIZE WUCOLS QTY
ACCENT TREES
LAGERSTROEMIA INDICA X FAURIEI
'MUSKOGEE'
MUSKOGEE CRAPE MYRTLE
36" BOX M 14
SYAGRUS ROMANZOFFIANA
QUEEN PALM 16` BTH M 8
OVERALL SITE PLAN
PISTACIA CHINENSIS 'KEITH DAVEY'
KEITH DAVEY CHINESE PISTACHE 24" BOX M 9
PLATANUS X ACERIFOLIA 'BLOODGOOD'
BLOODGOOD LONDON PLANE TREE 24" BOX M 8
PODOCARPUS GRACILIOR
FERN PINE 24" BOX M 27
RHUS LANCEA
AFRICAN SUMAC 24" BOX L 14
ULMUS PARVIFOLIA 'DRAKE'
DRAKE LACEBARK ELM 24" BOX L 28
ACCENT
AGAVE DESMETIANA 'VARIEGATA'
VARIEGATED SMOOTH AGAVE 5 GAL L
931ALOE X `BLUE ELF`
BLUE ELF ALOE 1 GAL L
DIANELLA REVOLUTA 'LITTLE REV'
LITTLE REV FLAX LILY 1 GAL L
BACKGROUND SHRUBS
LAURUS NOBILIS 'MONRIK'
LITTLE RAGU® SWEET BAY 5 GAL L
524
LEUCOPHYLLUM FRUTESCENS `GREEN
CLOUD`
GREEN CLOUD TEXAS SAGE
5 GAL L
OLEA EUROPAEA 'MONTRA'
LITTLE OLLIE® OLIVE 5 GAL L
WESTRINGIA X 'WYNYABBIE GEM'
WYNYABBIE GEM COAST ROSEMARY 5 GAL L
GROUND COVERS
BACCHARIS PILULARIS `TWIN PEAKS`
TWIN PEAKS COYOTE BRUSH 5 GAL L
931
MYOPORUM PARVIFOLIUM `FINE LEAF FORM`
FINE LEAF TRAILING MYOPORUM 5 GAL L
ROSMARINUS OFFICINALIS `PROSTRATUS`
DWARF ROSEMARY 5 GAL L
SENECIO MANDRALISCAE
BLUE FINGERS 1 GAL L
WESTRINGIA FRUTICOSA 'WES05' TM
MUNDI COAST ROSEMARY 1 GAL L
MIDGROUND SHRUBS
BOUTELOUA GRACILIS 'BLONDE AMBITION'
BLONDE AMBITION BLUE GRAMA 1 GAL L
1,197
HESPERALOE PARVIFLORA
RED YUCCA 1 GAL L
LOMANDRA LONGIFOLIA 'BREEZE'
BREEZE™ MAT RUSH 1 GAL L
MUHLENBERGIA CAPILLARIS
PINK MUHLY GRASS 5 GAL L
ROSMARINUS OFFICINALIS 'TUSCAN BLUE'
TUSCAN BLUE ROSEMARY 5 GAL L
SALVIA GREGGII
AUTUMN SAGE 1 GAL L
SALVIA LEUCOPHYLLA
PURPLE SAGE 5 GAL L
WESTRINGIA FRUTICOSA 'MORNING LIGHT'
MORNING LIGHT COAST ROSEMARY 5 GAL L
VINES
HARDENBERGIA VIOLACEA
LILAC VINE 5 GAL M 31
PLANTING SCHEDULE & IRRIGATION CALCULATIONS
2CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN
MENIFEE 27
PREPARED FOR MELIA HOMES INC.
9860 IRVINE CENTER DRIVE, IRVINE, CA 92618
1/8/2025
HARDSCAPE SCHEDULE
SYMBOL DESCRIPTION COLOR QTY
3" THICK STABILIZED DECOMPOSED GRANITE
DESERT
GOLD
20,842
SF
DRAINAGE BASIN HYDROSEED SCHEDULE - WUCOLS - LOW
SYMBOL SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME PURITY/
GERMINATION
BULK
(LBS/ACRE)
AGROTIS EXARATA BENT GRASS 98/80 4.0
BACCHARIS PILULARIS COYOTE BRUSH 2/40 2.0
BROMUS CARINATUS CALIFORNIA BROME
GRASS 95/80 1.5
HELIOTROPIUM CURASSAVICUM SALT HELIOTROPE 20/60 2.0
HEMIZONIA FASCICLATA FASCICLED TARWEED 10/25 1.0
LASTHENIA CALIFORNICA COASTAL GOLDFIELDS 90/85 0.25
LEYMUS CONDENSATUS GIANT WILD RYE 80/80 8.0
LOTUS SCOPARIUS DEERWEED 90/60 6.0
LUPINUS BICOLOR DOVE LUPINE 98/80 0.25
MIMULUS GATTATUS SEEP MONKEY
FLOWER 10/60 1.0
PLANTAGO OVATA PLANTAIN 98/75 10.0
TRIFOLIUM TRIDENTATUM TOMCAT CLOVER 90/80 2.0
VULPIA MICROSTACHYS SMALL FESCUE 90/80 6-8
TOTAL HYDROSEED AREA: 55,431 SF
BASIN PLANT SCHEDULE
SYMBOL BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME SIZE WUCOLS QTY
BASIN TREE
CERCIS OCCIDENTALIS
WESTERN REDBUD 15 GAL L 17
CHILOPSIS LINEARIS
DESERT WILLOW 15 GAL L 24
BACKGROUND SHRUBS
LEUCOPHYLLUM FRUTESCENS `GREEN CLOUD`
GREEN CLOUD TEXAS SAGE 5 GAL L 3,695
WESTRINGIA X 'WYNYABBIE GEM'
WYNYABBIE GEM COAST ROSEMARY 5 GAL L
BASIN BOTTOM
CAREX DIVULSA
EUROPEAN GREY SEDGE
PLUGS
@ 12"
OC L
51,076
SF
OVERALL SITE PLAN PLANT SCHEDULE
SYMBOL BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME SIZE WUCOLS QTY
ACCENT TREES
LAGERSTROEMIA INDICA X FAURIEI
'MUSKOGEE'
MUSKOGEE CRAPE MYRTLE
36" BOX M 14
SYAGRUS ROMANZOFFIANA
QUEEN PALM 16` BTH M 8
OVERALL SITE PLAN
PISTACIA CHINENSIS 'KEITH DAVEY'
KEITH DAVEY CHINESE PISTACHE 24" BOX M 9
PLATANUS X ACERIFOLIA 'BLOODGOOD'
BLOODGOOD LONDON PLANE TREE 24" BOX M 8
PODOCARPUS GRACILIOR
FERN PINE 24" BOX M 27
RHUS LANCEA
AFRICAN SUMAC 24" BOX L 14
ULMUS PARVIFOLIA 'DRAKE'
DRAKE LACEBARK ELM 24" BOX L 28
ACCENT
AGAVE DESMETIANA 'VARIEGATA'
VARIEGATED SMOOTH AGAVE 5 GAL L
931ALOE X `BLUE ELF`
BLUE ELF ALOE 1 GAL L
DIANELLA REVOLUTA 'LITTLE REV'
LITTLE REV FLAX LILY 1 GAL L
BACKGROUND SHRUBS
LAURUS NOBILIS 'MONRIK'
LITTLE RAGU® SWEET BAY 5 GAL L
524
LEUCOPHYLLUM FRUTESCENS `GREEN
CLOUD`
GREEN CLOUD TEXAS SAGE
5 GAL L
OLEA EUROPAEA 'MONTRA'
LITTLE OLLIE® OLIVE 5 GAL L
WESTRINGIA X 'WYNYABBIE GEM'
WYNYABBIE GEM COAST ROSEMARY 5 GAL L
GROUND COVERS
BACCHARIS PILULARIS `TWIN PEAKS`
TWIN PEAKS COYOTE BRUSH 5 GAL L
931
MYOPORUM PARVIFOLIUM `FINE LEAF FORM`
FINE LEAF TRAILING MYOPORUM 5 GAL L
ROSMARINUS OFFICINALIS `PROSTRATUS`
DWARF ROSEMARY 5 GAL L
SENECIO MANDRALISCAE
BLUE FINGERS 1 GAL L
WESTRINGIA FRUTICOSA 'WES05' TM
MUNDI COAST ROSEMARY 1 GAL L
MIDGROUND SHRUBS
BOUTELOUA GRACILIS 'BLONDE AMBITION'
BLONDE AMBITION BLUE GRAMA 1 GAL L
1,197
HESPERALOE PARVIFLORA
RED YUCCA 1 GAL L
LOMANDRA LONGIFOLIA 'BREEZE'
BREEZE™ MAT RUSH 1 GAL L
MUHLENBERGIA CAPILLARIS
PINK MUHLY GRASS 5 GAL L
ROSMARINUS OFFICINALIS 'TUSCAN BLUE'
TUSCAN BLUE ROSEMARY 5 GAL L
SALVIA GREGGII
AUTUMN SAGE 1 GAL L
SALVIA LEUCOPHYLLA
PURPLE SAGE 5 GAL L
WESTRINGIA FRUTICOSA 'MORNING LIGHT'
MORNING LIGHT COAST ROSEMARY 5 GAL L
VINES
HARDENBERGIA VIOLACEA
LILAC VINE 5 GAL M 31
PLANTING SCHEDULE & IRRIGATION CALCULATIONS
2CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN
MENIFEE 27
PREPARED FOR MELIA HOMES INC.
9860 IRVINE CENTER DRIVE, IRVINE, CA 92618
1/8/2025
HARDSCAPE SCHEDULE
SYMBOL DESCRIPTION COLOR QTY
3" THICK STABILIZED DECOMPOSED GRANITE
DESERT
GOLD
20,842
SF
DRAINAGE BASIN HYDROSEED SCHEDULE - WUCOLS - LOW
SYMBOL SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME PURITY/
GERMINATION
BULK
(LBS/ACRE)
AGROTIS EXARATA BENT GRASS 98/80 4.0
BACCHARIS PILULARIS COYOTE BRUSH 2/40 2.0
BROMUS CARINATUS CALIFORNIA BROME
GRASS 95/80 1.5
HELIOTROPIUM CURASSAVICUM SALT HELIOTROPE 20/60 2.0
HEMIZONIA FASCICLATA FASCICLED TARWEED 10/25 1.0
LASTHENIA CALIFORNICA COASTAL GOLDFIELDS 90/85 0.25
LEYMUS CONDENSATUS GIANT WILD RYE 80/80 8.0
LOTUS SCOPARIUS DEERWEED 90/60 6.0
LUPINUS BICOLOR DOVE LUPINE 98/80 0.25
MIMULUS GATTATUS SEEP MONKEY
FLOWER 10/60 1.0
PLANTAGO OVATA PLANTAIN 98/75 10.0
TRIFOLIUM TRIDENTATUM TOMCAT CLOVER 90/80 2.0
VULPIA MICROSTACHYS SMALL FESCUE 90/80 6-8
TOTAL HYDROSEED AREA: 55,431 SF
BASIN PLANT SCHEDULE
SYMBOL BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME SIZE WUCOLS QTY
BASIN TREE
CERCIS OCCIDENTALIS
WESTERN REDBUD 15 GAL L 17
CHILOPSIS LINEARIS
DESERT WILLOW 15 GAL L 24
BACKGROUND SHRUBS
LEUCOPHYLLUM FRUTESCENS `GREEN CLOUD`
GREEN CLOUD TEXAS SAGE 5 GAL L 3,695
WESTRINGIA X 'WYNYABBIE GEM'
WYNYABBIE GEM COAST ROSEMARY 5 GAL L
BASIN BOTTOM
CAREX DIVULSA
EUROPEAN GREY SEDGE
PLUGS
@ 12"
OC L
51,076
SF
OVERALL SITE PLAN PLANT SCHEDULE
SYMBOL BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME SIZE WUCOLS QTY
ACCENT TREES
LAGERSTROEMIA INDICA X FAURIEI
'MUSKOGEE'
MUSKOGEE CRAPE MYRTLE
36" BOX M 14
SYAGRUS ROMANZOFFIANA
QUEEN PALM 16` BTH M 8
OVERALL SITE PLAN
PISTACIA CHINENSIS 'KEITH DAVEY'
KEITH DAVEY CHINESE PISTACHE 24" BOX M 9
PLATANUS X ACERIFOLIA 'BLOODGOOD'
BLOODGOOD LONDON PLANE TREE 24" BOX M 8
PODOCARPUS GRACILIOR
FERN PINE 24" BOX M 27
RHUS LANCEA
AFRICAN SUMAC 24" BOX L 14
ULMUS PARVIFOLIA 'DRAKE'
DRAKE LACEBARK ELM 24" BOX L 28
ACCENT
AGAVE DESMETIANA 'VARIEGATA'
VARIEGATED SMOOTH AGAVE 5 GAL L
931ALOE X `BLUE ELF`
BLUE ELF ALOE 1 GAL L
DIANELLA REVOLUTA 'LITTLE REV'
LITTLE REV FLAX LILY 1 GAL L
BACKGROUND SHRUBS
LAURUS NOBILIS 'MONRIK'
LITTLE RAGU® SWEET BAY 5 GAL L
524
LEUCOPHYLLUM FRUTESCENS `GREEN
CLOUD`
GREEN CLOUD TEXAS SAGE
5 GAL L
OLEA EUROPAEA 'MONTRA'
LITTLE OLLIE® OLIVE 5 GAL L
WESTRINGIA X 'WYNYABBIE GEM'
WYNYABBIE GEM COAST ROSEMARY 5 GAL L
GROUND COVERS
BACCHARIS PILULARIS `TWIN PEAKS`
TWIN PEAKS COYOTE BRUSH 5 GAL L
931
MYOPORUM PARVIFOLIUM `FINE LEAF FORM`
FINE LEAF TRAILING MYOPORUM 5 GAL L
ROSMARINUS OFFICINALIS `PROSTRATUS`
DWARF ROSEMARY 5 GAL L
SENECIO MANDRALISCAE
BLUE FINGERS 1 GAL L
WESTRINGIA FRUTICOSA 'WES05' TM
MUNDI COAST ROSEMARY 1 GAL L
MIDGROUND SHRUBS
BOUTELOUA GRACILIS 'BLONDE AMBITION'
BLONDE AMBITION BLUE GRAMA 1 GAL L
1,197
HESPERALOE PARVIFLORA
RED YUCCA 1 GAL L
LOMANDRA LONGIFOLIA 'BREEZE'
BREEZE™ MAT RUSH 1 GAL L
MUHLENBERGIA CAPILLARIS
PINK MUHLY GRASS 5 GAL L
ROSMARINUS OFFICINALIS 'TUSCAN BLUE'
TUSCAN BLUE ROSEMARY 5 GAL L
SALVIA GREGGII
AUTUMN SAGE 1 GAL L
SALVIA LEUCOPHYLLA
PURPLE SAGE 5 GAL L
WESTRINGIA FRUTICOSA 'MORNING LIGHT'
MORNING LIGHT COAST ROSEMARY 5 GAL L
VINES
HARDENBERGIA VIOLACEA
LILAC VINE 5 GAL M 31
PLANTING SCHEDULE & IRRIGATION CALCULATIONS
2CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN
MENIFEE 27
PREPARED FOR MELIA HOMES INC.
9860 IRVINE CENTER DRIVE, IRVINE, CA 92618
1/8/2025
Legend
Feet
0 120 240
Conceptual Landscape Plan A
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
Item Page Number: 52
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
644 of 966
CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist
City of Menifee Menifee 27 Residential Project
32 This page intentionally left blank.
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
Item Page Number: 53
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
645 of 966
Menifee 27 Residential
City of Menifee
Figure 3-2b
UTILITY LEGEND
STORM DRAIN
SEWER
STREET CENTERLINE
RIGHT OF WAY
SD SD SD
S S
109108107106105104
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
123
122
121
120
119
118
117
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
137
136
135
134
133
132
131
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
151
150
149
148
147
146
145
152
153
154
155
156
161
160
159
158
157
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172173174175176177178179180181182183184185186187188189
LOT B
93,842 SF
BASIN LOT AREA
72,325 SF
BASIN SURFACE
LOT D
OPEN SPACE LOT
10,565 SF
LOT E
OPEN SPACE LOT
13,098 SF
190191192
TURF TURF
W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W
W
W
W
W
W
W W W W W W W W W W W W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
S
S
S
SSSSSSSSSSS
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
SDSDSD SDSDSD
SDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSD
SDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SDSDSD SDSD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SDSD
PL 2
PL 1
PL 2
PL 1
PL 2
PL 1
PL 2
PL 1
PL 2
PL 1
PL 2
PL 1
PL 2
PL 1
PL 2
PL 1
PL 2
PL 1
PL 2
PL 1
PL 2
PL 1
PL 3
PL 2
PL 1
PL 2
PL 1
PL 2
PL 2
PL 1
PL 2
PL 1
PL 2
PL 1
PL 1
PL 2
PL 1
PL 1
PL 2
PL 1
PL 1
PL 2
PL 1
PL 2
PL 1
PL 1
PL 2
PL 1
PL 2
PL 1
PL 1
PL 2
PL 1
PL 2
PL 1
PL 1
PL 2
PL 1
PL 2
PL 1
PL 1
PL 2
PL 1
PL 2
PL 1
PL 1
PL 2
PL 1PL 2
PL 1
PL 2
PL 1PL 2
PL 1PL 2
PL 1PL 2
PL 1PL 2
PL 1PL 2
PL 1PL 2
PL 1PL 2
PL 1PL 2
PL 1PL 1
4 TYPICAL BUILDING ENVELOPES SHOWN FOR
REFERENCE.
CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN
0'MENIFEE 27
PREPARED FOR MELIA HOMES INC.
9860 IRVINE CENTER DRIVE, IRVINE, CA 92618
NORTH 40' 80' 120'
INDEX MAP
THIS SHEET
1/8/2025
OVERALL SITE PLAN
"C" STREET
"D" STREET
"E" STREET
"H" STREET
"I" STREET
"J" STREET
"K" STREET
PALOMAR RD
MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET 3
HARDSCAPE SCHEDULE
SYMBOL DESCRIPTION COLOR QTY
3" THICK STABILIZED DECOMPOSED GRANITE
DESERT
GOLD
20,842
SF
DRAINAGE BASIN HYDROSEED SCHEDULE - WUCOLS - LOW
SYMBOL SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME PURITY/
GERMINATION
BULK
(LBS/ACRE)
AGROTIS EXARATA BENT GRASS 98/80 4.0
BACCHARIS PILULARIS COYOTE BRUSH 2/40 2.0
BROMUS CARINATUS CALIFORNIA BROME
GRASS 95/80 1.5
HELIOTROPIUM CURASSAVICUM SALT HELIOTROPE 20/60 2.0
HEMIZONIA FASCICLATA FASCICLED TARWEED 10/25 1.0
LASTHENIA CALIFORNICA COASTAL GOLDFIELDS 90/85 0.25
LEYMUS CONDENSATUS GIANT WILD RYE 80/80 8.0
LOTUS SCOPARIUS DEERWEED 90/60 6.0
LUPINUS BICOLOR DOVE LUPINE 98/80 0.25
MIMULUS GATTATUS SEEP MONKEY
FLOWER 10/60 1.0
PLANTAGO OVATA PLANTAIN 98/75 10.0
TRIFOLIUM TRIDENTATUM TOMCAT CLOVER 90/80 2.0
VULPIA MICROSTACHYS SMALL FESCUE 90/80 6-8
TOTAL HYDROSEED AREA: 55,431 SF
BASIN PLANT SCHEDULE
SYMBOL BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME SIZE WUCOLS QTY
BASIN TREE
CERCIS OCCIDENTALIS
WESTERN REDBUD 15 GAL L 17
CHILOPSIS LINEARIS
DESERT WILLOW 15 GAL L 24
BACKGROUND SHRUBS
LEUCOPHYLLUM FRUTESCENS `GREEN CLOUD`
GREEN CLOUD TEXAS SAGE 5 GAL L 3,695
WESTRINGIA X 'WYNYABBIE GEM'
WYNYABBIE GEM COAST ROSEMARY 5 GAL L
BASIN BOTTOM
CAREX DIVULSA
EUROPEAN GREY SEDGE
PLUGS
@ 12"
OC L
51,076
SF
OVERALL SITE PLAN PLANT SCHEDULE
SYMBOL BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME SIZE WUCOLS QTY
ACCENT TREES
LAGERSTROEMIA INDICA X FAURIEI
'MUSKOGEE'
MUSKOGEE CRAPE MYRTLE
36" BOX M 14
SYAGRUS ROMANZOFFIANA
QUEEN PALM 16` BTH M 8
OVERALL SITE PLAN
PISTACIA CHINENSIS 'KEITH DAVEY'
KEITH DAVEY CHINESE PISTACHE 24" BOX M 9
PLATANUS X ACERIFOLIA 'BLOODGOOD'
BLOODGOOD LONDON PLANE TREE 24" BOX M 8
PODOCARPUS GRACILIOR
FERN PINE 24" BOX M 27
RHUS LANCEA
AFRICAN SUMAC 24" BOX L 14
ULMUS PARVIFOLIA 'DRAKE'
DRAKE LACEBARK ELM 24" BOX L 28
ACCENT
AGAVE DESMETIANA 'VARIEGATA'
VARIEGATED SMOOTH AGAVE 5 GAL L
931ALOE X `BLUE ELF`
BLUE ELF ALOE 1 GAL L
DIANELLA REVOLUTA 'LITTLE REV'
LITTLE REV FLAX LILY 1 GAL L
BACKGROUND SHRUBS
LAURUS NOBILIS 'MONRIK'
LITTLE RAGU® SWEET BAY 5 GAL L
524
LEUCOPHYLLUM FRUTESCENS `GREEN
CLOUD`
GREEN CLOUD TEXAS SAGE
5 GAL L
OLEA EUROPAEA 'MONTRA'
LITTLE OLLIE® OLIVE 5 GAL L
WESTRINGIA X 'WYNYABBIE GEM'
WYNYABBIE GEM COAST ROSEMARY 5 GAL L
GROUND COVERS
BACCHARIS PILULARIS `TWIN PEAKS`
TWIN PEAKS COYOTE BRUSH 5 GAL L
931
MYOPORUM PARVIFOLIUM `FINE LEAF FORM`
FINE LEAF TRAILING MYOPORUM 5 GAL L
ROSMARINUS OFFICINALIS `PROSTRATUS`
DWARF ROSEMARY 5 GAL L
SENECIO MANDRALISCAE
BLUE FINGERS 1 GAL L
WESTRINGIA FRUTICOSA 'WES05' TM
MUNDI COAST ROSEMARY 1 GAL L
MIDGROUND SHRUBS
BOUTELOUA GRACILIS 'BLONDE AMBITION'
BLONDE AMBITION BLUE GRAMA 1 GAL L
1,197
HESPERALOE PARVIFLORA
RED YUCCA 1 GAL L
LOMANDRA LONGIFOLIA 'BREEZE'
BREEZE™ MAT RUSH 1 GAL L
MUHLENBERGIA CAPILLARIS
PINK MUHLY GRASS 5 GAL L
ROSMARINUS OFFICINALIS 'TUSCAN BLUE'
TUSCAN BLUE ROSEMARY 5 GAL L
SALVIA GREGGII
AUTUMN SAGE 1 GAL L
SALVIA LEUCOPHYLLA
PURPLE SAGE 5 GAL L
WESTRINGIA FRUTICOSA 'MORNING LIGHT'
MORNING LIGHT COAST ROSEMARY 5 GAL L
VINES
HARDENBERGIA VIOLACEA
LILAC VINE 5 GAL M 31
PLANTING SCHEDULE & IRRIGATION CALCULATIONS
2CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN
MENIFEE 27
PREPARED FOR MELIA HOMES INC.
9860 IRVINE CENTER DRIVE, IRVINE, CA 92618
1/8/2025
HARDSCAPE SCHEDULE
SYMBOL DESCRIPTION COLOR QTY
3" THICK STABILIZED DECOMPOSED GRANITE
DESERT
GOLD
20,842
SF
DRAINAGE BASIN HYDROSEED SCHEDULE - WUCOLS - LOW
SYMBOL SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME PURITY/
GERMINATION
BULK
(LBS/ACRE)
AGROTIS EXARATA BENT GRASS 98/80 4.0
BACCHARIS PILULARIS COYOTE BRUSH 2/40 2.0
BROMUS CARINATUS CALIFORNIA BROME
GRASS 95/80 1.5
HELIOTROPIUM CURASSAVICUM SALT HELIOTROPE 20/60 2.0
HEMIZONIA FASCICLATA FASCICLED TARWEED 10/25 1.0
LASTHENIA CALIFORNICA COASTAL GOLDFIELDS 90/85 0.25
LEYMUS CONDENSATUS GIANT WILD RYE 80/80 8.0
LOTUS SCOPARIUS DEERWEED 90/60 6.0
LUPINUS BICOLOR DOVE LUPINE 98/80 0.25
MIMULUS GATTATUS SEEP MONKEY
FLOWER 10/60 1.0
PLANTAGO OVATA PLANTAIN 98/75 10.0
TRIFOLIUM TRIDENTATUM TOMCAT CLOVER 90/80 2.0
VULPIA MICROSTACHYS SMALL FESCUE 90/80 6-8
TOTAL HYDROSEED AREA: 55,431 SF
BASIN PLANT SCHEDULE
SYMBOL BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME SIZE WUCOLS QTY
BASIN TREE
CERCIS OCCIDENTALIS
WESTERN REDBUD 15 GAL L 17
CHILOPSIS LINEARIS
DESERT WILLOW 15 GAL L 24
BACKGROUND SHRUBS
LEUCOPHYLLUM FRUTESCENS `GREEN CLOUD`
GREEN CLOUD TEXAS SAGE 5 GAL L 3,695
WESTRINGIA X 'WYNYABBIE GEM'
WYNYABBIE GEM COAST ROSEMARY 5 GAL L
BASIN BOTTOM
CAREX DIVULSA
EUROPEAN GREY SEDGE
PLUGS
@ 12"
OC L
51,076
SF
OVERALL SITE PLAN PLANT SCHEDULE
SYMBOL BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME SIZE WUCOLS QTY
ACCENT TREES
LAGERSTROEMIA INDICA X FAURIEI
'MUSKOGEE'
MUSKOGEE CRAPE MYRTLE
36" BOX M 14
SYAGRUS ROMANZOFFIANA
QUEEN PALM 16` BTH M 8
OVERALL SITE PLAN
PISTACIA CHINENSIS 'KEITH DAVEY'
KEITH DAVEY CHINESE PISTACHE 24" BOX M 9
PLATANUS X ACERIFOLIA 'BLOODGOOD'
BLOODGOOD LONDON PLANE TREE 24" BOX M 8
PODOCARPUS GRACILIOR
FERN PINE 24" BOX M 27
RHUS LANCEA
AFRICAN SUMAC 24" BOX L 14
ULMUS PARVIFOLIA 'DRAKE'
DRAKE LACEBARK ELM 24" BOX L 28
ACCENT
AGAVE DESMETIANA 'VARIEGATA'
VARIEGATED SMOOTH AGAVE 5 GAL L
931ALOE X `BLUE ELF`
BLUE ELF ALOE 1 GAL L
DIANELLA REVOLUTA 'LITTLE REV'
LITTLE REV FLAX LILY 1 GAL L
BACKGROUND SHRUBS
LAURUS NOBILIS 'MONRIK'
LITTLE RAGU® SWEET BAY 5 GAL L
524
LEUCOPHYLLUM FRUTESCENS `GREEN
CLOUD`
GREEN CLOUD TEXAS SAGE
5 GAL L
OLEA EUROPAEA 'MONTRA'
LITTLE OLLIE® OLIVE 5 GAL L
WESTRINGIA X 'WYNYABBIE GEM'
WYNYABBIE GEM COAST ROSEMARY 5 GAL L
GROUND COVERS
BACCHARIS PILULARIS `TWIN PEAKS`
TWIN PEAKS COYOTE BRUSH 5 GAL L
931
MYOPORUM PARVIFOLIUM `FINE LEAF FORM`
FINE LEAF TRAILING MYOPORUM 5 GAL L
ROSMARINUS OFFICINALIS `PROSTRATUS`
DWARF ROSEMARY 5 GAL L
SENECIO MANDRALISCAE
BLUE FINGERS 1 GAL L
WESTRINGIA FRUTICOSA 'WES05' TM
MUNDI COAST ROSEMARY 1 GAL L
MIDGROUND SHRUBS
BOUTELOUA GRACILIS 'BLONDE AMBITION'
BLONDE AMBITION BLUE GRAMA 1 GAL L
1,197
HESPERALOE PARVIFLORA
RED YUCCA 1 GAL L
LOMANDRA LONGIFOLIA 'BREEZE'
BREEZE™ MAT RUSH 1 GAL L
MUHLENBERGIA CAPILLARIS
PINK MUHLY GRASS 5 GAL L
ROSMARINUS OFFICINALIS 'TUSCAN BLUE'
TUSCAN BLUE ROSEMARY 5 GAL L
SALVIA GREGGII
AUTUMN SAGE 1 GAL L
SALVIA LEUCOPHYLLA
PURPLE SAGE 5 GAL L
WESTRINGIA FRUTICOSA 'MORNING LIGHT'
MORNING LIGHT COAST ROSEMARY 5 GAL L
VINES
HARDENBERGIA VIOLACEA
LILAC VINE 5 GAL M 31
PLANTING SCHEDULE & IRRIGATION CALCULATIONS
2CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN
MENIFEE 27
PREPARED FOR MELIA HOMES INC.
9860 IRVINE CENTER DRIVE, IRVINE, CA 92618
1/8/2025
HARDSCAPE SCHEDULE
SYMBOL DESCRIPTION COLOR QTY
3" THICK STABILIZED DECOMPOSED GRANITE
DESERT
GOLD
20,842
SF
DRAINAGE BASIN HYDROSEED SCHEDULE - WUCOLS - LOW
SYMBOL SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME PURITY/
GERMINATION
BULK
(LBS/ACRE)
AGROTIS EXARATA BENT GRASS 98/80 4.0
BACCHARIS PILULARIS COYOTE BRUSH 2/40 2.0
BROMUS CARINATUS CALIFORNIA BROME
GRASS 95/80 1.5
HELIOTROPIUM CURASSAVICUM SALT HELIOTROPE 20/60 2.0
HEMIZONIA FASCICLATA FASCICLED TARWEED 10/25 1.0
LASTHENIA CALIFORNICA COASTAL GOLDFIELDS 90/85 0.25
LEYMUS CONDENSATUS GIANT WILD RYE 80/80 8.0
LOTUS SCOPARIUS DEERWEED 90/60 6.0
LUPINUS BICOLOR DOVE LUPINE 98/80 0.25
MIMULUS GATTATUS SEEP MONKEY
FLOWER 10/60 1.0
PLANTAGO OVATA PLANTAIN 98/75 10.0
TRIFOLIUM TRIDENTATUM TOMCAT CLOVER 90/80 2.0
VULPIA MICROSTACHYS SMALL FESCUE 90/80 6-8
TOTAL HYDROSEED AREA: 55,431 SF
BASIN PLANT SCHEDULE
SYMBOL BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME SIZE WUCOLS QTY
BASIN TREE
CERCIS OCCIDENTALIS
WESTERN REDBUD 15 GAL L 17
CHILOPSIS LINEARIS
DESERT WILLOW 15 GAL L 24
BACKGROUND SHRUBS
LEUCOPHYLLUM FRUTESCENS `GREEN CLOUD`
GREEN CLOUD TEXAS SAGE 5 GAL L 3,695
WESTRINGIA X 'WYNYABBIE GEM'
WYNYABBIE GEM COAST ROSEMARY 5 GAL L
BASIN BOTTOM
CAREX DIVULSA
EUROPEAN GREY SEDGE
PLUGS
@ 12"
OC L
51,076
SF
OVERALL SITE PLAN PLANT SCHEDULE
SYMBOL BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME SIZE WUCOLS QTY
ACCENT TREES
LAGERSTROEMIA INDICA X FAURIEI
'MUSKOGEE'
MUSKOGEE CRAPE MYRTLE
36" BOX M 14
SYAGRUS ROMANZOFFIANA
QUEEN PALM 16` BTH M 8
OVERALL SITE PLAN
PISTACIA CHINENSIS 'KEITH DAVEY'
KEITH DAVEY CHINESE PISTACHE 24" BOX M 9
PLATANUS X ACERIFOLIA 'BLOODGOOD'
BLOODGOOD LONDON PLANE TREE 24" BOX M 8
PODOCARPUS GRACILIOR
FERN PINE 24" BOX M 27
RHUS LANCEA
AFRICAN SUMAC 24" BOX L 14
ULMUS PARVIFOLIA 'DRAKE'
DRAKE LACEBARK ELM 24" BOX L 28
ACCENT
AGAVE DESMETIANA 'VARIEGATA'
VARIEGATED SMOOTH AGAVE 5 GAL L
931ALOE X `BLUE ELF`
BLUE ELF ALOE 1 GAL L
DIANELLA REVOLUTA 'LITTLE REV'
LITTLE REV FLAX LILY 1 GAL L
BACKGROUND SHRUBS
LAURUS NOBILIS 'MONRIK'
LITTLE RAGU® SWEET BAY 5 GAL L
524
LEUCOPHYLLUM FRUTESCENS `GREEN
CLOUD`
GREEN CLOUD TEXAS SAGE
5 GAL L
OLEA EUROPAEA 'MONTRA'
LITTLE OLLIE® OLIVE 5 GAL L
WESTRINGIA X 'WYNYABBIE GEM'
WYNYABBIE GEM COAST ROSEMARY 5 GAL L
GROUND COVERS
BACCHARIS PILULARIS `TWIN PEAKS`
TWIN PEAKS COYOTE BRUSH 5 GAL L
931
MYOPORUM PARVIFOLIUM `FINE LEAF FORM`
FINE LEAF TRAILING MYOPORUM 5 GAL L
ROSMARINUS OFFICINALIS `PROSTRATUS`
DWARF ROSEMARY 5 GAL L
SENECIO MANDRALISCAE
BLUE FINGERS 1 GAL L
WESTRINGIA FRUTICOSA 'WES05' TM
MUNDI COAST ROSEMARY 1 GAL L
MIDGROUND SHRUBS
BOUTELOUA GRACILIS 'BLONDE AMBITION'
BLONDE AMBITION BLUE GRAMA 1 GAL L
1,197
HESPERALOE PARVIFLORA
RED YUCCA 1 GAL L
LOMANDRA LONGIFOLIA 'BREEZE'
BREEZE™ MAT RUSH 1 GAL L
MUHLENBERGIA CAPILLARIS
PINK MUHLY GRASS 5 GAL L
ROSMARINUS OFFICINALIS 'TUSCAN BLUE'
TUSCAN BLUE ROSEMARY 5 GAL L
SALVIA GREGGII
AUTUMN SAGE 1 GAL L
SALVIA LEUCOPHYLLA
PURPLE SAGE 5 GAL L
WESTRINGIA FRUTICOSA 'MORNING LIGHT'
MORNING LIGHT COAST ROSEMARY 5 GAL L
VINES
HARDENBERGIA VIOLACEA
LILAC VINE 5 GAL M 31
PLANTING SCHEDULE & IRRIGATION CALCULATIONS
2CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN
MENIFEE 27
PREPARED FOR MELIA HOMES INC.
9860 IRVINE CENTER DRIVE, IRVINE, CA 92618
1/8/2025
HARDSCAPE SCHEDULE
SYMBOL DESCRIPTION COLOR QTY
3" THICK STABILIZED DECOMPOSED GRANITE
DESERT
GOLD
20,842
SF
DRAINAGE BASIN HYDROSEED SCHEDULE - WUCOLS - LOW
SYMBOL SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME PURITY/
GERMINATION
BULK
(LBS/ACRE)
AGROTIS EXARATA BENT GRASS 98/80 4.0
BACCHARIS PILULARIS COYOTE BRUSH 2/40 2.0
BROMUS CARINATUS CALIFORNIA BROME
GRASS 95/80 1.5
HELIOTROPIUM CURASSAVICUM SALT HELIOTROPE 20/60 2.0
HEMIZONIA FASCICLATA FASCICLED TARWEED 10/25 1.0
LASTHENIA CALIFORNICA COASTAL GOLDFIELDS 90/85 0.25
LEYMUS CONDENSATUS GIANT WILD RYE 80/80 8.0
LOTUS SCOPARIUS DEERWEED 90/60 6.0
LUPINUS BICOLOR DOVE LUPINE 98/80 0.25
MIMULUS GATTATUS SEEP MONKEY
FLOWER 10/60 1.0
PLANTAGO OVATA PLANTAIN 98/75 10.0
TRIFOLIUM TRIDENTATUM TOMCAT CLOVER 90/80 2.0
VULPIA MICROSTACHYS SMALL FESCUE 90/80 6-8
TOTAL HYDROSEED AREA: 55,431 SF
BASIN PLANT SCHEDULE
SYMBOL BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME SIZE WUCOLS QTY
BASIN TREE
CERCIS OCCIDENTALIS
WESTERN REDBUD 15 GAL L 17
CHILOPSIS LINEARIS
DESERT WILLOW 15 GAL L 24
BACKGROUND SHRUBS
LEUCOPHYLLUM FRUTESCENS `GREEN CLOUD`
GREEN CLOUD TEXAS SAGE 5 GAL L 3,695
WESTRINGIA X 'WYNYABBIE GEM'
WYNYABBIE GEM COAST ROSEMARY 5 GAL L
BASIN BOTTOM
CAREX DIVULSA
EUROPEAN GREY SEDGE
PLUGS
@ 12"
OC L
51,076
SF
OVERALL SITE PLAN PLANT SCHEDULE
SYMBOL BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME SIZE WUCOLS QTY
ACCENT TREES
LAGERSTROEMIA INDICA X FAURIEI
'MUSKOGEE'
MUSKOGEE CRAPE MYRTLE
36" BOX M 14
SYAGRUS ROMANZOFFIANA
QUEEN PALM 16` BTH M 8
OVERALL SITE PLAN
PISTACIA CHINENSIS 'KEITH DAVEY'
KEITH DAVEY CHINESE PISTACHE 24" BOX M 9
PLATANUS X ACERIFOLIA 'BLOODGOOD'
BLOODGOOD LONDON PLANE TREE 24" BOX M 8
PODOCARPUS GRACILIOR
FERN PINE 24" BOX M 27
RHUS LANCEA
AFRICAN SUMAC 24" BOX L 14
ULMUS PARVIFOLIA 'DRAKE'
DRAKE LACEBARK ELM 24" BOX L 28
ACCENT
AGAVE DESMETIANA 'VARIEGATA'
VARIEGATED SMOOTH AGAVE 5 GAL L
931ALOE X `BLUE ELF`
BLUE ELF ALOE 1 GAL L
DIANELLA REVOLUTA 'LITTLE REV'
LITTLE REV FLAX LILY 1 GAL L
BACKGROUND SHRUBS
LAURUS NOBILIS 'MONRIK'
LITTLE RAGU® SWEET BAY 5 GAL L
524
LEUCOPHYLLUM FRUTESCENS `GREEN
CLOUD`
GREEN CLOUD TEXAS SAGE
5 GAL L
OLEA EUROPAEA 'MONTRA'
LITTLE OLLIE® OLIVE 5 GAL L
WESTRINGIA X 'WYNYABBIE GEM'
WYNYABBIE GEM COAST ROSEMARY 5 GAL L
GROUND COVERS
BACCHARIS PILULARIS `TWIN PEAKS`
TWIN PEAKS COYOTE BRUSH 5 GAL L
931
MYOPORUM PARVIFOLIUM `FINE LEAF FORM`
FINE LEAF TRAILING MYOPORUM 5 GAL L
ROSMARINUS OFFICINALIS `PROSTRATUS`
DWARF ROSEMARY 5 GAL L
SENECIO MANDRALISCAE
BLUE FINGERS 1 GAL L
WESTRINGIA FRUTICOSA 'WES05' TM
MUNDI COAST ROSEMARY 1 GAL L
MIDGROUND SHRUBS
BOUTELOUA GRACILIS 'BLONDE AMBITION'
BLONDE AMBITION BLUE GRAMA 1 GAL L
1,197
HESPERALOE PARVIFLORA
RED YUCCA 1 GAL L
LOMANDRA LONGIFOLIA 'BREEZE'
BREEZE™ MAT RUSH 1 GAL L
MUHLENBERGIA CAPILLARIS
PINK MUHLY GRASS 5 GAL L
ROSMARINUS OFFICINALIS 'TUSCAN BLUE'
TUSCAN BLUE ROSEMARY 5 GAL L
SALVIA GREGGII
AUTUMN SAGE 1 GAL L
SALVIA LEUCOPHYLLA
PURPLE SAGE 5 GAL L
WESTRINGIA FRUTICOSA 'MORNING LIGHT'
MORNING LIGHT COAST ROSEMARY 5 GAL L
VINES
HARDENBERGIA VIOLACEA
LILAC VINE 5 GAL M 31
PLANTING SCHEDULE & IRRIGATION CALCULATIONS
2CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN
MENIFEE 27
PREPARED FOR MELIA HOMES INC.
9860 IRVINE CENTER DRIVE, IRVINE, CA 92618
1/8/2025
Legend
Feet
0 120 240
Conceptual Landscape Plan B
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
Item Page Number: 54
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
646 of 966
CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist
City of Menifee Menifee 27 Residential Project
34 This page intentionally left blank.
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
Item Page Number: 55
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
647 of 966
CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist
City of Menifee Menifee 27 Residential Project
35 3.6. PRIOR ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT(S) FOR ANALYZING CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15183 AND 15182
City of Menifee General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report , certified December 2013. State Clearinghouse Number 2012071033.
City of Menifee Addendum to Environmental Impact Report No. 329, certified May 2024. State Clearinghouse Number 1989100207.
3.7. LOCATION OF PRIOR ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT(S) ANALYZING THE
EFFECTS OF INFILL PROJECTS
City of Menifee , 29844 Haun Road, CA 92586 . Also, accessible online on the C ity’s website:
https://www.cityofmenifee.us/221/General-Plan and https://www.cityofmenifee.us/492/Specific-Plans
3.8. DISCRETIONARY APPROVALS
In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15050 and 15367, the C ity is the designated Lead Agency for the Project and has principal authority and jurisdiction for CEQA actions and Project approval.
Responsible Agencies are those agencies that have jurisdiction or authority over one or more aspects associated with the development of a proposed Project and/or mitigation. Trustee Agencies are State agencies that have jurisdiction by law over natural resources affected by a proposed Project. There are no Responsible Agencies or Trustee Agencies, or any other public agencies, whose approval is required for approving this Project.
The following discretionary approvals from the City of Menifee, as Lead Agency, are anticipated to be necessary for implementation of the proposed Project:
City of Menifee
• Approval of Tentative Tract Map (TTM)
• Approval of Plot Plan (Design Review)
• Approval of Density Bonus Request
• Approvals and permits necessary to execute the proposed Project, including but not limited to, grading permit, building permits, etc.
4. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
4.1. CHECKLIST FORM
Project Title: Menifee 27 Residential Project
Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Menifee, 29844 Haun Road, Menifee, CA 92586 Contact Person and Phone Number: Russell Brown, Senior Planner, (951) 723-3745 Project Location: The Project site is located north of State Route 74 (SR-74), west of Palomar Road, east of Antelope Road, and south of Watson Road. The Project site is situated in the northeast portion of the City of Menifee within Riverside County (APN 329-110-024, -028, -041, -042, and -043).
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
Item Page Number: 56
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
648 of 966
CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist
City of Menifee Menifee 27 Residential Project
36 Project Sponsor’s Name and Address: Melia Homes, 9860 Irvine Center Drive, Irvine, CA 92618 GP Land Use Designation: Menifee North Specific Plan (SP No. 260) Zoning: Menifee North Specific Plan (SP No. 260), Planning Area 7A (Medium-High Density) and Planning Area 7B (High Density)
Project Description: The proposed Project would subdivide a 27.35 -acre site into 192 single -family residential lots and construct two -story, detached homes. The subdivision would be developed within Planning Area 7A and Planning Area 7B of the Menifee North Specific Plan (SP No. 260), with a proposed overall density of 7.02 dwelling units per acre. Lot sizes would range from a minimum of 2,625 SF to 4,050 SF. The proposed Project would also include internal private roadways, landscaping, common and private open space areas, and stormwater and utility infrastructure. Project approvals include a Tentative Tract Map and Design Review.
Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The Project site is bound by residential land uses to the west and north, Palomar Road followed by undeveloped vacant land to the east, and commercial uses to the south.
Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required: None.
Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1? If so, is there a plan for consultation that includes, for example, the determination of significance of impacts to tribal cultural resources, procedures regarding confidentiality, etc.? Assembly Bill (AB) 52 (Chapter 532, Statutes of 2014) establishes a formal consultation process for California tribes as part of the CEQA process and equates significant impacts on “tribal cultural resources” with significant environmental impacts (PRC Sec tion 21084.2). AB 52 requires that lead agencies undertaking CEQA review evaluate, just as they do for other historical and archeological resources, a project’s potential impact to a tribal cultural resource. In addition, AB 52 requires that lead agencies, upon request of a California Native American tribe, begin consultation prior to the release of a negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration, or environmental impact report for a project. AB 52 does not apply to a Notice of Exemption or Addendum, such as this CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist.
As such, AB 52 consultation is not required for this Project.
4.2. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The subject areas checked below were determined to be new significant environmental effects or to be previously identified effects that have a substantial increase in severity due to project -specific significant effects which are peculiar to the project or the site, as indicated by the checklist and discussion on the following pages.
None
Aesthetics Agriculture and Forestry
Res
ources Air Quality
Biological Resources Cultural Resources Energy
Geology a nd Soils Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards and Hazardous M
aterials
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
Item Page Number: 57
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
649 of 966
CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist
City of Menifee Menifee 27 Residential Project
37 Hydrology a nd Water Quality Land Use a nd Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population a nd Housing Public Services
Recreation Transportation Tribal Cultural Resources
Utilities a nd Service Systems Wildfire
4.3. DETERMINATION (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE LEAD AGENCY) On the basis of this evaluation:
I find that the proposed Project WOULD NOT result in: ( 1) a project specific impact which is peculiar to the project or its site; (2) a significant impact that was not analyzed as significant in the prior EIR; (3) a potentially significant off-site impact or cumulative impact not discussed in the prior EIR; or (4) a more severe impact due to substantial new information that was not known at the time the prior EIR. NO FURTHER ACTION is required and a Notice of Exemption (Section 15062) will be filed indicating that the P roject IS ELIGIBLE for an EXEMPTION under CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.
I find that the proposed Project WOULD NOT result in: ( 1) one or more significant environmental effects not previously discussed in the certified EIR for the Specific Plan; ( 2) a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; ( 3) the feasibility of previously rejected Mitigation Measures or alternatives that would substantially reduce one or more significant effects but are not adopted by the City; or (4) new or considerably different Mitigation Measures or alternatives that would substantially reduce one or more significant effects but are not adopted by the City. NO FURTHER ACTION is required and a Notice of Exemption (Section 15062) will be filed indicating that the Project IS ELIGIBLE for an EXEMPTION under CEQA Guidelines Section 15182.
I find that the proposed Project would result in: (1) a project specific impact which is peculiar to the project or its site; (2) a significant impact that was not analyzed as significant in the prior EIR; (3) a potentially significant off-site impact or cumulative impact not discussed in the prior EIR; or ( 4) a more severe impact due to substantial new information that was not known at the time the prior EIR. I find that FURTHER ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW is necessary to analyze those effects that are subject to CEQA, and therefore, this Project is NOT ELIGIBLE for an EXEMPTION under CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.
I find that the proposed Project WOULD result in: ( 1) one or more significant environmental effects not previously discussed in the certified EIR for the Specific Plan; ( 2) a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; ( 3) the feasibility of previously rejected Mitigation Measures or alternatives that would substantially reduce one or more significant effects but are not adopted by the City; or (4) new or considerably different Mitigation Measures or alternatives that would substantially reduce one or more significant effects but are not adopted by the City. I find that FURTHER ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW is necessary to analyze those effects that are subject to CEQA, and therefore, this Project is NOT ELIGIBLE for an EXEMPTION under CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.
_____________________________________________________________________________________ Signature Date
Printed Name Title
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
Item Page Number: 58
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
650 of 966
CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist
City of Menifee Menifee 27 Residential Project
38 4.4. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
This CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist provides an analysis of potential environmental impacts resulting from the Project. Following the format of CEQA Guidelines Appendix G Checklist, environmental effects are evaluated to determine if the Project would result in a potentially significant impact triggering additional review under CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.
• Items checked “Peculiar Impact that is not Substantially Mitigated” indicates that the Project could result in a peculiar impact, including a physical change that belongs exclusively or especially to the Project or that is a distinctive characteristic of the Project, or the Project site and that peculiar impact is not substantially mitigated by the imposition of uniformly applied development policies or standards (CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(b)(1), 15183(f)). • Items checked “Impact not Analyzed as Significant Effect in GP EIR” indicates that the Project could result in a significant effect that was not analyzed as significant in the GP EIR. Such a Project impact is not significant if it can be substantially mitigated by the imposition of uniformly applied development policies or standards (CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(b)(2) and 15183(c)). • Items checked “Potentially Significant Off -site or Cumulative Impact Not Discussed in GP EIR” indicates the Project could result in a significant off-site or cumulative impact that was not discussed in the GP EIR. Such an off-site or cumulative Project impact is not significant if it can be substantially mitigated by the imposition of uniformly applied development policies or standards (CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(b)(3) and 15183(c)).
• Items checked “Adverse Impact More Severe Based on Substantial New Information” indicates that there is new information that leads to a determination that the P roject impact is more severe than discussed in the GP EIR. Such an impact is not more severe if it can be substantially mitigated by the imposition of uniformly applied development policies or standards (CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(b)(4), 15183(c)).
• Items checked “No New Impact” indicates that potential impacts from the P roject have been adequately analyzed in the GP EIR.
• Items checked “Not Previously Analyzed in the Prior EIR” indicates that a potential environmental topic area or threshold question was not addressed in the prior EIR. In some cases, this is because certain environmental topic areas were not included in the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G checklist at the time the prior EIR was prepared. Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, it is not an issue if an environmental topic has not been previously addressed by a prior EIR when either related impacts are not potentially significant or existing policies and standards would mitigate environmental effects. Specifically, Section 15183 provides that if there are uniformly applied development policies or standards and these policies are determined to substantially mitigate environmental impacts, then the impacts related to the project do not need further analysis in a new EIR.
A project does not qualify for an Exemption under CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 if it is determined that it would result in one or more of the following: (1) a project specific impact which is peculiar to the project or its site, (2) a significant impact was not analyzed as significant in the GP EIR, (3) a potentially significant off-site impact or cumulative impact not discussed in the GP EIR, or (4) a more severe impact due to substantial new information that was not known at the time the GP EIR was certified. However, if a project having any of the foregoing impacts can be substantially mitigated through the imposition of uniformly applied development policies or standards, then an additional EIR does not need to be prepared based solely on that impact. Uniformly applied development policies or standards that are applicable to the proposed Project are included within this analysis.
This CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist has been prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, which allows for streamlined environmental review for projects consistent with the development Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
Item Page Number: 59
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
651 of 966
CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist
City of Menifee Menifee 27 Residential Project
39 density established by existing zoning, community plans, or general plans for which an EIR was certified. In addition, this document includes a consistency analysis prepared in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21083.3 and CEQA Guidelines Secti on 15182, which provide a separate statutory exemption for residential projects consistent with a specific plan for which an EIR has been certified.
Although the checklist and environmental evaluation are structured around the Section 15183 framework, the analysis also demonstrates that the proposed Project is consistent with the development assumptions and mitigation requirements of the certified SP EIR. While only Mitigation Measures from the GP EIR are applied as project-specific mitigation, relevant and applicable Mitigation Measures from the SP EIR would also apply to the proposed Project and would serve to further reduce or avoid potential environmental impacts.
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
Item Page Number: 60
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
652 of 966
CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist
City of Menifee Menifee 27 Residential Project
40 5. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
This section provides evidence to substantiate the conclusions in the environmental checklist. Each subsection briefly summarizes the conclusions of the GP EIR and SP EIR, and then discusses whether or not the proposed Project is consistent with the findings contained in the GP EIR and SP EIR, or if further analysis is required pursuant to CEQA. Mitigation Measures referenced herein are from the GP EIR.
5.1. AESTHETICS
Except as provided in Public
Resources Code Section
21099, would the Project:
Project
Impact that
is Peculiar
to the
Project or
the Project
Site
Significant
Impact not
Analyzed
as
Significant
in the Prior
EIR
Potentially
Significant
Off-site or
Cumulative
Impact not
Discussed
in the prior
EIR
Adverse
Impact More
Severe based
on Substantial
New
Information
No
New
Impact
Not
Previously
Analyzed
in the Prior
EIR
a) Have a substantial
adverse effect on a scenic
vista?
b) Substantially damage
scenic resources, including,
but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a State
scenic highway
c) In non- urbanized areas,
substantially degrade the
existing visual character or
quality of public views of the
site and its surroundings?
(Public views are those that
are experienced from
publicly accessible vantage
point). If the Project is in an
urbani
zed area, would the
Project conflict with
applicable zoning and other
regulations governing scenic
quality?
d) Create a new source of
substantial light or glare
which would adversely affect
day or nighttime views in the
area?
Summary of Impacts Identified in the GP EIR
The GP EIR discussed impacts related to aesthetics under Section 5.1, Aesthetics, pages 5.1-1 through 5.1-
14. Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
Item Page Number: 61
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
653 of 966
CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist
City of Menifee Menifee 27 Residential Project
41 The GP EIR determined that buildout of the GP would not result in significant impacts related to scenic vistas, scenic resources, or the overall visual character of the City. The GP EIR discussed that future development would be required to comply with the City’s Municipal Code, applicable GP policies, and existing design standards that are intended to protect visual quality. With adherence to these regulations and policies, the GP EIR found that impacts related to scenic vistas and community character would be less than significant.
The GP EIR also addressed impacts to scenic highways. Although SR-74 and several local roadways, such as I-215, McCall Boulevard, and Menifee Road , are identified as Eligible Scenic Highways, they are not officially designated. The GP EIR found that while future development along these corridors could alter existing views, it would not fully obstruct visual resources such as hillsides or distant mountains. The GP EIR determined that compliance with the City’s commercial design guidelines, Municipal Code, an d GP policies would ensure that scenic resources are preserved, and concluded that impacts would be less than significant.
With respect to light and glare, the GP EIR acknowledged that new development would introduce additional nighttime lighting. However, the GP EIR determined that compliance with Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards and the City’s Dark Sky Ordinance (Municipal Code Chapter 6.01) would reduce lighting-related impacts. These regulations include provisions for shielding outdoor lighting, limiting hours of operation, and using preferred lamp types. The GP EIR found that these measures would minimize ligh t pollution and preserve nighttime views, particularly in consideration of the Mount Palomar Observatory, resulting in less- than-significant impacts.
Summary of Impacts Identified in the SP EIR
The SP EIR discussed impacts related to aesthetics under Section 4.1, Aesthetics, pages 23 through 26.
The SP EIR determined that the SP area does not contain scenic vistas requiring preservation; therefore, impacts to scenic vistas would be less than significant and no mitigation was required.
While approximately 306.8 acres of the Specific Plan area border SR-74, an Eligible State Scenic Highway, these areas were designated for commercial and business park uses. The refore, the SP EIR concluded that landscaping would screen these uses and reduce visual impacts, resulting in less-than-significant impacts.
The SP EIR found that new lighting, including streetlights and signage, could result in skyglow affecting the Palomar Observatory. Mitigation requiring use of low -pressure sodium lamps, shielding of fixtures, and compliance with County Ordinance No. 655 wa s incorporated (Mitigation Measures D.11.1 through 11.3).
With these measures, impacts related to light and glare were determined to be less than significant.
Project-Specific Impacts
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GP EIR and was determined to have a less-than-significant impact.
Scenic vistas consist of expansive, panoramic views of important, unique, or highly valued visual features that are visible from public viewing areas. This definition combines visual quality with information about view exposure to describe the level of interest or concern that viewers may have for the quality of a particular view or visual setting . The City of Menifee GP EIR designates views of the San Jacinto Mountains to the northeast and east; the San Bernardino Mountains to the north; the San Gabriel Mountains to the northwest; and the Santa Ana Mountains to the west and southwest as scenic vistas.
The Project site is currently vacant, undeveloped land and is located in a fully developed area in the City of Menifee. Surrounding land uses include similar residential development to the west and north, commercial to the south, and vacant undeveloped land to the east. There are no views of any scenic vistas available Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
Item Page Number: 62
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
654 of 966
CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist
City of Menifee Menifee 27 Residential Project
42 from the Project site’s frontages on Palomar Road. In addition, as shown in Table AES-1 below, the proposed Project would be consistent with the development standards for the site. Therefore, the proposed Project would not encroach upon views of the neighboring mountains or any other scenic resource for pedestrians and motorists from vista points or other nearby public rights of way. As the proposed Project would not impact any scenic vistas or protected viewsheds, and the proposed Project is consistent with surrounding uses and development standards, impacts would be less than significant. Based on the foregoing analysis, no new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project beyond what was previously evaluated, identified, and disclosed in the GP EIR and the SP EIR. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway?
No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GP EIR and was determined to have a less-than-significant impact.
According to the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), and consistent with the findings of the GP EIR, the Project site is not located within a State scenic highway. Additionally, there are no officially designated State scenic highways near the Project site. The nearest designated scenic highway is a portion of SR-74 which is located approximately 18.5 miles northeast of the Project site (California Department of Transportation, 2025). Due to the distance from the Project site, the proposed Project would have no potential to substantially damage scenic resources within a State scenic highway In addition, a portion of State Route (SR) 74, located approximately 350 feet south of the Project site, is identified by Caltrans as an eligible State Scenic Highway (California Department of Transportation, 2025).
The Project site is only partially visible from SR 74, as it is currently obstructed by commercial development.
Furthermore, development of the proposed Project would not substantially obstruct visual resources such as hillsides or distant mountains , as they are currently not visible from this portion of SR 74. Therefore, the proposed Project would not damage scenic resources, including trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State Scenic Highway. Based on the foregoing analysis, no new or substantially greater impacts would occur with imp lementation of the proposed Project beyond what was previously evaluated, identified, and disclosed in the GP EIR and the SP EIR. c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the Project is in an urbanized area, would the Project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GP EIR and was determined to have a less-than-significant impact.
The proposed Project is in an urbanized and developed area of the City of Menifee and is surrounded by existing roadways, residential uses, and commercial uses. The proposed Project would involve subdividing the 27.35-acre site into 192 single-family detached residential units, resulting in an overall proposed density of 7.02 dwelling units per acre. As described previously in Section 2, Environmental Setting, the Project site is located within the Menifee North Specific Plan area and is designated as Planning Area 7A (Medium-High Density) and Planning Area 7B (High Density) by the Specific Plan.
As described in Section 3.0, Project Description, the proposed Project involves commitment to affordable housing. As such, nine units (five percent of the base density) would be reserved for very low -income households, qualifying the proposed Project for benefits under the California’s State Density Bonus Law (Government Code Section 65915) and the City’s implementing ordinance ( City of Menifee Development Code Chapter 9.180 , Density Bonuses, Incentives, and Concessions ). These benefits would include a 20 percent density bonus, development standard waivers or reductions, one concession/incentive, and the use Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
Item Page Number: 63
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
655 of 966
CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist
City of Menifee Menifee 27 Residential Project
43 of State Density Bonus parking ratios. The proposed Project’s density, including the additional units achieved through the application of a density bonus, is consistent with the City’s adopted housing policies and the density range identified in the GP.
While the Project proposes a series of waivers and reductions from the development standards outlined in the Development Code and Menifee North Specific Plan, these modifications are authorized by the Density Bonus Law (Government Code Section 65915) and the City’s Density Bonus Ordinance (Development Code Chapter 9.180 ). Such waivers are not considered deviations that would render the proposed Project inconsistent with the GP or zoning regulations but rather are expressly permitted adjustments that facilitate the construction of affordable housing consistent with State housing policy. Therefore, despite the proposed Project’s request for relief from certain site development standards (such as minimum lot size, lot coverage, setbacks, and lot dimensions), the proposed Project remains fully consistent with the land use designation and zoning regulations as modified by applicable State and local affordable housing provisions.
The proposed Project has been designed in accordance with the development standards listed in Title 9, Planning and Zoning , of the City’s Zoning Ordinance and would be consistent with the applicable development standards of the Specific Plan designation, as shown in Table AES-1. Therefore, the proposed Project would not conflict with an applicable zoning regulation related to sceni c quality. Impacts would be less than significant , and no new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project beyond what was previously evaluated, identified, and disclosed in the GP EIR and the SP EIR.
Table AES-1: Consistency with Site Development Standards Development
Feature
Medium-High
Density (7A)
High Density
(7B) Waiver Proposed Project Consistency
Density 5.6 du/ac 7.3 du/ac None
Consistent. The proposed Project
would construct 192 single -family
detached residential units on the
27.35-acre site, which would result
in a density of 7.02 du/acre. The
proposed Project would consist of
183 market-rate units and nine
very low -income affordable unit.
The inclusion of the affordable units
qualifies the proposed Project for
a density bonus under California’s
Density Bonus Law (Government
Code Section 65915) and awards
the proposed Project a 20 percent
bonus, equivalent to 34 additional
units for the Project site.
Minimum Lot
Size 4,000 SF 7,200 SF Yes
Consistent. Lot sizes would vary,
with plan option 1 featuring a
minimum lot size of 4,050 SF and
plan option 2 featuring a minimum
lot size of 2,625 SF. Therefore, the
proposed Project requests a
waiver to allow a minimum 2,625
SF lot size.
In accordance with the City of
Menifee Development Code
Chapter 9.180 , the City shall not
apply any development standard
that would have the effect of
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
Item Page Number: 64
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
656 of 966
CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist
City of Menifee Menifee 27 Residential Project
44 Development
Feature
Medium-High
Density (7A)
High Density
(7B) Waiver Proposed Project Consistency
physically precluding the
construction of a housing
development that meets the
eligibility criteria of Section
17.46.020, at the densities and
with the incentives or concessions
permitted under this chapter or as
otherwise allowed under
Government Code § 65915.
As such, the reduced minimum lot
area is consistent with the
provisions of the State Density
Bonus Law and the City’s
implementing regulations.
Maximum Lot
Coverage 50 percent 65 percent Yes
Consistent. The proposed Project
requests a waiver to allow lots to
have a maximum lot coverage of
75 percent.
In accordance with the City of
Menifee Development Code
Chapter 9.180, the City shall not
apply any development standard
that would have the effect of
physically precluding the
construction of a housing
development that meets the
eligibility criteria of Se ction
17.46.020, at the densities and
with the incentives or concessions
permitted under this chapter or as
otherwise allowed under
Government Code § 65915.
As such, the increased maximum lot
coverage
is consistent with the
provisions of the State Density
Bonus Law and the City’s
implementing regulations.
Setbacks
Minimum front yard
setback: 10 feet.
Minimum side yard
setback: 5 feet.
Minimum rear yard:
None
Minimum front yard
setback: 10 feet.
Minimum side yard
setback: 5 feet.
Minimum rear yard:
None
Yes
Consistent. All units would
maintain minimum setbacks of 3
feet from the front yard and 4 feet
from the side yard property lines.
Therefore, the proposed Project
requests a waiver to allow the lots
to have 4 feet side yard setbacks
and 3 feet front yard setbacks.
In accordance with the City of
Menifee Development Code
Chapter 9.180, the City shall not
apply any development standard
that would have the effect of
physically precluding the
construction of a housing
development that meets the
eligibility criteria of Se ction
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
Item Page Number: 65
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
657 of 966
CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist
City of Menifee Menifee 27 Residential Project
45 Development
Feature
Medium-High
Density (7A)
High Density
(7B) Waiver Proposed Project Consistency
17.46.020, at the densities and
with the incentives or concessions
permitted under this chapter or as
otherwise allowed under
Government Code § 65915.
As such, the reduced setback is
consistent with the provisions of the
State Density Bonus Law and the
City’s implementing regulations.
Maximum
Building
Height
40 feet 50 feet No
Consistent. The proposed
residences would be two stories
with a maximum height of 27 feet.
Parking
Automobile storage
space shall be
provided as required
by Section 18.12. of
County Ordinance
No. 348.
Minimum: 2.75
spaces per lot
Automobile storage
space shall be
provided as required
by Section 18.12. of
County Ordinance
No. 348.
Minimum: 2.75 spaces
per lot
No
Consistent. The proposed Project
would provide a total of 723
parking spaces to serve future
residents and guests. Parking
would include 384 spaces within
garages (two per residential unit),
204 spaces in private driveways,
86 on -street parallel parking
spaces, and 49 off-street head-in
parking stalls distributed
throughout the community.
California's State Density Bonus
law allows reduced parking ratios
that override local parking codes,
and do not require a waiver,
concession, or discretionary
approval. These are predefined,
by-right reduced parking
standards that apply
automatically when a project
qualifies under State Density Bonus
law.
As such, the proposed parking is
consistent with the provisions of the
State Density Bonus Law and the
City’s implementing regulations.
Source: (City of Menifee, 2025) and (City of Menifee, 2024) Municipal Code Chapter 9.155, Special Planning Areas
Development Code Chapter 9.180, Density Bonuses, Incentives, and Concessions Riverside County Ordinance No. 348 Section 18.12, Off-Street Vehicle Parking d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GP EIR and was determined to have a less-than-significant impact with implementation of mitigation.
As described above, the Project site is currently vacant, undeveloped land and is located in a fully developed area in the City of Menifee. Surrounding land uses include similar residential development to the west and north, commercial to the south, and vacant undeveloped land to the east. Additionally, the Project site is surrounded by existing sources of nighttime lighting that includes illumination from vehicle headlights along SR-74 and Palomar Road, security lighting from adjacent uses and parking lots, and from interior illumination Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
Item Page Number: 66
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
658 of 966
CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist
City of Menifee Menifee 27 Residential Project
46 from nearby buildings passing through windows. Light impacts are generally associated with the use of artificial lighting during evening and nighttime hours. Sensitive receptors relative to lighting and glare include motorists, pedestrians, and residential land uses.
The proposed Project would develop 192 single-family residential units which would require the installation of new on-site lighting sources. Proposed outdoor lighting would be typical of single-family residential uses and would consist of wall-mounted lighting and pole-mounted lights along the proposed internal roadway.
However, light emanating from the proposed Project would be required to abide by the exterior lighting requirements included in the City of Menifee Municipal Code Section 9.205, Lighting Standards. Compliance would require that all on -site lighting at the proposed P roject would be shielded to prevent off -site illumination in accordance with the provisions of Section 6.01.040, Requirement for Lamp Source and Shielding, of Municipal Code Chapter 6.01, Dark Sky; Light Pollution . Additionally, the proposed Project would be consistent with Municipal Code Chapter 9.195, Landscaping Standards, which includes development standards for landscaping which would further help to prevent light from spilling or emitting into adjacent properties and streetways. With compliance with the City’s Municipal Code, impacts related to increased sources of light would be less than significant.
Glare can emanate from many different sources, some of which include direct sunlight, sunlight reflecting from cars or buildings, and bright outdoor or indoor lighting. Glare in the Project vicinity is generated by the windows of nearby buildings and vehicle windows reflecting light. The building materials for the proposed Project do not consist of highly reflective materials and proposed lighting would be shielded consistent with Municipal Code requirements as described above. Additionally, the proposed landscaping along the Project boundaries would screen sources of light and reduce the potential for glare. With compliance to the City of Menifee Municipal Code requirements, the proposed Project would create limited new sources of light or glare from security and site lighting which would not adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. Therefore, impacts related to light and glare would be less than significant and no new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project beyond what was previously evaluated, identified, and disclosed in the GP EIR and the SP EIR.
Conclusion
Regarding the issue area of aesthetics, the following findings can be made:
15183 Findings
1. No peculiar impacts to the Project or its site have been identified.
2. There are no significant effects that were not analyzed as part of the GP EIR.
3. There are no potentially significant off-site and/or cumulative impacts which were not discussed by the GP EIR.
4. No substantial new information has been identified which would result in an impact more severe than anticipated by the GP EIR.
5. No new Mitigation Measures would be required because Project specific impacts would be less than significant with adherence to existing regulations.
15182 Findings
Based on the foregoing information, none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or M itigation Measures exist regarding aesthetics . There have not been (1) changes related to development of the Project site that involve new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which development of the Project site is undertaken that require major revisions Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
Item Page Number: 67
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
659 of 966
CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist
City of Menifee Menifee 27 Residential Project
47 of the certified EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or Mitigation Measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the certified SP EIR was certified as completed.
Because none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts, State CEQA Guidelines 15182 also does not require additional environmental review and the Project is within the scope of the SP EIR.
Uniformly Applied Development Policies or Standards (DP/S) City of Menifee Municipal Code Chapter, 6.01: Dark Sky; Light Pollution. All new development shall comply with outdoor lighting standards designed to reduce light pollution, preserve night sky visibility, and minimize lighting impacts on surrounding properties and biological resources. Specifically, outdoor lighting shall be fully shielded, directed downward, and limited to the minimum necessary for safety and security. Lighting plans shall demonstrate compliance with shielding, lumens thresholds, color temperature (Kelvin rating), and curfew restrictions as required under Chapter 6.01. Compliance with this chapter is mandatory for all development projects and serves as a uniformly applied development standard to minimize impacts related to light and glare.
City of Menifee Municipal Code Section, 6.01.040: Lamp Source and Shielding. Requires all outdoor lighting to utilize fully shielded fixtures that direct light downward to minimize light spillover, glare, and skyglow.
Lamp sources must be concealed or fully shielded to prevent direct visibility from adjacent properties, roadways, and public vantage points. The use of light fixtures must be consistent with the City's requirements for energy efficiency, light trespass prevention, and dark sky compliance. Compliance with this standard is required as a condition of project approval and i s enforced through the City’s plan check and inspection process.
City of Menifee Municipal Code Chapter, 9.205: Lighting Standards. Establishes lighting standards to encourage effective, nondetrimental lighting; maintain nighttime safety, utility, security and productivity; and encourage lighting practices and systems which will minimize light pollution, prevent glare and light trespass, conserve energy and resources, and curtail the degradation of the nighttime visual environment, and preserve the visibility of night skies in accordance with the Lighting Standards requirements set forth in Chapter 6.01 (Dark Sky, Light Pollution).
GP Goals and Policies
None.
GP EIR Mitigation Measures
No Mitigation Measures related to aesthetics are included in the GP EIR.
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
Item Page Number: 68
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
660 of 966
CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist
City of Menifee Menifee 27 Residential Project
48 5.2. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
Would the Project:
Project
Impact that is
Peculiar to
the Project or
the Project
Site
Significant
Impact not
Analyzed
as
Significant
in the Prior
EIR
Potentially
Significant
Off-site or
Cumulative
Impact not
Discussed
in the prior
EIR
Adverse
Impact
More Severe
based on
Substantial
New
Information
No
New
Impact
Not
Previously
Analyzed
in the Prior
EIR
a) Convert Prime Farmland,
Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as
shown on the maps prepared
pursuant to the Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring
Program of the California
Resources Agency, to non -
agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing
zoning for agricultural use, or
a Williamson Act contract?
c) Conflict with existing
zoning for, or cause rezoning
of, forest land (as defined in
Public Resources Code
section 12220(g)),
timberland (as defined by
Public Resources Code
Section 4526), or timberland
zoned Timberland Production
(as defined by Government
Code Section 51104(g))?
d) Result in the loss of forest
l
and or conversion of forest
land to non-forest use?
e) Involve other changes in
the existing environment
which, due to their location or
nature, could result in
conversion of Farmland, to
non-agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to
non-forest use?
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
Item Page Number: 69
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
661 of 966
CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist
City of Menifee Menifee 27 Residential Project
49 Summary of Impacts Identified in the GP EIR
The GP EIR discussed impacts related to agriculture and forestry under Section 5.2, Agriculture and Forestry, pages 5.2-1 through 5.2-16.
The GP EIR determined that implementation of the GP would result in the conversion of agricultural land to non-agricultural uses, and found these impacts to be significant and unavoidable. Specifically, the GP EIR discussed that approximately 522 acres of designated Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, and Unique Farmland would be converted under the GP land use designations. The GP EIR found that there are no feasible M itigation Measures available that would reduce the loss of mapped farmland to a less - than-significant level.
The GP EIR also addressed conflicts between existing agricultural zoning and the GP land use designations.
It determined that, until the zoning code is updated to reflect the GP land use map, inconsistencies would remain. As there are no feasible Mitigation Measures that would eliminate these conflicts, the GP EIR concluded that impacts associated with agricultural zoning inconsistencies are significant and unavoidable.
With respect to forestland and timberland, the GP EIR determined that no land within the City is designated or zoned for forestry uses. As a result, the GP EIR found that implementation of the GP would not result in impacts to forestland or timberland.
The GP EIR further discussed that, overall, implementation of the GP would contribute to the conversion of farmland to urban uses. Because these impacts could not be mitigated to a less-than-significant level, the GP EIR concluded that farmland conversion impacts are significant and unavoidable.
Summary of Impacts Identified in the SP EIR
The SP EIR discussed impacts related to aesthetics under Section 4.2, Agricultural Resources, pages 27 through
30. The SP EIR determined that implementation of the SP would result in the removal of approximately 1,050 acres of farmable land. It concluded that development would eliminate existing open space and the site's rural character and would contribute to the regional decline of agricultural uses. The SP EIR further determined that buildout of the SP would result in urban development on Prime soils. The loss of Prime Farmland was considered a significant impact, and no mitigation was proposed for the discontinuatio n of farming or the conversion of Prime Farmland.
The SP EIR did not analyze impacts related to Williamson Act contracts, forestland or timberland zoning, or the loss of forestland. Nonetheless, the absence of forestland resources within the SP area was evident from the land use descriptions and maps provided in the SP EIR, making any such impacts readily apparent to the public at the time the document was certified. The Menifee North Specific Plan Amendment No. 5, Addendum to the SP EIR, determined that impacts would be less than significant.
Project-Specific Impacts
e) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance, as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GP EIR and was determined to have a significant and unavoidable impact.
According to the California Department of Conservation Important Farmland Finder, the Project site is identified as Farmland of Local Importance and is not identified as Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
Item Page Number: 70
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
662 of 966
CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist
City of Menifee Menifee 27 Residential Project
50 Importance, or Unique Farmland (California Department of Conservation, 2022). Surrounding land uses are identified as Urban and Built-Up Land and Farmland of Local Importance. California Public Resources Code § 21060.1 defines “ agricultural land” as “prime farmland, farmland of statewide importance, or unique farmland” as defined by the United States Department of Agriculture land inventory and monitoring criteria.
As such, “Farmland of Local Importance,” and "Other Land" is not considered agricultural land as defined by PRC § 21060.1. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in the conversion of farmland to non - agricultural use despite its designation.
The Project site is located within the Menifee North Specific Plan area and is designated as Planning Area 7A (Medium -High Density) and Planning Area 7B (High Density) . The Project site is currently vacant, undeveloped land, and does not include agricultural uses. Therefore, the proposed Project would result in no impacts on conversion of Prime, Statewide, or Unique farmland to non-agricultural. Based on the foregoing analysis, no new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project beyond what was previously evaluated, identified, and disclosed in the GP EIR and the SP EIR. f) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GP EIR and was determined to have a significant and unavoidable impact.
As identified above, the Project site does not include agricultural land of Prime, Statewide, or Unique Importance. The Project site is located within the Menifee North Specific Plan (SP No. 260) area and is designated as Planning Area 7A (Medium-High Density) and Planning Area 7B (High Density). No agricultural zoning exists on or adjacent to the Project site. In addition, and consistent with the GP EIR findings, there are 77 acres of land (4 parcels) under Williamson Act contracts within the City, all of which have filed nonrenewal of their contracts (expired in January 2017), and none of which are part of or adjacent to the Project si te.
Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in a conflict with existing zones for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract and no impact would occur. Based on the foregoing analysis, no new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project beyond what was previously evaluated, identified, and disclosed in the GP EIR and the SP EIR. g) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))? No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GP EIR and was determined to have no impact.
As discussed in the GP EIR, the City does not meet the definition of forest land in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g). The Project site is not zoned for forest land or timberland uses. Therefore, the proposed Project would result in no impacts related to conflicts with existing forest land or timberland zoning . Based on the foregoing analysis, no new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project beyond what was previously evaluated, identified, and disclosed in the GP EIR and the SP EIR.
h) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GP EIR and was determined to have no impact.
The Project site consists of vacant, undeveloped land, surrounded by residential, commercial, and undeveloped land. No forest land exists on or adjacent to the Project site. The Project site is not zoned for forest land or timberland uses. Therefore, the proposed Project would result in no impacts related to loss or conversion of forest land to non-forest use. Based on the foregoing analysis, no new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project beyond what was previously evaluated, identified, and disclosed in the GP EIR and the SP EIR.
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
Item Page Number: 71
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
663 of 966
CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist
City of Menifee Menifee 27 Residential Project
51 i) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GP EIR and was determined to have a significant and unavoidable impact.
As identified above, the Project site is not identified as Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, or Unique Farmland by the California Department of Conservation’s California Important Farmland Finder Map. Additionally, the proposed Project would not convert farmland to a nonagricultural use or convert forest land to a non -forest use. Thus, the proposed Project would not involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to its location or nature, could result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use. Based on the foregoing analysis, no new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project beyond what was previously evaluated, identified, and disclosed in the GP EIR and the SP EIR.
Conclusion
Regarding the issue area of agricultural and forestry resources, the following findings can be made:
15183 Findings
1. No peculiar impacts to the Project or its site have been identified.
2. There are no significant effects that were not analyzed as part of the GP EIR.
3. There are no potentially significant off-site and/or cumulative impacts which were not discussed by the GP EIR.
4. No substantial new information has been identified which results in an impact which is more severe than anticipated by the GP EIR.
5. No new Mitigation Measures would be required because Project specific impacts would be less than significant
15182 Findings
Based on the foregoing information, none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or Mitigation Measures exist regarding agriculture and forestry resources. There have not been ( 1) changes related to development of the Project site that involve new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which development of the Project site is undertaken that require major revisions of the certified EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or ( 3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or M itigation Measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the certified SP EIR was certified as completed.
Because none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts, State CEQA Guidelines 15182 also does not require additional environmental review and the Project is within the scope of the SP EIR.
Uniformly Applied Development Policies or Standards (DP/S) None.
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
Item Page Number: 72
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
664 of 966
CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist
City of Menifee Menifee 27 Residential Project
52 Applicable GP Goals and Policies
None.
Applicable GP EIR Mitigation Measures
No Mitigation Measures related to agriculture and forestry are included in the GP EIR.
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
Item Page Number: 73
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
665 of 966
CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist
City of Menifee Menifee 27 Residential Project
53 5.3. AIR QUALITY
Where available, the
significance criteria
established by the
applicable air quality
management district or air
pollution control district may
be relied upon to make the
following determinations.
Would the Project:
Project
Impact
that is
Peculiar to
the Project
or the
Project Site
Significant
Impact not
Analyzed
as
Significant
in the Prior
EIR
Potentially
Significant
Off-site or
Cumulative
Impact not
Discussed
in the prior
EIR
Adverse
Impact
More Severe
based on
Substantial
New
Information
No New
Impact
Not
Previously
Analyzed
in the Prior
EIR
a) Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
b) Result in a cumulatively
considerable net increase of
any criteria pollutant for
which the Project region is
non-attainment under an
applicable federal or State
ambient air quality
standard?
c) Expose sensitive receptors
to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
d) Result in other emissions
(such as those leading to
odors) affecting a substantial
number of people?
Summary of Impacts Identified in the GP EIR
The GP EIR discussed impacts related to air quality under Section 5.3, Air Quality, pages 5.3-1 through 5.3-
28. The GP EIR determined that implementation of the GP would result in significant and unavoidable impacts to air quality, primarily due to exceedances of South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) thresholds and inconsistencies with the 2012 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). The GP EIR discussed that buildout of the GP would cumulatively contribute to the South Coast Air Basin’s (Basin) nonattainment status for ozone and particulate matter. Because the 2012 AQMP does not account for emissions beyond the 2035 planning horizon, emissions associated with full GP buildout would not be captured in regional planning projections, resulting in a significant and unavoidable impact. Although the GP includes goals and policies aimed at promoting regional air quality strategies, energy-efficient development, and multi-modal transportation options, and although Mitigation Measure 3-1 would reduce emissions from construction and operation, the GP EIR found no feasible mitigation is available to achieve full consistency with the AQMP.
The GP EIR further found that both construction-related and operational emissions would exceed SCAQMD regional and localized significance thresholds. While Mitigation Measure 3-1 would reduce criteria pollutant emissions associated with construction activi ties, the magnitude of emissions generated by anticipated development would remain above threshold levels. Similarly, long -term emissions associated with vehicle Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
Item Page Number: 74
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
666 of 966
CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist
City of Menifee Menifee 27 Residential Project
54 trips, energy use, and stationary sources from residential, commercial, industrial, and warehousing land uses would continue to exceed regional thresholds. Despite GP policies promoting emission reductions through strategies like vehicle trip reduction and alternative transportation modes, the GP EIR concluded that these impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.
Regarding sensitive receptors, the GP EIR determined that GP buildout could result in the placement of sensitive land uses near major sources of air pollution. However, implementation of Mitigation Measure 3-2 would ensure that future development would achieve SCAQMD’s incremental risk thresholds for localized air pollutants. As a result, the GP EIR found that impacts associated with exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations would be less than significant.
The GP EIR also found that future development under the GP could expose sensitive receptors to toxic air contaminants (TACs), particularly from stationary and mobile sources such as industrial uses, dry cleaners, and truck idling. Although goals and polici es in the GP promote the reduction of TAC concentrations and SCAQMD permit review provides an additional layer of protection, the GP EIR determined that even with Mitigation Measure 3-3 in place, cumulative health risk impacts would remain significant and unavoidable due to already elevated levels of cancer and noncancer health risks in the Basin.
Lastly, the GP EIR evaluated potential odor impacts and found that buildout could expose people to nuisance odors under certain conditions. However, implementation of Mitigation Measure 3-4, along with compliance with SCAQMD Rule 402, would minimize these effects. As a result, the GP EIR concluded that odor impacts would be less than significant.
Summary of Impacts Identified in the SP EIR
The SP EIR discussed impacts related to air quality under Section 4.3, Air Quality, pages 31 through 35.
The SP EIR determined that buildout of the SP would not conflict with the 1989 AQMP since the estimated increase in residential units would not exceed forecasted growth for the Central Riverside Subregion.
However, development of the SP would cumulatively increase pollutant concentration in the region, due to increased mobile emissions. Mitigation Measures from the SP EIR included buildout of public transit and roadways. However, operational impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.
Regarding sensitive receptors, the SP EIR determined that the proposed development would not place sensitive receptors near major roadways or heavy industrial uses. Therefore, impacts related to e xposing sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations would remain less than significant.
Lastly, the SP EIR determined that development of the SP would result in a less-than-significant impact related to odors, since the proposed uses are not associated with odor complaints , as defined by the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook.
Project-Specific Impacts
This section was prepared using the following report:
• Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis for Menifee 27 Project, prepared by EPD Solutions, Inc., July 1, 2025. Included as Appendix A.
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? No New Impact. T his topic was evaluated in the GP EIR (Impact 5.3-1) on pages 5.3-14 through 5.3-16 and was determined to have a significant and unavoidable impact.
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
Item Page Number: 75
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
667 of 966
CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist
City of Menifee Menifee 27 Residential Project
55 The Project site is located in the South Coast Air Basin and is under the jurisdiction of the SCAQMD. The SCAQMD and the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) are responsible for preparing the AQMP, which addresses federal and state Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements. The AQMP details goals, policies, and programs for improving air quality in the Basin . In preparation of the AQMP, the SCAQMD and SCAG use regional growth projections to forecast, inventory, and allocate regional emissions from land use and development-related sources. For purposes of analyzing consistency with the AQMP, if a proposed project would result in growth that is substantially greater than what was anticipated, then the proposed project would conflict with the AQMP. On the other hand, if a project’s resulting growth is within the anticipated growth of a jurisdiction, its emissions would be consistent with the assumptions in the AQMP, and the project would not conflict with SCAQMD’s attainment plans (Consistency Criterion No. 1). While SCAG has updated the RTP/SCS to the Connect SoCal 2024, which provides growth and forecasting estimates for 2019 through 2050, this update was adopted after the 2022 AQMP. Therefore, the analysis below uses assumptions from the 2020 -2045 RTP/SCS for consistency with the most recent AQMP. In addition, the SCAQMD considers a project consistent with the AQMP if the project would not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause a new violation (Consistency Criterion No. 2).
The Project site is located within the Menifee North Specific Plan area and is designated as Planning Area 7A (Medium-High Density) and Planning Area 7B (High Density) by the Specific Plan. These residential designations are intended to accommodate a range of housing types, including single-family attached and detached homes, townhomes, and multi -family residential units. Planning Area 7A encompasses approximately 15.2 acres of the northern portion of the Project site and is designated for medium high - density residential development, which allows for up to 85 dwelling units, equating to a maximum density of
5.6 dwelling units per acre (du/ac). Planning Area 7B encompasses approximately 11.9 acres of the southern portion of the Project site and is designated for high-density residential development, allowing for up to 87 dwelling units, with a maximum permitted density of 7.3 du/ac.
The Project proposes to subdivide the 27.35-acre site into 192 single-family residential lots, resulting in an overall proposed density of 7.02 dwelling units per acre. Of the 192 homes, nine units would be reserved for very low -income households, qualifying the Project for a 20 percent density bonus and use of State Density Bonus parking ratios. The subdivision would be developed across two planning areas: Planning Area 7A, which would accommodate 75 units at a density of 4.93 dwelling units per acre, and Planning Area 7B, which would accommodate 117 units at a density of 9.83 dwelling units per acre.
The 2020-2045 RTP/SCS estimated that between 2016 and 2045, the City of Menifee would increase its population by 40,200 people from 89,600 persons in 2016 to 129,800 persons in 2045. Using 2020 as a benchmark, the United States Census Bureau estimates that the City of Menifee had an average household size of 2.88 persons and a vacancy rate of 5 percent in 2025 (Department of Finance, 2025) . Thus, the average number of persons per housing unit in the City of Menifee in 2025 is estimated as the average household size (2.88 persons) times the occupancy rate (95 percent), or 2.74 persons. Therefore, with the proposed 192 residential units, buildout of the proposed Project would result in approximately 526 residents. The most recent population and housing estimates, which incorporate 2020 Census data, estimates that the City of Menifee has a population of 115,316 people in 2025. With implementation of the Project, the City’s population would total 115,842 people. The proposed Project would result in 0.4 percent of the estimated 2045 population, or 1.3 percent of the increase in population between 2016 and 2045 .
Therefore, the Project would not exceed SCAG’s 2045 growth forecasts. As a result, the proposed Project would be consistent with Criterion 1.
Consistency Criterion No. 2 refers to the California Ambient Air Quality Standards. An impact would occur if the long-term emissions associated with the proposed Project exceed the SCAQMD’s regional significance thresholds for construction and operational emissions. As presented in Tables AQ-3 through AQ-5 below, the proposed Project would not result in emitting emissions that exceed SCAQMD established thresholds.
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
Item Page Number: 76
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
668 of 966
CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist
City of Menifee Menifee 27 Residential Project
56 Therefore, the proposed Project would be consistent with Criterion No. 2. Since the Project would be consistent with both Criterion No. 1 and 2, impacts related to consistency with the AQMP would be less than significant.
Based on the foregoing analysis, no new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project beyond what was previously evaluated, identified, and disclosed in the GP EIR and the SP EIR.
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard)? No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GP EIR (Impact 5.3-2 and 5.3-3) on pages 5.3-16 through
5.3-18 and was determined to result in a significant and unavoidable impact.
The Basin is in non-attainment status for federal ozone standards, and State and federal particulate matter standards. The Basin is designated as a maintenance area for federal PM 10 standards. Any development in
the Basin, including the proposed Project could cumulatively contribute to these pollutant violations. Evaluation of the cumulative air quality impacts of the proposed Project has been completed pursuant to the SCAQMD’s cumulative air quality impact methodology. The SCAQMD states that if an individual project results in air emissions of criteria pollutants (reactive organic gases [ROG], carbon monoxide [CO], nitrogen oxides [NOx], sulfur dioxide [SOx], particulate matter with a diameter of 10 micrometers or less [ PM10], and particulate matter with a diameter of 2.5 micrometers or less [PM2.5]) that exceed the SCAQMD’s recommended daily thresholds for project-specific impacts, then it would also result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of the criteria pollutant(s) for which the Project region is in non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. The SCAQMD has established daily mass thresholds for regional pollutant emissions, which are shown in Table AQ-1.
Table AQ-1: SCAQMD Regional Daily Emissions Thresholds
Air Pollutant
Maximum Daily Emissions
(pounds/day)
Construction Operation
NOx 100 55
ROG 75 55
PM10 150 150
PM2.5 55 55
SOx 150 150
CO 550 550
Lead 3 3
Source: Air Quality, Energy, Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis (Appendix A) Construction
Construction activities associated with the proposed Project would generate pollutant emissions from the following: (1) site preparation, (2) grading, (3) building construction, (4) paving, and (5) architectural coating.
The amount of emissions generated on a daily basis would vary, depending on the intensity and types of construction activities occurring.
It is mandatory for all construction projects to comply with several SCAQMD Rules, including Rule 403 for controlling fugitive dust, PM
10, and PM2.5 emissions from construction activities. Rule 403 requirements include, but are not limited to, applying water in sufficient quantities to prevent the generation of visible dust plumes, applying soil binders to uncovered areas, reestablishing ground cover as quickly as possible, utilizing a wheel washing system to remove bulk material from tires and vehicle undercarriages before vehicles exit Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
Item Page Number: 77
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
669 of 966
CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist
City of Menifee Menifee 27 Residential Project
57 the Project site, covering all trucks hauling soil with a fabric cover and maintaining a minimum freeboard height of 12 inches, and maintaining effective cover over exposed areas.
Compliance with Rule 403 was accounted for in the construction emissions modeling. As shown in Table AQ- 2, Unmitigated Regional Project Construction Emission Estimates, the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) results indicate that maximum daily ROG emissions during construction would be 109.1 pounds/day, which exceeds the SCAQMD regional construction threshold of 75 pounds/day.
Table AQ-2: Unmitigated Regional Project Construction Emission Estimates Construction Year
Maximum Daily Regional Emissions
(pounds/day)
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Year 1 (2026) 3.9 34.7 32.3 0.1 7.7 4.4
Year 2 (2027) 1.4 11.1 18.8 <0.1 1.5 0.6
Year 3 (2028) 109.1 10.5 18.5 <0.1 1.4 0.6
Maximum Daily Emissions 2026-2028 109.1 34.7 32.3 0.1 7.7 4.4 SCAQMD Significance Thresholds 75 100 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? Yes No No No No No
Notes: ROG = reactive organic gases, NOx = nitrogen oxides, CO = carbon monoxide, SO2 = sulfur dioxide, PM10 = particulate matter 10 microns in diameter, PM2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 microns in diameter Source: Air Quality, Energy, Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis (Appendix A)
The proposed Project would be required to implement Mitigation Measure 3 -1 from the 2013 GP EIR to reduce potentially significant impacts from construction ROG emissions, as stated below.
Mitigation Measure 3 -1. If, during subsequent project -level environmental review, construction - related criteria air pollutants are determined to have the potential to exceed the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) adopted thresholds of significance, the City of Menifee Community Development Director or designee shall require that applicants for new development projects incorporate mitigation measures as identified in the CEQA document prepared for the project to reduce air pollutant emissions during construction activities. Mitigation measures that may be identified during the environmental review include, but are not limited to: …. o Using Super-Compliant VOC paints for coasting of architectural surfaces whenever possible. A list of Super -Compliant architectural coating manufactures can be found on the SCAQMD’s website at: [https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/compliance/super- compliant-manf- list_20250130.pdf?sfvrsn=b1ad8061_11]
Table AQ-3, Mitigated Regional Construction Emissions Estimates, shows the results of the mitigated maximum daily regional construction emissions. ROG emissions would be reduced to 25.0 pounds/day, which would be below the SCAQMD significance threshold. Therefore, the Project would result in less -than-significant regional construction impacts with mitigation implemented. C onstruction activities would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant and impacts would be less than significant.
Thus, no new impact related to construction emissions would occur.
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
Item Page Number: 78
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
670 of 966
CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist
City of Menifee Menifee 27 Residential Project
58 Table AQ-3: Mitigated Regional Construction Emission Estimates Construction Year
Maximum Daily Regional Emissions
(pounds/day)
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Year 1 (2026) 3.9 34.7 32.3 0.1 7.7 4.4
Year 2 (2027) 1.4 11.1 18.8 <0.1 1.5 0.6
Year 3 (2028) 25.0 10.5 18.5 0.0 1.4 0.6
Maximum Daily Emissions 2026-2028 25.0 34.7 32.3 0.1 7.7 4.4 SCAQMD Significance Thresholds 75 100 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No
Notes: ROG = reactive organic gases, NOx = nitrogen oxides, CO = carbon monoxide, SO2 = sulfur dioxide, PM10 = particulate matter 10 microns in diameter, PM2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 microns in diameter Source: Air Quality, Energy, Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis (Appendix A) Operation
Operational activities associated with the proposed Project would result in emissions of CO, ROG s, NOX, SOX, PM10, and PM 2.5. Operational related emissions are expected from the following primary sources:
mobile sources (mobile exhaust from residential vehicles) and energy sources (electricity and natural gas consumption). Implementation of the proposed Project would result in long-term regional emissions of criteria air pollutants and ozone precursors associated with area sources, such as landscaping and applications of architectural coatings. Operational vehicular emission s would generate a majority of the emissions from implementation of the proposed Project.
Operational emissions associated with the proposed Project were modeled using the CalEEMod Version 2022.1 land use emission model and compared to the SCAQMD operational emissions thresholds. Emissions associated with the operation of the proposed Project are presented in Table AQ-4. As shown, operational emissions would be below SC AQMD’s thresholds. Therefore, the proposed Project would result in no new impacts related to operational air quality emissions. As such, the proposed Project is consistent with th e findings contained in the GP EIR and SP EIR impacts, and the Project would result in no new impact or in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant.
Table AQ-4: Regional Project Operational Emissions
Operational Activity
Maximum Daily Regional Emissions
(pounds/day)
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Mobile 6.6 6.0 53.2 0.1 12.6 3.3
Area 14.7 0.1 10.9 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
Energy 0.1 1.7 0.7 <0.1 0.1 0.1
Total Daily Operational Emissions 21.4 7.8 64.9 0.2 12.8 3.4 SCAQMD Significance Thresholds 55 55 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No
Source: Air Quality, Energy, Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis (Appendix A) c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GP EIR (Impact 5.3-4 and 5.3-5) on pages 5.3-19 through
5.3-21. Impact 5.3-4 was found to be less than significant with mitigation, while Impact 5.3-5 was found to be significant and unavoidable.
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
Item Page Number: 79
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
671 of 966
CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist
City of Menifee Menifee 27 Residential Project
59 The SCAQMD’s Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology (SCAQMD 2008) recommends the evaluation of localized NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 construction-related impacts to sensitive receptors in the immediate vicinity of the Project site. Such an evaluation is referred to as a localized significance threshold (LST) analysis. According to the SCAQMD’s Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology , “off -site mobile emissions from the Project should not be included in the emissions compared to the LSTs” (SCAQMD, 2008). SCAQMD has developed LSTs that represent the maximum emissions from a project that are not expected to cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable federal or state ambient air quality standards, and thus would not cause or contr ibute to localized air quality impacts. LSTs are developed based on the ambient concentrations of NOx, CO, PM 10, and PM2.5 pollutants for each of the 38
source receptor areas (SRAs) in the Basin. The City of Menifee is located within SRA 24 (Perris Valley).
Sensitive receptors can include residences, schools, playgrounds, childcare centers, athletic facilities. There are existing homes directly adjacent to the northern boundary of the Project site.
The localized thresholds for development projects were derived using the SCAQMD Fact Sheet for Applying CalEEMod to Localized Significance Threshold and Appendix C of the SCAQMD 2008 Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology (SRA 24) (SCAQMD, n.d.-a). The thresholds from SCAQMD are for one- , two-, or five -acre sites, and distances of sensitive receptors for 25 to 500 meters. The closest sensitive receptor from the proposed Project is a residence directly ad jacent to the northern boundary of the site; therefore, the distance for sensitive receptors in the assessment was set at 25 meters. The construction phase with the most ground disturbance would be the site preparation phase, with 4 acres per day of disturbance; thus, the analysis interpolates the 4-acre thresholds using thresholds for 2 acres and 5 acres.
Construction
Construction of the proposed Project may expose nearby residential sensitive receptors to airborne particulates as well as a small quantity of construction equipment pollutants (i.e., usually diesel-fueled vehicles and equipment). However, construction contractors would be required to implement measures to reduce or eliminate emissions by following SCAQMD’s standard construction practices. Rule 403 requires that fugitive dust be controlled with best available control measures so that the presence of such dust does not remain visible in the atmosphere beyond the property line of the emission source. As shown in Table AQ -5, Project construction-source emissions would not exceed SCAQMD LSTs and impacts would be less than significant.
Table AQ-5: Localized Construction Emission Estimates
Construction Year
Maximum Daily Regional Emissions
(pounds/day)
NOx CO PM10 PM2.5
Year 1 (2026) 34.6 31.0 7.4 4.3
Year 2 (2027) 10.2 14.0 0.4 0.3
Year 3 (2028) 9.7 14.0 0.3 0.3
Maximum Daily Emission 2026-2028 34.6 31.0 7.4 4.3
SCAQMD LST Screening Thresholds1 236.7 1,345.7 11.0 6.7 Threshold Exceeded? No No No No
Notes: NOx = nitrogen oxides, CO = carbon monoxide, PM10 = particulate matter 10 microns in diameter, PM2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 microns in diameter
1 Significance thresholds obtained by interpolating values for 2 acres and 5 acres at a receptor distance of 100 meters.
Source: Air Quality, Energy, Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis (Appendix A) Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
Item Page Number: 80
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
672 of 966
CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist
City of Menifee Menifee 27 Residential Project
60 Operation
According to the SCAQMD LST methodology, LSTs apply to project- related stationary mobile sources.
Projects that involve mobile sources that spend long periods queuing and idling at a site, such as transfer facilities or warehousing and distribution buildings, have the potential to exceed the operational LSTs. The Project would operate as a residential community, which does not typically involve diesel vehicles regularly idling or queueing for long periods. Therefore, due to the lack of significant stationary source emissions or idling diesel-powered vehicles, impacts related to operational LSTs are presumed to be less than significant.
Based on the foregoing analysis, no new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project beyond what was previously evaluated, identified, and disclosed in the GP EIR and the SP EIR.
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GP EIR (Impact 5.3-6) on page 5.3-22 and impacts were determined to be less than significant.
The proposed Project would not generate other emissions, not described previously. According to the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, land uses associated with odor issues include agricultural uses, wastewater treatment plants, food processing plants, chem ical plants, composting activities, refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding operations. The proposed Project would develop and operate a warehouse building, which would not involve the types of uses that lead to odors.
Potential odor sources associated with the proposed Project may result from construction equipment exhaust and the application of asphalt and architectural coatings during construction activities and the temporary storage of typical solid waste (refuse) as sociated with the proposed Project’s operational uses. The construction odor emissions would be temporary, short-term, and intermittent in nature and would cease upon completion of construction; no impact would occur.
It is expected that Project-generated refuse would be stored in covered containers and removed at regular intervals in compliance with the City’s solid waste regulations. The proposed Project would also be required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 402 to prevent occurrences of public nuisance odors. Therefore, other emissions (such as those leading to odors) that could adversely affect a substantial number of people would not occur from the proposed Project. Based on the foregoing analysis, no new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project beyond what was previously evaluated, identified, and disclosed in the GP EIR and the SP EIR.
Conclusion
Regarding the issue area of air quality, the following findings can be made:
15183 Findings
1. No peculiar impacts to the Project or its site have been identified.
2. There are no significant effects that were not analyzed as part of the GP EIR.
3. There are no potentially significant off-site and/or cumulative impacts which were not discussed by the GP EIR.
4. No substantial new information has been identified which results in an impact which is more severe than anticipated by the GP EIR.
5. No new Mitigation Measures would be required because Project specific impacts would be less than significant with compliance with GP EIR Mitigation Measures listed below.
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
Item Page Number: 81
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
673 of 966
CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist
City of Menifee Menifee 27 Residential Project
61 15182 Findings
Based on the foregoing information, none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or Mitigation Measures exist regarding air quality . There have not been (1) changes related to development of the Project site that involve new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which development of the Project site is undertaken that require major revisions of the certified EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or Mitigation Measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the certified SP EIR was certified as completed.
Because none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts, State CEQA Guidelines 15182 also does not require additional environmental review and the Project is within the scope of the SP EIR.
Uniformly Applied Development Policies or Standards (DP/S) Rule 402. The Project is required to comply with the provisions of SCAQMD Rule 402. The Project shall not discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property.
Rule 403. The Project is required to comply with the provisions of SCAQMD Rule 403, which includes the following:
• All clearing, grading, earth-moving, or excavation activities shall cease when winds exceed 25 mph per SCAQMD guidelines in order to limit fugitive dust emissions. • The contractor shall ensure that all disturbed unpaved roads and disturbed areas within the project are watered, with complete coverage of disturbed areas, at least 3 times daily during dry weather; preferably in the mid-morning, afternoon, and after work is done for the day. • The contractor shall ensure that traffic speeds on unpaved roads and project site areas are reduced to 15 miles per hour or less.
Rule 1113. The Project is required to comply with the provisions of SCAQMD Rule 1113. Only “Low-Volatile Organic Compounds” paints (no more than 50 gram/liter of VOC) and/or High Pressure Low Volume (HPLV) applications shall be used.
Applicable GP Goals and Policies
• Policy OSC-9.3: Comply with regional, state, and federal standards and programs for control of all airborne pollutants and noxious odors, regardless of source. • Policy OSC-9.5: Comply with the mandatory requirements of Title 24 Part 11 of the California Building Standards Code (CALGreen) and Title 24 Part 6 Building and Energy Efficiency Standards.
GP EIR Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure 3- 1. If, during subsequent project -level environmental review, construction -related criteria air pollutants are determined to have the potential to exceed the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) adopted thresholds of significance, the City of Menifee Community Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
Item Page Number: 82
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
674 of 966
CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist
City of Menifee Menifee 27 Residential Project
62 Development Director or designee shall require that applicants for new development projects incorporate mitigation measures as identified in the CEQA document prepared for the project to reduce air pollutant emissions during construction activities. Mitigation measures that may be identified during the environmental review include, but are not limited to:
• Using Super-Compliant VOC paints for coasting of architectural surfaces whenever possible. A list of Super-Compliant architectural coating manufactures can be found on the SCAQMD’s website at:
[https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/compliance/super-compliant-manf- list_20250130.pdf?sfvrsn=b1ad8061_11]
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
Item Page Number: 83
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
675 of 966
CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist
City of Menifee Menifee 27 Residential Project
63 5.4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Would the Project:
Project
Impact that
is Peculiar
to the
Project or
the Project
Site
Significant
Impact not
Analyzed
as
Significant
in the Prior
EIR
Potentially
Significant
Off-site or
Cumulative
Impact not
Discussed
in the prior
EIR
Adverse
Impact
More Severe
based on
Substantial
New
Information
No New
Impact
Not
Previously
Analyzed
in the Prior
EIR
a) Have a substantial
adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status
species in local or regional
plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the
California Department of
Fish and Game or U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial
adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other
sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional
plans, policies, regulations or
by the California
Department of Fish and
Game or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial
adverse effect on State or
federally protected
wetlands (including, but not
limited to, marsh, vernal
pool, coastal, etc.) through
direct removal, filling,
hydrological interruption, or
other means?
d) Interfere substantially with
the movement of any native
resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species or with
established native resident
or migratory wildlife
corridors, or impede the use
of native wildlife nursery
sites?
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
Item Page Number: 84
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
676 of 966
CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist
City of Menifee Menifee 27 Residential Project
64 e) Conflict with any local
policies or ordinances
protecting biological
resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or
ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions
of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved
local, regional, or State
habitat conservation plan?
Summary of Impacts Identified in the GP EIR
The GP EIR discussed impacts to biological resources under Section 5.4, Biological Resources, pages 5.4-1 through 5.4-66.
The GP EIR determined that implementation of the GP would result in the loss of biological resources due to the conversion of undeveloped land to urban uses. The GP EIR discussed that areas designated for urban uses such as Residential (excluding Rural Mountainous), Commercial, Industrial, Business Park, and Specific Plans were considered to have the potential for full loss of biological resources not otherwise protected under existing regulations. However, the GP EIR found that compliance with the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP), including payment of mitigation fees and adherence to applicable requirements, would provide full mitigation for impacts to covered species and habitats under CEQA, NEPA, the federal Endangered Species Act, and the California Endangered Species Act. The GP EIR concluded that while impacts to biological resources would be potentially significant without mitigation, compliance with the MSHCP would reduce these impacts to less-than-significant levels for covered species.
The GP EIR also evaluated potential impacts to riparian habitat and determined that GP buildout would result in the loss or degradation of riparian resources. Future development projects would be required to comply with Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP, which in cludes preparation of a Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation (DBESP) to ensure impacts are mitigated appropriately. In addition, projects would be subject to permitting and regulatory oversight by the California Department of F ish and Wildlife (CDFW), Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and the United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). The GP EIR found that impacts to riparian habitat would be significant without mitigation but would be mitigated through compliance with the MSHCP and applicable permitting processes.
With respect to jurisdictional waters, the GP EIR found that future development under the GP could impact waters of the United States and waters of the State, including Canyon Lake, Lake Elsinore, and associated tributaries. The GP EIR determined that future projects impacting these resources would be required to obtain permits from the Corps, RWQCB, and CDFW, as applicable. Jurisdictional water impacts were found to be significant without mitigation.
The GP EIR also evaluated impacts to wildlife movement and determined that GP buildout would not interfere with migratory corridors or regional wildlife linkages. The GP EIR found that consistency with the MSHCP would ensure that movement areas, including linkages and cores, would be preserved in accordance with the Reserve Assembly, and that wildlife movement impacts would be less than significant.
Finally, the GP EIR addressed impacts to special -status species not covered by the MSHCP, including bird species protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Stephen’s Kangaroo Rat (SKR). For SKR, the Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
Item Page Number: 85
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
677 of 966
CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist
City of Menifee Menifee 27 Residential Project
65 GP EIR found that compliance with the SKR Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), including payment of mitigation fees for projects located within the SKR HCP boundary, would mitigate impacts to less-than-significant levels.
The GP EIR also found that GP buildout would not conflict with any adopted habitat conservation plans or natural community conservation plans.
Summary of Impacts Identified in the SP EIR
The SP EIR discussed impacts related to air quality under Section 4.4 Biological Resources, pages 36 through
39. The SP EIR found that development of the SP would require removal of most of the existing vegetation and conversion of cultivated/agricultural biotic communities to urban use, resulting in a reduction of wildlife habitat. However, the SP EIR determined that these areas were not considered biologically significant, and the loss of such habitat would not be significantly adverse. The SP EIR also stated that existing coastal sage scrub within the SP area would be preserved, and no other sensitive biological resources were identified.
Therefore, no mitigation was required for vegetation or wildlife impacts, with the exception of project-level measures recommended for potential impacts to Stephen’s kan garoo rat. With implementation of such project-specific measures, impacts to this species were determined to be less than significant.
The SP EIR did not analyze impacts to riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities , jurisdictional wetlands, wildlife corridors or native resident/migratory species movement, conflicts with local policies protecting biological resources, or conflicts with the provisions of a MSHCP . However, it included sufficient information such that the potential for these impacts was readily available to the public through the exercise of reasonable diligence. The Menifee North Specific Plan Amendment No. 5, A ddendum to the SP EIR, determined that impacts would be less than significant with the implementation of Mitigation Measures.
Project-Specific Impacts
This section was prepared using the following reports:
• Habitat Assessment, prepared by Psomas, May 2025. Included as Appendix B. a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GP EIR and was determined to result in less-than-significant impacts with implementation of GP EIR Mitigation Measures and compliance with the MSHCP.
The GP EIR identified that, pursuant to Mitigation Measure 4 -1, individual development projects on undeveloped sites would be required to prepare a habitat assessment to evaluate potential project-specific impacts to biological resources. If sensitive species or suitable habitat are identified, focused surveys and, if warranted, project- specific mitigation would be implemented to reduce potential impacts to less -than- significant levels. Consistent with this Mitigation Measure, a Habitat Assessment was prepa red for the proposed Project by Psomas in May 2025 (Appendix B). The assessment included a literature review and a field survey conducted in accordance with the Western Riverside MSHCP guidelines. The Project site is located within the MSHCP plan area but is not located within any MSHCP- designated Criteria Cells, Public/Quasi-Public Lands, or designated Cores or Linkage.
The Habitat Assessment describes that the Project site is vacant, undeveloped, and consists of disturbed ruderal vegetation and ornamental developed areas that have been historically subject to disking. This type of habitat is considered low quality for wildlife due to the lack of native vegetation cover. A general site assessment conducted on January 9, 2025, documented 10 plant species and 12 wildlife species within the Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
Item Page Number: 86
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
678 of 966
CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist
City of Menifee Menifee 27 Residential Project
66 Project site, none of which were identified as special-status species. Additionally, neither of the two special- status vegetation communities nor any of the eight special- status plant species identified within the GP EIR were found to occur on the Project site. Because none of the species documented in the GP EIR were observed during the field survey and the Project site does not provide suitable habitat for those species, no impacts to sensitive plant or wildlife species are anticipated.
However, the Habitat Assessment identified that the Project site contains marginally suitable habitat for burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), a candidate species under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) and a species requiring additional survey effort under the MSHCP. A burrow survey was conducted as part of the Habitat Assessment and found no suitable burrows or evidence of occupation. Therefore, in accordance with MSHCP guidelines, focused surveys for burrowing owl are not required at this time. However, consistent with GP EIR Mitigation Measure 4-4, a pre-construction survey shall be conducted within 30 days prior to ground disturbance to confirm absence of burrowing owl on site at the time of construction. In addition, the ornamental trees located on the southern edge of the Project site and in the immediate vicinity have the potential to be used for nesting by raptors. Thus, to ensure compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and GP EIR Mitigation Measure 4-3, ground-disturbing activities would either be scheduled outside of the avian breeding season (February 1 through August 31), or pre -activity nesting bird surveys and appropriate avoidance measures would be implemented.
In summary, while the proposed Project has the potential to support burrowing owl and nesting bird species, potential impacts would not exceed those previously evaluated in the GP EIR or SP EIR and would be reduced to less -than-significant levels through compliance with Mitigation Measures 4 -3 and 4 -4. Therefore, no significant impacts related to candidate, sensitive, or special- status species would occur. Based on the foregoing analysis, no new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project beyond what was previously evaluated, identified, and disclosed in the GP EIR and the SP EIR. b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GP EIR and was determined to result in less than significant with implementation of GP EIR Mitigation Measures.
Riparian habitats are those occurring along the banks of rivers and streams. Sensitive natural communities are natural communities that are considered rare in the region by regulatory agencies, known to provide habitat for sensitive animal or plant species, or known to be important wildlife corridors. As discussed above, the Project site is vacant, undeveloped, and consists of disturbed ruderal vegetation and ornamental developed areas. The Project site does not include any streams, drainages, jurisdictional waters, riparian habitat, or any other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations (Appendix B). Therefore, the proposed Project would result in less-than-significant impacts on riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community. Based on the foregoing analysis, no new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project beyond what was previously evaluated, identified, and disclosed in the GP EIR and the SP EIR.
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on State or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GP EIR and was determined to result in less-than-significant impacts with implementation of GP EIR Mitigation Measures.
As described previously, the Project site is vacant, undeveloped, and consists of disturbed ruderal vegetation and ornamentally developed areas. No natural hydrologic features or federally protected wetlands as Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
Item Page Number: 87
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
679 of 966
CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist
City of Menifee Menifee 27 Residential Project
67 defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act occur on -site, and the Project site does not meet the Army Corps of Engineers criteria for wetlands and waters of the U nited States (United States Fish and Wildlife Service, n.d.). Therefore, no direct removal, filling, or hydrological interruption of a wetland area would occur with development of the Project site. Based on the foregoing analysis, no new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project beyond what was prev iously evaluated, identified, and disclosed in the GP EIR and the SP EIR. d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GP EIR and was determined to result in less-than-significant impacts with implementation of MSCHP requirements and regulatory requirements.
The Project site is bordered by residential development to the north and west, and commercial development to the south. While undeveloped land exists to the east, which could potentially connect to larger open space areas approximately two miles to the sou theast, the Project site itself is not situated within or adjacent to any designated wildlife corridors or known wildlife nursery sites. The site is not located within a Core or Linkage Area as defined by the Western Riverside County MSHCP and does not serve as a critical movement corridor between open space areas due to surrounding urban development (Appendix B).
Additionally, as described above, the proposed Project would be required to comply with the MBTA and Mitigation Measure 4-3 from the GP EIR. In accordance with these requirements, ground-disturbing activities would either be conducted outside of the avian nesting season (February 1 through August 31), or a pre - construction nesting bird survey would be completed, and appropriate avoidance measures would be implemented, if necessary. Therefore, the proposed Project would not substantially interfere with wildl ife movement or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites, and impacts would be less than significant. Based on the foregoing analysis, no new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project beyond what was previously evaluated, identified, and disclosed in the GP EIR and the SP EIR.
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources? No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GP EIR and was determined to result in less-than-significant impacts with implementation of GP EIR Mitigation Measures and payment of mitigation fees.
The City of Menifee regulates the protection and care of trees through Municipal Code Chapter 9.200, which is intended to preserve the health and stability of the city’s urban forest during property development and redevelopment. In addition, Menifee Municipal Code Chapter 9.86 (Ordinance No. 2015-167) defines and protects “heritage trees” based on criteria such as age, size, species, location, historical significance, aesthetic value, or ecological function. An ornamentally developed area occurs at the southern edge of the Project site and consists of several gum trees (Eucalyptus sp.). However, these trees do not occur on the site naturally, nor pose any value protected by Ordinance No. 2015- 167. Thus, the proposed Project is not subject to Ordinance No. 2015-167 and would not be in conflict with any local tree preservation policies or ordinances.
The Project site is also located within the “Fee Area” of the Stephens’ Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation Plan (SKR HCP). Projects located within this area are not required to conduct focused surveys for SKR, as potential impacts are mitigated through the payment of established mitigation fees. In accordance with City Ordinance No. 663 and GP EIR Mitigation Measure 4-5, the Project applicant would be required to submit payment of SKR mitigation fees, satisfying local conservation requirements for this speci es. Therefore, the proposed Project would not conflict with any local policies protecting biological resources . Based on the Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
Item Page Number: 88
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
680 of 966
CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist
City of Menifee Menifee 27 Residential Project
68 foregoing analysis, no new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project beyond what was previously evaluated, identified, and disclosed in the GP EIR and the SP EIR. f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan? No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GP EIR and was determined to result in less-than-significant impacts with implementation of GP EIR Mitigation Measures.
The proposed Project is located within the Western Riverside MSHCP area and falls under the Harvest Valley/Winchester Area Plan and the San Jacinto Habitat Management Unit. The Project site is not located within a designated MSHCP Criteria Cell; the neares t Criteria Cell (32791) is located approximately 1.5 miles northwest of the site. The site is also not located within any MSHCP designated Core or Linkage areas or Public/Quasi-Public Lands.
As described in the Habitat Assessment (Appendix B), the Project site does not contain any MSHCP-defined Riparian/Riverine or Vernal Pool features. Furthermore, the site also lacks suitable habitat for Riparian/Riverine or Vernal Pool species identified in MSHCP Section 6.1.2, including listed fairy shrimp species. Therefore, no direct or indirect impacts to MSHCP Section 6.1.2 resources would occur. In addition, the Project site was assessed for potential burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) habitat. While the site contains marginally suitable habitat, no suitable burrows or signs of occupation were observed during field surveys.
In accordance with MSHCP guidelines and GP EIR Mitigation Measure 4 -4, a pre -construction clearance survey for burrowing owl would be required within 30 days prior to any ground -disturbing activity.
Implementation of this measure would ensure consistency with the conservation goals of the MSHCP. Based on the site’s location outside of Criteria Cells, absence of MSHCP-defined sensitive features, and compliance with applicable MSHCP survey and mitigation requirements, the proposed Project would not conflict with the provisions of the Western Riverside County MSHCP. Impacts would be less than significant and no new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project beyond what was previously evaluated, identified, and disclosed in the GP EIR and the SP EIR.
Conclusion
Regarding the issue area of biological resources, the following findings can be made:
15183 Findings
1. No peculiar impacts to the Project or its site have been identified.
2. There are no significant effects that were not analyzed as part of the GP EIR.
3. There are no potentially significant off-site and/or cumulative impacts which were not discussed by the GP EIR.
4. No substantial new information has been identified which results in an impact which is more severe than anticipated by the GP EIR.
5. No new Mitigation Measures would be required. Project specific impacts would be less than significant with adherence to GP EIR Mitigation Measures listed below. 15182 Findings
Based on the foregoing information, none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or M itigation Measures exist regarding biological resources . There have not been (1) changes related to development of the Project site that involve new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which development of the Project site is undertaken that Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
Item Page Number: 89
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
681 of 966
CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist
City of Menifee Menifee 27 Residential Project
69 require major revisions of the certified EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or Mitigation Measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the certified SP EIR was certified as completed.
Because none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts, State CEQA Guidelines 15182 also does not require additional environmental review and the Project is within the scope of the SP EIR.
Uniformly Applied Development Policies or Standards (DP/S) Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) . (United States Code Title 33, Section 703 et seq.; see also Code of Federal Regulations Title 50, Part 10), Section 3503 of the California Fish and Game Code.
City of Menifee Ordinance No. 663. Pursuant to City Ordinance No. 663, development projects within the SKR Fee Area must pay $500 per gross acre (or alternate rates for specific development types) prior to grading or occupancy. The revenues support SKR habitat conservation consistent with the County’s HCP. This fee structure is uniformly applied regardless of project specifics.
City of Menifee Municipal Code Chapter 9.86 (Ordinance No. 2015 -167): Pursuant to Chapter 9.86 of the Menifee Municipal Code, adopted as Ordinance No. 2015-167, new development and redevelopment projects are subject to park and landscape design standards, including the protection of heritage trees.
Heritage trees are defined by their age, size, species, historical significance, aesthetic quality, or ecological value. The ordinance requires that applicants preserve heritage trees to the maximum extent feasible and, where removal is necessary, follow City- approved procedures for mitigation or replacement. Compliance with this ordinance is enforced through the City’s development review and permitting process to ensure consistent application across all projects.
GP Goals and Policies
None.
GP EIR Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure 4-3: Prior to the issuance of grading permits for private development projects or prior to construction for public agency contracts, during the nesting season, February 1 to August 31, a preconstruction/pregrading field survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to determine if active nests of species protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) or the California Fish and Wildlife Code are present in the construction zone.
• If active nests are not located within the project area an appropriate buffer shall be established (i.e., 500 foot radius of an active listed species or raptor nest, 300 foot for other sensitive or protected bird nests (nonlisted), or 100 foot for sensitive or protected songbird nests). Construction may be conducted during the nesting/breeding season outside the buffer. • If active nests are located during the preactivity field survey, no grading or heavy equipment activity shall take place within at least 500 feet of an active listed species or raptor nest, 300 feet of other sensitive or protected species under MBTA or California Fish and Wildlife Code, bird nests (nonlisted), or within 100 feet of sensitive or protected songbird nests until the nest is no longer active.
Mitigation Measure 4- 4: Within 30 days prior to commencement of grading and construction activities, projects within the mapped Burrowing Owl survey area shall have a preconstruction survey for resident Burrowing Owls conducted by a qualified biologist. These surveys shall be required, in addition to the habitat Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
Item Page Number: 90
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
682 of 966
CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist
City of Menifee Menifee 27 Residential Project
70 assessment and focused surveys that would be required under Section 6.3.2 of the MSHCP. If ground - disturbing activities in these areas are delayed or suspended for more than 30 days after the preconstruction survey, the area shall be resurveyed for owls. Take of active nests shall be avoided. The preconstruction survey and any relocation activity shall be conducted in accordance with MSHCP instructions and/or guidelines and coordinated with the Regional Conservation Authority following accepted protocols.
Mitigation Measure 4 -5: The City shall continue to participate in the Stephens’ Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation Plan including collection of mitigation fees for future projects.
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
Item Page Number: 91
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
683 of 966
CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist
City of Menifee Menifee 27 Residential Project
71 5.5. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the Project:
Project
Impact that
is Peculiar
to the
Project or
the Project
Site
Significant
Impact not
Analyzed
as
Significant
in the Prior
EIR
Potentially
Significant
Off-site or
Cumulativ
e Impact
not
Discussed
in the prior
EIR
Adverse
Impact
More
Severe
based on
Substantial
New
Informatio
n
No New
Impact
Not
Previously
Analyzed
in the Prior
EIR
a) Cause a substantial
adverse change in the
significance of a historical
resource pursuant to in §
15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial
adverse change in the
significance of an
archaeological resource
pursuant to §15064.5?
c) Disturb any human
remains, including those
interred outside of formal
cemeteries?
Summary of Impacts Identified in the GP EIR
The GP EIR discussed impacts related to cultural resources under Section 5.5, Cultural Resources, pages 5.5- 1 through 5.5-20.
The GP EIR determined that implementation of the GP would not result in significant impacts to known historic resources. The GP EIR found that adopted GP policies and compliance with existing State and federal regulations, including the California Environm ental Quality Act and the National Historic Preservation Act, would ensure that potential impacts to historical resources would be less than significant.
The GP EIR discussed the high potential for uncovering previously unknown archaeological and paleontological resources during future ground-disturbing activities associated with GP buildout. The GP EIR determined that implementation of Mitigation Measures 5-1 through 5 -4, which include requirements for surveys, monitoring, evaluation, and treatment of discovered resources, would reduce potential impacts to less-than-significant levels.
The GP EIR found that future development allowed under the GP could disturb previously unidentified human remains, including those outside formal cemeteries. However, the GP EIR determined that compliance with California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, which outlines procedures in the event of the discovery of human remains, and SB 18 tribal consultation requirements would ensure that impacts to human remains would be less than significant.
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
Item Page Number: 92
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
684 of 966
CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist
City of Menifee Menifee 27 Residential Project
72 Summary of Impacts Identified in the SP EIR
The SP EIR discussed impacts related to air quality under Section 4.4, Cultural Resources, pages 40 through
43. The SP EIR stated that no subsurface artifacts were identified on or near the SP area. However, recognizing the potential for unknown buried resources, the SP EIR required a Condition of Approval stating that if archaeological materials are encountered during grading, a qualified archaeologist shall be retained to evaluate the discovery, and that monitoring during ground disturbing activities would be required (Mitigation Measure C.15.1). With this requirement in place, the SP EIR determined that impacts to archaeological resources would be less than significant.
The SP EIR did not analyze impacts related to historical resources or disturbance of human remains. However, the SP EIR included enough information regarding cultural conditions, site history, and grading activity such that the potential for these impacts was reasonably discernible to the public through the exercise of reasonable diligence. The Menifee North Specific Plan Amendment No. 5, Addendum to the SP EIR, determined that impacts would be less than significant regarding historic resources or disturbance of human remains with the implementation of existing regulations and Standard Conditions.
Project-Specific Impacts
This section is based on the following reports:
• Phase I Archeological and Paleontological Resources Study, prepared by Psomas, May 2025. Included as Appendix C.
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5?
No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GP EIR and was determined to result in less-than-significant impacts with compliance with existing State and federal regulations.
CEQA defines a historical resource as a resource that meets one or more of the following criteria: (1) listed in, or determined eligible for listing in, the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR); (2) listed in a local register of historical resources as defined in PRC Section 5020.1(k) or identified as significant in a historical resource survey meeting the requirements of PRC Section 5024.1(g); or ( 3) determined to be a historical resource by a project’s Lead Agency (PRC Section 21084.1 and CE QA Guidelines Section 15064.5[a]).
The California Register defines a “historical resource” as a resource that meets one or more of the following criteria: (1) associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns or local or regional history of the cultural heritage of California; (2) associated with the lives of pers ons important to local, California; (3) embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, California region, or method of construction or represents the work of a master or possesses high artistic values; or (4) has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation.
A historic overview of the Project site and vicinity is provided in the Archeological and Paleontological Resources Study (Appendix C) , prepared by Psomas in May 2024. To evaluate the proposed Project’s potential to support historic resources, a records search request was submitted to the South Coast Information Center (SCIC) and Natural History Museum (NHM). The search was conducted to identify previously recorded cultural resources and previously conducted cultural resources studies within a one-mile radius of the Project site. The 2007 SPA 260 Amendment No. 02 conducted a Cultural Resources Survey for the Project site and Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
Item Page Number: 93
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
685 of 966
CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist
City of Menifee Menifee 27 Residential Project
73 adjacent areas. The previous report did not find any archaeological resources within the Project site; however, the report did identify several archaeological resources within one mile of the Project site. These resources consisted primarily of bedrock milling features (i.e., stone surfaces, basins, and mortars used for grinding food and other materials). In addition, the site was surveyed on January 28, 2025, to examine the presence of historic artifacts, as well as other archeological and paleontological resources. The field survey did not identify any historical, archaeological, or paleontological resources on the surface of the site.
The Project site is currently vacant and undeveloped. It is primarily vegetated with unplanned, non -native grasses, along with sparse shrubs and a few ornamental trees. A portion of the site is heavily disturbed and is presently used as an informal access roadway. Due to the lack of on -site structures or distinctive characteristics, as listed above, the buildout of the proposed Project is unlikely to result in any impacts to historical resources. However, review of historical photos for the proposed Project indicates that the Project site has historically been utilized for agricultural activity. Therefore, the proposed Project would not impact historical resources on the surface within the Project site; however, there is always the possibility that intact historical or archaeological resources may be present below the surface in undisturbed sediments.
The City of Menifee has Standard Conditions for the inadvertent discovery of archeological and cultural resources as well as archeological monitoring, includ ed as Standard Condition CUL -1 and Standard Condition CUL 2 below. Therefore, in compliance with the findings of the GP EIR and consistent with the findings of the Archaeological Resources Study, the proposed Project would be required to implement applicable Standard Conditions for cultural resources. Standard Condition CUL -1 would require that an archaeological monitor be present during any earthmoving activities proposed within the Project site boundaries. Standard Condition CUL-2 would protect inadvertent discoveries by halting construction until a qualified archaeologist evaluates the significance of the find and recommends a course of action. Therefore, with implementation of Standard Conditions CUL -1 and CUL-2, impacts to archaeological resources would be reduced and would be less than significant. Based on the foregoing analysis, no new or substant ially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project beyond what was previously evaluated, identified, and disclosed in the GP EIR and the SP EIR. b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GP EIR and was determined to be less than significant with mitigation.
As described above, a Cultural Resources Survey was previously conducted for the Project site and surrounding areas as part of the 2007 SPA 260 Amendment No. 02. While no archaeological resources were identified within the boundaries of the Project site, several resources were recorded within a one-mile radius, primarily consisting of bedrock milling features such as stone surfaces, basins, and mortars. A subsequent field survey conducted by Psomas on January 28, 2025, confirmed that no archaeological, historical, or paleontological resources were observed on the surface of the Project site (Appendix C).
Although findings were negative for cultural resources on the surface of the Project site, the potential exists for ground-disturbing activities to expose previously unrecorded cultural resources. Therefore, to protect archaeological resources, Standard Condition CUL -1 would require that an archaeological monitor be present during any earthmoving activities proposed within the Project site boundaries. Standard Condition CUL-2 would protect inadvertent discoveries by halting construction until a qualified archaeologist evaluates the significance of the find and recommends a course of action. Therefore, with the implementation of Standard Condition CUL -1 and CUL -3 impacts would be less than significant. Based on the foregoing analysis, no new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project beyond what was previously evaluated, identified, and disclosed in the GP EIR and the SP EIR.
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
Item Page Number: 94
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
686 of 966
CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist
City of Menifee Menifee 27 Residential Project
74 c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GP EIR and was determined to be less than significant with compliance to existing regulations.
The Project site does not contain a cemetery, and no known formal cemeteries are located within the immediate vicinity of the Project site. Nevertheless, should human remains be unearthed during grading and excavation activities associated with Project development, the construction contractor would be required by California law to comply with California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. According to Section 7050.5(b) and (c), if human remains are discovered, th e County coroner must be contacted and if the coroner recognizes the human remains to be those of a Native American or has reason to believe that they are those of Native American descent, the coroner is required to contact the NAHC by telephone within 24 hours. Pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, whenever the NAHC receives notification of a discovery of Native American human remains from a county coroner, the NAHC is required to immediately notify those persons it believes to be most likely descended from the deceased Native American. The descendants may, with the permission of the owner of the land, or his or her authorized representative, inspect the site of discovery of the Native American human remains and may recommend to the owner or the person responsible for the excavation work means for treatment or disposition, with appropriate dignity, of the human remains and any associated grave goods (refer to Standard Condition CUL-3). Further, Standard Condition CUL-4 would ensure that Native American human remains shall not be governed by public disclosure requirements of the California Public Records Act.
Standard Condition CUL-5 would ensure inadvertent discoveries of Native American tribal cultural resource are preserved-in-place, reburied on-site, or a combination of the two in consultation with the tribes.
Through mandatory compliance with California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, as well as compliance with the City’s Standard Conditions of Approval, the proposed Project would not result in significant impacts to human remains, and impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, the proposed Project would result in no new impact related to disturbance of human remains. Based on the foregoing analysis, no new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project beyond what was previously evaluated, identified, and disclosed in the GP EIR and the SP EIR.
Conclusion
Regarding the issue area of cultural resources, the following findings can be made:
15183 Findings
1. No peculiar impacts to the Project or its site have been identified.
2. There are no significant effects that were not analyzed as part of the GP EIR.
3. There are no potentially significant off-site and/or cumulative impacts which were not discussed by the GP EIR.
4. No substantial new information has been identified which results in an impact which is more severe than anticipated by the GP EIR.
5. No new Mitigation Measures would be required. Project specific impacts would be less than significant with adherence to Standard Conditions, as listed below. 15182 Findings
Based on the foregoing information, none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or Mitigation Measures exist regarding cultural resources. There have not been (1) changes related to development of the Project site that involve new significant environmental Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
Item Page Number: 95
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
687 of 966
CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist
City of Menifee Menifee 27 Residential Project
75 effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which development of the Project site is undertaken that require major revisions of the certified EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or M itigation Measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the certified SP EIR was certified as completed.
Because none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts, State CEQA Guidelines 15182 also does not require additional environmental review and the Project is within the scope of the SP EIR.
Uniformly Applied Development Policies or Standards (DP/S) Standard Condition CUL -1: Archaeologist Retained. Prior to issuance of a grading permit the project applicant shall retain a Riverside County qualified archaeologist to monitor all ground disturbing activities in an effort to identify any unknown archaeological resources.
The Project Archaeologist and the Tribal monitor(s) shall manage and oversee monitoring for all initial ground disturbing activities and excavation of each portion of the project site including clearing, grubbing, tree removals, mass or rough grading, trenching, stockpiling of materials, rock crushing, structure demolition and etc. The Project Archaeologist and the Tribal monitor(s), shall have the authority to temporarily divert, redirect or halt the ground disturbance activities to allow identification, evaluation, and potential recovery of cultural resources in coordination with any required special interest or tribal monitors.
The developer/permit holder shall submit a fully executed copy of the contract to the Community Development Department to ensure compliance with this condition of approval. Upon verification, the Community Development Department shall clear this condition.
In addition, the Project Archaeologist, in consultation with the Consulting Tribe(s), the contractor, and the City, shall develop a Cultural Resources Management Plan (CRMP) in consultation pursuant to the definition in AB 52 to address the details, timing and responsibility of all archaeological and cultural activities that will occur on the project site. A consulting tribe is defined as a tribe that initiated the AB 52 tribal consultation process for the Project, has not opted out of the AB 52 consultation process, and has completed AB 52 consultation with the City as provided for in California Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.2(b)(1) of AB 52. Details in the Plan shall include:
a) Project grading and development scheduling;
b) The Project archaeologist and the Consulting Tribe(s) shall attend the pre-grading meeting with the City, the construction manager and any contractors and will conduct a mandatory Cultural Resources Worker Sensitivity Training to those in attendance. The Training will include a brief review of the cultural sensitivity of the Project and the surrounding area; what resources could potentially be identified during earthmoving activities; the requirements of the monitoring program; the protocols that apply in the event inadvertent discoveries of cultural resources are identified, including who to contact and appropriate avoidance measures until the find(s) can be properly evaluated; and any other appropriate protocols.
All new construction personnel that will co nduct earthwork or grading activities that begin work on the Project following the initial Training must take the Cultural Sensitivity Training prior to beginning work and the Project archaeologist and Consulting Tribe(s) shall make themselves available to provide the training on an as-needed basis;
c) The protocols and stipulations that the contractor, City, Consulting Tribe(s) and Project archaeologist will follow in the event of inadvertent cultural resources discoveries, including any newly discovered cultural resource deposits that shall be subject to a cultural resources evaluation.
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
Item Page Number: 96
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
688 of 966
CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist
City of Menifee Menifee 27 Residential Project
76 Standard Condition CUL-2: Inadvertent Archaeological Find. If during ground disturbance activities, unique cultural resources are discovered that were not assessed by the archaeological report(s) and/or environmental assessment conducted prior to project approval, the following procedures shall be followed.
Unique cultural resources are defined, for this condition only, as being multiple artifacts in close association with each other, but may include fewer artifacts if the area of the find is determined to be of significance due to its sacred or cultural importance as determined in consultation with the Native American Tribe(s). a) All ground disturbance activities within 100 feet of the discovered cultural resources shall be halted until a meeting is convened between the developer, the archaeologist, the tribal representative(s), and the Community Development Director to discuss the significance of the find. b) At the meeting, the significance of the discoveries shall be discussed and after consultation with the tribal representative(s) and the archaeologist, a decision shall be made, with the concurrence of the Community Development Director, as to the appropriate mitigation (documentation, recovery, avoidance, etc.) for the cultural resources.
c) Grading of further ground disturbance shall not resume within the area of the discovery until an agreement has been reached by all parties as to the appropriate mitigation. Work shall be allowed to continue outside of the buffer area and will be monitored by additional Tribal monitors if needed. d) Treatment and avoidance of the newly discovered resources shall be consistent with the Cultural Resources Management Plan and Monitoring Agreements entered into with the appropriate tribes. This may include avoidance of the cultural resources through project design, in-place preservation of cultural resources located in native soils and/or re- burial on the Project property so they are not subject to further disturbance in perpetuity as identified in Non-Disclosure of Reburial Condition.
Pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 21083.2(b) avoidance is the preferred method of preservation for archaeological resources and cultural resources. If the landowner and the Tribe(s) cannot agree on the significance or the mitigation for the archaeological or cultural resources, these issues will be presented to the City Community Development Director for decision. The City Community Development Director shall make the determination based on the provisions of the California Environmental Q uality Act with respect to archaeological resources, and recommendations of the project archaeologist and shall take into account the cultural and religious principles and practices of the Tribe. Notwithstanding any other rights available under the law, the decision of the City Community Development Director shall be appealable to the City Planning Commission and/or City Council.”
Standard Condition CUL-3: Human Remains. If human remains are encountered, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the Riverside County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin. Further, pursuant to Public Resource Code Section 5097.98(b) remains shall be left in place and free from disturbance until a final decision as to the treatment and disposition has been made. If the Riverside County Coroner determines the remains to be Native American, the Native American Heritage Commission shall be contacted within the period specified by law (24 hours).
Subsequently, the Native American Heritage Commission shall identify the "most likely descendant." The most likely descendant shall then make recommendations and engage in consultation concerning the treatment of the remains as provided in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98.
Standard Condition CUL-4: Non-Disclosure of Location Reburials. It is understood by all parties that unless otherwise required by law, the site of any reburial of Native American human remains or associated grave goods shall not be disclosed and shall not be governed by public disclosure requirements of the California Public Records Act. The Coroner, pursuant to the specific exemption set forth in disclosure information related to such reburial, pursuant to the specific exemption set forth in California Gov ernment Code 6254 (r).
California Government Code 6254(r)., parties, and Lead Agencies, will be asked to withhold public.
Standard Condition CUL -5: Cultural Resources Disposition. In the event that Native American cultural resources are discovered during the course of grading (inadvertent discoveries), the following procedures shall be carried out for final disposition of the discoveries:
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
Item Page Number: 97
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
689 of 966
CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist
City of Menifee Menifee 27 Residential Project
77 a) One or more of the following treatments, in order of preference, shall be employed with the tribes.
Evidence of such shall be provided to the City of Menifee Community Development Department:
i. Preservation-In-Place of the cultural resources, if feasible. Preservation in place means avoiding the resources, leaving them in the place where they were found with no development affecting the integrity of the resources.
ii. Reburial of the resources on the Project property. The measures for reburial shall include, at least, the following: Measures and provisions to protect the future reburial area from any future impacts in perpetuity. Reburial shall not occur until all legally required cataloging and basic recordation have been completed, with an exception that sacred items, burial goods, and Native American human remains are excluded. Any reburial process shall be culturally appropriate. Listing of contents and location of the reburial shall be included in the confidential Phase IV report. The Phase IV Report shall be filed with the City under a confidential cover and not subject to Public Records Request.
If preservation in place or reburial is not feasible then the resources shall be curated in a culturally appropriate manner at a Riverside County curation facility that meets State Resources Department Office of Historic Preservation Guidelines for the Curation of Archaeological Resources ensuring access and use pursuant to the Guidelines. The collection and associated records shall be transferred, including title, and are to be accompanied by payment of the fees necessary for permanent curation. Evidence of curation in the form of a letter from the curation facility stating that subject archaeological materials have been received and that all fees have been paid, shall be provided by the landowner to the City. There shall be no destructive or invasive testing on sacred items, burial goods and Native American human remains. Results concerning finds of any inadvertent discoveries shall be included in the Phase IV monitoring report.
GP Goals and Policies
Policy OCS- 5.1: Preserve and protect archaeological and historic resources and cultural sites, places, districts, structures, landforms, objects and native burial sites, traditional cultural landscapes and other features, consistent with state law and any laws, regulatio ns or policies which may be adopted by the city to implement this goal and associated policies.
GP EIR Mitigation Measures
No Mitigation Measures are required.
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
Item Page Number: 98
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
690 of 966
CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist
City of Menifee Menifee 27 Residential Project
78 5.6. ENERGY
Would the Project:
Project
Impact that is
Peculiar to
the Project or
the Project
Site
Significant
Impact not
Analyzed
as
Significant
in the Prior
EIR
Potentially
Significant
Off-site or
Cumulative
Impact not
Discussed
in the prior
EIR
Adverse
Impact
More Severe
based on
Substantial
New
Information
No
New
Impact
Not
Previously
Analyzed
in the Prior
EIR
a) Result in potentially
significant environmental
impact due to wasteful,
inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy
resources, during Project
construction or operation?
b) Conflict with or obstruct a
State or local plan for
renewable energy or energy
efficiency?
Summary of Impacts Identified in the GP EIR
The GP EIR discussed impacts related to energy under Section 5.17, Utilities and Service Systems, pages 5.17- 14 through 5.17-20.
The GP EIR determined that buildout of the GP would not result in the need for new or expanded electricity or natural gas supplies. The GP EIR discussed that adequate regional infrastructure and supply exist to meet future demand generated by GP implementa tion. As a result, the GP EIR found that impacts related to electricity and natural gas supply would be less than significant.
Summary of Impacts Identified in the SP EIR
The SP EIR discussed impacts related to energy under Section 4.6, Energy, pages 44 through 46.
The SP EIR determined that construction and operation of the SP would consume electricity, natural gas, diesel, and gasoline. However, with compliance with Title 24 Building Code energy measures and vehicular fuel efficiency standards would reduce energy use. Therefore, impacts related to energy consumption would be less than significant.
Project-Specific Impacts
This section was prepared using the following report:
• Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis for Menifee 27 Project, prepared by EPD Solutions, Inc., July 1, 2025. Included as Appendix A.
a) Result in potentially significant environmental impacts due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GP EIR (Impact 5. 17-7) on pages 5.17-17 through 5.17- 18 and was determined to have a less-than-significant impact.
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
Item Page Number: 99
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
691 of 966
CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist
City of Menifee Menifee 27 Residential Project
79 Construction
During construction of the proposed Project, energy would be consumed in three general forms:
1. Petroleum-based fuels used to power off-road construction vehicles and equipment, construction worker travel to and from the site, as well as delivery truck trips;
2. Electricity associated with providing temporary power for lighting and electric equipment; and
3. Energy used in the production of construction materials, such as asphalt, paint, fencing, lighting, and gate materials.
Electricity and Natural Gas Usage
The electricity that would be used during Project construction would be substantially less than that required for Project operation due to the temporary nature of construction. Electricity used for Project construction would have a negligible contribution to the Project’s overall energy consumption. The electric power used would be for as-necessary lighting and electronic equipment such as computers inside temporary construction trailers. Additionally, energy used in the production of construction materials would be negligible compared to the Project's overall energy consumption. Natural gas is not anticipated to be needed for construc tion activities; however, should any consumption of natural gas be needed during construction, it would be minor and negligible in comparison to natural gas consumption during the operation of the Project.
Petroleum Fuel Usage
Based on the uses of energy during construction activities, the proposed Project would not be expected to result in demand for fuel greater on a per -unit of-development basis than other development projects in Southern California. The equipment associated with construction activities (off -road/heavy duty vehicles) would rely on diesel fuel as would vendor and haul trucks involved in delivering building materials and removing soil material from the Project site. Construction workers would travel to and from the Project site throughout the duration of construction, and for a conservative analysis, it is assumed that construction workers would travel in gasoline-powered passenger vehicles. Table E-1 details the construction fuel usage over the Project’s construction period.
Table E-1: Energy Consumption Estimates During Construction Source Diesel Fuel
(Gallons)
Gasoline Fuel
(Gallons)
Proposed Project On-Road Construction Vehicles 23,384 49,428 Proposed Project Off-Road Construction Equipment 68,192 0 Proposed Project Total Consumption 91,576 49,428
Riverside County On-Road Vehicles 227,267,688 447,487,235 Riverside County Off-Road Construction Equipment 22,808,413 448,481 On-Road Project Percentage (percent) 0.01 0.01
Off-Road Project Percentage (percent) 0.3 -
Source: Air Quality, Energy, Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis (Appendix A) As shown in Table E-1 , the Project construction is estimated to consume a total of approximately 91,576 gallons of diesel fuel and approximately 49,428 gallons of gasoline fuel. According to the projected 2026 fuel consumption data obtained from EMFAC2021 for Riverside County, on-road vehicles would consume approximately 227,267,688 gallons of diesel fuel and 447,487,235 gallons of gasoline (Appendix A). On- road construction vehicles from the proposed Project would account for 0.01 percent of diesel fuel consumption and 0.01 p ercent gasoline fuel consumption within Riverside County in 2026 . Off -road consumption within Riverside County in 2026 would total approximately 22,808,413 gallons of diesel fuel Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
Item Page Number: 100
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
692 of 966
CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist
City of Menifee Menifee 27 Residential Project
80 and 448,481 gallons of gasoline fuel. Off -road construction equipment from the proposed Project would account for 0.3 percent of diesel consumption within Riverside County in 2026. As such, Project construction would have a negligible effect on energy supplies within Riverside County.
Construction activities would require limited energy consumption, would comply with all existing regulations, and would therefore not be expected to use large amounts of energy or fuel in a wasteful manner. California Code of Regulation s (CCR ) Title 13, Motor Vehicles , Section 2449(d)(3), Idling, limits idling times of construction vehicles to no more than 5 minutes, thereby precluding unnecessary and wasteful consumption of fuel due to unproductive idling of construction equipment. Construction contractors are also required to demonstrate compliance with applicable California Air Resources Board (CARB) regulations governing the accelerated retrofitting, repowering, or replacement of heavy- duty diesel on- and off-road equipment. In addition, compliance with existing CARB idling restrictions and th e use of newer engines and equipment would reduce fuel combustion and energy consumption. Therefore, construction of the proposed Project would not involve any unusual or increased need for energy . In addition, the extent of construction activities that would occur is limited to a 26 -month period, and the demand for construction -related electricity and fuels would be limited to that time frame. Thus, impacts related to construction energy usage would be less than significant. Therefore, construction-related fuel consumption by the proposed Project would not result in inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary energy use compared with other construction sites in the region, and no new impacts would occur.
Operation
Once operational, the proposed Project would generate demand for electricity, natural gas, as well as gasoline for vehicle trips. Operational use of energy includes the heating, cooling, and lighting of the buildings, water heating, operation of electrical systems and plug -in appliances, and the transport of electricity, natural gas, and water to the areas where they would be consumed. This use of energy is typical for urban development and no operational activities or land uses would occur that would resul t in extraordinary energy consumption.
The most recent data available for electricity and natural gas usage from the California Energy Commission is from 2023. In 2023, electricity consumption in Riverside County was estimated at 16,286,000,000 kilowatt-hours
6F (California Energy Commission, 2023a) and natural gas consumption was estimated at 45,309,168,520 thousand British Thermal Units (California Energy Commission, 2023b). 7FAs detailed in Table E-2, operation of the proposed Project would result in a 0.01 percent increase in electricity consumption and a 0.02 percent increase in natural gas consumption within Riverside County.
Table E-2: Energy Consumption Estimates During Project Operation Electricity (Kilowatt-Hours)
Proposed Project 1,839,497
Riverside County (2023) 16,286,000,000
Project Percent Increase (%) 0.01
Natural Gas (Thousand British Thermal Units)
Proposed Project 6,828,348
Riverside County (2023) 45,309,168,520
Project Percent Increase (%) 0.02
Petroleum (Gasoline) Consumption (Gallons)
Proposed Project 258,349
Riverside County (2026) 447,487,235
Project Percent Increase (%) 0.06
Source: Air Quality, Energy, Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis (Appendix A) Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
Item Page Number: 101
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
693 of 966
CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist
City of Menifee Menifee 27 Residential Project
81 The State of California provides a minimum standard for building design and construction standards through Title 24 of the CCR. Compliance with Title 24 is mandatory at the time new building permits are issued by local governments. The City’s administratio n of the Title 24 requirements includes review of design components and energy conservation measures that occur during the permitting process, which ensures that all requirements are met. Typical Title 24 measures that the Project would undertake include i nstallation of electric vehicle (EV) charging stations for passenger vehicles and medium -duty and heavy -duty trucks, installation of insulation and energy-efficient heating, ventilation and air conditioning equipment (HVAC) and installation of energy-efficient indoor and outdoor lighting systems. In complying with the Title 24 standards, impacts to peak energy usage periods would be minimized, and impacts on statewide and regional energy needs would be reduced. Therefore, construction and operations -related energy consumption by the proposed Project would not result in inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary energy use compared with overall energy consumption in the region, and impacts would be less than significant. Based on the foregoing analysis, no new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project beyond what was previously evaluated, identified, and disclosed in the GP EIR and the SP EIR. b) Conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? Not Previously Analyzed under the Prior EIR. This topic was not evaluated in the GP EIR.
The California Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards and CALGreen standards are designed to ensure new and existing buildings achieve energy efficiency and preserve outdoor and indoor environmental quality. These measures (Title 24, Part 6 and Part 11) are listed in the CCR. The California Energy Commission (CEC) is responsible for adopting, implementing and updating building energy efficiency. Local city and county enforcement agencies have the authority to verify compliance with applicable buildin g codes, including energy efficiency. The Menifee Municipal Code Section 8.06.010, Adoption of the Green Building Standards Code, adopted the Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards. All development in the City , including the proposed Project, is required to comply with the adopted Title 24 requirements, which is ensured through the City’s development permitting process.
The CEC’s Integrated Energy Policy Report provides the results of the CEC’s assessments of a variety of energy issues facing California. The expected energy consumption during construction and operation of the proposed Project would be consistent with typical usage rates for industrial uses. Because California’s energy conservation planning actions are conducted at a regional level, and because the proposed Project’s total consumption of regional energy supplies would be minor, the proposed Project would not conflict with or obstruct California’s energy conservation plans as described in the CEC’s Integrated Energy Policy Report.
The California Renewables Portfolio Standard Program (RPS) requires California's energy providers to provide 60 percent renewable energy by 2030 and 100 percent by 2045 (SB 100). The statewide RPS requirements do not directly apply to individual development projects, but to utilities and energy providers such as SCE, whose compliance with RPS requirements would contribute to the State of California objective of transitioning to renewable energy. However, the Project would utilize electricity provided by SCE.
Therefore, the Project’s electricity usage would not conflict with the RPS Program. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficienc y. Based on the foregoing analysis, no new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project beyond what was previously evaluated, identified, and disclosed in the GP EIR and the SP EIR.
Conclusion
Regarding the issue area of energy, the following findings can be made:
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
Item Page Number: 102
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
694 of 966
CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist
City of Menifee Menifee 27 Residential Project
82 15183 Findings
1. No peculiar impacts to the Project or its site have been identified.
2. There are no significant effects that were not analyzed as part of the GP EIR.
3. There are no potentially significant off-site and/or cumulative impacts which were not discussed by the GP EIR.
4. No substantial new information has been identified which results in an impact which is more severe than anticipated by the GP EIR.
5. No Mitigation Measures related to energy are contained within the GP EIR. Additionally, no Mitigation Measures would be required because Project specific impacts would be less than significant. 15182 Findings
Based on the foregoing information, none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or Mitigation Measures exist regarding energy. There have not been (1) changes related to development of the Project site that involve new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which development of the Project site is undertaken that require major revisions of the certified EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or ( 3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or Mitigation Measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the certified SP EIR was certified as completed.
Because none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts, State CEQA Guidelines 15182 also does not require additional environmental review and the Project is within the scope of the SP EIR.
Uniformly Applied Development Policies or Standards (DP/S) Title 24, Energy Efficiency and Green Building Standards. The Project is required to be designed in accordance with the applicable Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards and CALGreen standards (California Code of Regulations [CCR], Title 24, Part 6 and Part 11). These standards are updated, nominally every three years, to incorporate improved energy efficiency technologies and methods.
GP Goals and Policies
Policy OSC-4.1: Apply energy efficiency and conservation practices in land use, transportation demand management, and subdivision and building design.
GP EIR Mitigation Measures
No Mitigation Measures related to energy are included in the GP EIR.
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
Item Page Number: 103
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
695 of 966
CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist
City of Menifee Menifee 27 Residential Project
83 5.7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Would the project:
Project
Impact
that is
Peculiar to
the Project
or the
Project Site
Significant
Impact not
Analyzed
as
Significant
in the Prior
EIR
Potentially
Significant
Off-site or
Cumulative
Impact not
Discussed
in the prior
EIR
Adverse
Impact
More Severe
based on
Substantial
New
Information
No New
Impact
Not
Previously
Analyzed
in the Prior
EIR
a) Directly or indirectly cause
potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of
loss, injury, or death
involving:
i) Rupture of a known
earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most
recent Alquist -Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning
Map issued by the State
Geologist for the area
or based on other
substantial evidence of a
known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and
Geology Special
Publication 42?
ii) Strong seismic ground
shaking?
iii) Seismic -related
ground failure, including
liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil
erosion or the loss of topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic
unit or soil that is unstable, or
that would become unstable
as a result of the project, and
potentially result in on - or
off-
site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction, or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive
soil, as defined in Table 18 -
1-B of the Uniform Building
Code (1994), creating
substantial direct or indirect
risks to life or property?
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
Item Page Number: 104
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
696 of 966
CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist
City of Menifee Menifee 27 Residential Project
84 Summary of Impacts Identified in the GP EIR
The GP EIR discussed impacts related to geology and soils under Section 5.6, Geology and Soils, pages 5.6- 1 through 5.6-32.
Geology and Soils
The GP EIR determined that implementation of the GP would not result in substantial geology- or soil-related hazards, provided that existing regulatory frameworks and standard practices are followed. The GP EIR discussed that while future development could expose people and structures to strong seismic ground shaking and potential liquefaction, such impacts would be addressed through compliance with the California Building Code (CBC) and site-specific geotechnical investigations, which are required for new development. The GP EIR found that these measures, including incorporation of geotechnical recommendations into project design, would reduce impacts from ground shaking, liquefaction, and landslides to less-than-significant levels.
With respect to soil erosion, the GP EIR discussed that implementation of best management practices (BMPs) under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES ) effectively minimize erosion potential during construction. Regarding expansive soils and subsidence, the GP EIR found that compliance with Municipal Code Chapter 15.04 and limitations on landscape irrigation practices would ensure impacts remain less than significant. Additionally, the GP EIR determined that the use of septic tanks and alternative wastewater disposal systems would be regulated through compliance with the California Plumbing Code, thereby reducing associated impacts to less than significant.
Paleontological Resources
The GP EIR determined that there is a high potential to encounter undiscovered paleontological resources during ground-disturbing activities in Menifee. However, implementation of Mitigation Measure 5 -2 would ensure that impacts to paleontological resources would be reduced to less than significant. Mitigation Measure 5 -2 requires that areas of high sensitivity for paleontological resources retain a qualified paleontologist to monitor ground disturbing activity.
Summary of Impacts Identified in the SP EIR
The SP EIR discussed impacts related to geology and soils under Section 4.7, Geology and Soils , pages 47 through 52.
Geology and Soils
The SP EIR determined that the SP area is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. The SP EIR found that the site is located within Seismic Groundshaking Zones II and III and would support Normal - e) Have soils incapable of
adequately supporting the
use of septic tanks or
alternative wastewater
disposal systems where
sewers are not available for
the disposal of wastewater?
f) Directly or indirectly
destroy a unique
paleontological resource or
site or unique geologic
feature?
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
Item Page Number: 105
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
697 of 966
CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist
City of Menifee Menifee 27 Residential Project
85 Low Risk and Essential Land Uses. The proposed land uses were found to be generally compatible with the seismic zones. The SP EIR noted that all structures would be designed in accordance with the Uniform Building Code to resist seismic forces. With regard to liquefaction, the SP EIR noted that groundwater levels were greater than 100 feet below surface, and determined that the potential for liquefaction is low. The SP EIR determined that landslide hazards are not a concern in the Planning Area due to the absence of significant slopes. The SP EIR stated that the erosion control devices such as berms, sandbags, or desilting basins, in accordance with County requirements, and compliance with SP grading standards, would reduce impacts.
The SP EIR found no evidence of significant groundwater level declines in the area. With compliance with applicable regulations, impacts related were determined to be less than significant.
Paleontological Resources
The SP EIR found that development of the SP could expose paleontological resources during grading, which could also result in the destruction of such resources. This was determined to be a potentially significant impact. However, with implementation of Mitigation Measures requiring identification and protection of paleontological resources during ground -disturbing activities, impacts would be reduced to less than significant (Mitigation Measure C.15.2).
Project-Specific Impacts
This section is based on the following reports:
• Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation , prepared by GeoTek, Inc., September 4 , 2024. Included as Appendix D.
• Phase I Archeological and Paleontological Resources Study, prepared by Psomas, May 2025. Included as Appendix C.
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist -Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault?
No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GP EIR and was determined to have a less -than- significant impact through compliance with the CBC and site-specific geotechnical investigations.
As described in the Geotechnical Evaluation (Appendix D), the Project site is within a seismically active region of southern California, which means occasional seismic ground shaking is likely to occur at the Project site within the lifetime of the proposed Project. However, according to the California Department of Conservation, the Project site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone or earthquake-induced landslide hazard zone (California Department of Conservation, 2025).
Additionally, according to the City of Menifee GP EIR Figure S-1, Fault Map, there are no active or potentially active faults known on the Project site or in the City of Menifee. Thus, impacts would be less than significant and no new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project beyond what was previously evaluated, identified, and disclosed in the GP EIR and the SP EIR.
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GP EIR and was determined to have a less -than- significant impact through compliance with the CBC and site-specific geotechnical investigations.
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
Item Page Number: 106
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
698 of 966
CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist
City of Menifee Menifee 27 Residential Project
86 The Project site is located in a seismically active region, as is all of southern California. Thus, the Project site could be subject to strong seismic ground shaking. The amount of motion expected at a building site can vary from no motion to forceful depending upon the distance to the fault, the magnitude of the earthquake, and the local geology. Greater movement can be expected at sites located closer to an earthquake epicenter that consist of poorly consolidated material such as alluvium located near the source, and in response to an earthquake of great magnitude.
As described above, there are no active or potentially active faults known on the site or in the City of Menifee. However, ground shaking could still occur as a result from faults in the Elsinore Fault zone approximately 10 miles southwest, the San Jacinto zone approximately 11 miles northeast, and the San Andreas fault zone located 25 miles to the northeast. The proximity of the site to active faults would result in ground shaking during moderate to severe seismic events. However, structures built in the City are required to be built in compliance with the CBC(California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2) that provides provisions for earthquake safety based on factors including building occupancy type, the types of soils on-site, and the probable strength of ground motion. Compliance with the CBC would require the incorporation of: (1) seismic safety features to minimize the potential for significant effects as a result of earthquakes; (2) proper building footings and foundations; and (3) construction of the building structure so that it would withstand the effects of strong ground shaking.
The proposed Project would also be developed in compliance with the Menifee Municipal Code, the recommendations of the Geotechnical Evaluation (included as Appendix D), and all other ordinances adopted by the City related to construction and safety. The Menifee Building and Safety Division would review the building plans through building plan checks, issuance of a building permit, and inspection of the building during construction, which would ensure that all required CBC seismic safety measures are incorpo rated into the building. Compliance with the CBC as verified by the City’s review process would reduce impacts related to strong seismic ground shaking to a less -than- significant level. Thus, no new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project beyond what was previously evaluated, identified, and disclosed in the GP EIR and the SP EIR.
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GP EIR and was determined to have a less -than- significant impact through compliance with the CBC and site-specific geotechnical investigations.
Liquefaction occurs when soils are transformed from a solid state into a liquefied state due to increased pressure. Liquefaction is most likely to occur when soils of higher porosity (i.e., clay) become saturated and subjected to seismic activity. Areas wh ere the groundwater table is within approximately 50 feet below ground surface are also more susceptible to liquefaction. According to Figure S-3, Liquefaction and Landslides, of the City of Menifee GP EIR, the Project site is not located in an area with r isk of liquefaction. In addition, the Geotechnical Evaluation evaluated the liquefaction potential at the site and determined based on the relatively dense nature of the subsurface soils, along with the relatively deep historic groundwater depth, the liquefaction potential at the subject site is very low (Appendix D). Groundwater was not encountered at a maximum depth of approximately 51.5 feet below the ground surface during boring samples, further supporting the conclusion that the site is not susceptible to liquefaction hazards.
Additionally, as described previously, the proposed Project would be required to be constructed in compliance with the CBC , the recommendations included in the Geotechnical Evaluation, and the City’s Development Code, which would be verified through the City’s plan check and permitting process. Thus, potential impacts related to liquefaction would be less than significant. Therefore, the Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
Item Page Number: 107
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
699 of 966
CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist
City of Menifee Menifee 27 Residential Project
87 proposed Project would not result in significant impacts on people or structures due to ground failure or liquefaction. Based on the foregoing analysis, no new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project beyond what was previously evaluated, identified, and disclosed in the GP EIR and the SP EIR. iv. Landslides?
No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GP EIR and was determined to have a less -than- significant impact through compliance with the CBC and site-specific geotechnical investigations.
Landslides are the downhill movement of masses of earth and rock and are often associated with earthquakes. However, other factors, such as the slope, moisture content of the soil, composition of the subsurface geology, heavy rains, and improper grading can influence the occurrence of landslides. The Project site is not located near any slopes or hillsides. There are no known landslide zones near the site, nor is the site in the path of any known or potential landslides according to Figure S-3, Liquefaction and Landslides, of the City of Menifee GP EIR . Therefore, the proposed Project would not expose people or structures to slope instability or seismically induced landslides.
Based on the foregoing analysis, no new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project beyond what was previously evaluated, identified, and disclosed in the GP EIR and the SP EIR.
b) Result in soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GP EIR and was determined to have a less-than-significant impact with compliance to existing regulatory requirements.
Construction of the proposed Project has the potential to contribute to soil erosion and the loss of topsoil.
Grading activities that would be required for the proposed Project would expose and loosen topsoil, which could be eroded by wind or water. However, construction activities would be required to comply with Menifee’s Municipal Code Section 7.90.060, requiring the formation and approval of an erosion control plan, ensuring implementation of appropriate measures during soil -disturbing activities to reduce erosion.
Furthermore, the proposed Project would be subject to the NPDES permitting regulations, including implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and associated BMPs (included in the Menifee’s Municipal Code as Chapter 15.01 ). BMPs may include a combination of mitigative construction methods to reduce, prevent, or minimize soil erosion from Project-related grading and construction activities.
Erosion control BMPs incl ude use of silt fencing, fiber rolls, or gravel bags, stabilized construction entrance/exit, hydroseeding, etc. Additionally, the Construction General Permit ( Order 2009 -0009, as amended by Orders 2010 -0014-DWQ,2012-006-DWQ, and 2022-0057-DWQ) issued by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), regulates construction activities to minimize water pollution, including sediment. With compliance with City Municipal Code stormwater management requirements, Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) SWPPP requirements, and installation of BMPs, which is required and would be ensured by the City’s plan check and permitting process , construction impacts related to erosion and loss of topsoil would be less than significant.
Additionally, the proposed Project includes installation of landscaping throughout the proposed Project. With this landscaping, areas of loose topsoil that could be eroded by wind or water would not exist upon operation of the proposed Project. In addition, as described in Section 5.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, the hydraulic features of the proposed Project have been designed to slow, filter, and retain stormwater within landscaping and the proposed infiltration basins, which would also reduce the potential for stormwater to erode topsoil. Furthermore, implementation of the Project requires City approval of a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), which would ensure that Santa Ana RWQCB requirements and appropriate operational BMPs would be implemented to minimize or eliminate the potential for soil erosion or loss of Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
Item Page Number: 108
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
700 of 966
CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist
City of Menifee Menifee 27 Residential Project
88 topsoil to occur. As a result, with implementation of existing requirements, impacts related to substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil would be less than significant. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in significant impacts regarding soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. Based on the foregoing analysis, no new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project beyond what was previously evaluated, identified, and disclosed in the GP EIR and the SP EIR. c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on - or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GP EIR and was determined to have a less-than-significant impact through compliance with the California Building Code and site-specific geotechnical investigations.
As described above, the Project site does not contain nor is it adjacent to any significant slope o r hillside area. The proposed Project would also not create slopes. Thus, on or off-site landslides would not occur from the implementation of the proposed Project.
Lateral spreading is a type of liquefaction-induced ground failure associated with the lateral displacement of surficial blocks of sediment resulting from liquefaction in a subsurface layer. Once liquefaction transforms the subsurface layer into a fluid mass, gravity plus the earthquake inertial for ces may cause the mass to move downslope towards a free face (such as a river channel or an embankment). Lateral spreading may cause large horizontal displacements and such movement typically damages pipelines, utilities, bridges, and structures. As described previously, the Geotechnical Evaluation found that the site possesses a very low liquefaction potential. Additionally, because the site is relatively flat and the relatively low liquefaction hazard potential, the potential for earthquake-induced lateral spreading is considered negligible at the site (Appendix D). Therefore, impacts related to liquefaction and lateral spreading are not anticipated at the Project site. Impacts would be less than significant.
Subsidence is a general lowering of the ground surface over a large area that is generally attributed to lowering of the ground water levels within a groundwater basin. Localized or focal subsidence or settlement of the ground can occur as a result of earthquake motion in an area where groundwater in a basin is lowered.
According to the Geotechnical Evaluation, the County of Riverside has designated the site area as being susceptible to subsidence (Appendix D). However, any subsidence in the area would likely be regional and not adversely affect the proposed Project specifically. Additionally, no groundwater was encountered during the subsurface exploration conducted as part of the Geotechnical Evaluation. C ompliance with the CBC would be required by the Menifee Building and Safety Division, as implemented as a condition of approval.
Compliance with the requirements of the CBC as part of the building plan check and development review process, would ensure that impacts related to subsidence would be less than significant. Therefore, impacts related to subsidence are not expected at the Project site.
Overall, compliance with the requirements of the CBC, as ensured by the City through the permitting process, would ensure impacts related to lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, and collapse would be less than significant. Based on the foregoing analysis, no new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project beyond what was previously evaluated, identified, and disclosed in the GP EIR and the SP EIR.
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18 -1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property?
No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GP EIR and was determined to have a less-than-significant impact through compliance with the CBC and site-specific geotechnical investigations.
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
Item Page Number: 109
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
701 of 966
CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist
City of Menifee Menifee 27 Residential Project
89 Expansive soils contain clay particles that swell when wet and shrink when dry. Foundations constructed on expansive soils are subjected to forces caused by the swelling and shrinkage of the soils and could result in heaving and cracking of buildings and f oundations. As part of the Geotechnical Evaluation, laboratory testing was performed on selected soil samples obtained during the field exploration. The purpose of the laboratory testing was to confirm the field classification of the soils . The test results indicated near-surface soils will have a very low expansion index (Appendix D). Additionally, compliance with the CBC would be incorporated into grading plans and building specifications as a condition of construction permit approval to ensure that the proposed Project structures would withstand effects related to ground movement, including expansive soils. Thus, impacts related to expansive soils would be less than significant. Based on the foregoing analysis, no new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project beyond what was previously evaluated, identified, and disclosed in the GP EIR and the SP EIR. e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GP EIR and was determined to have a less-than-significant impact through compliance with the California Plumbing Code.
The proposed Project would not install a septic system. Sanitary sewer service would be provided through the installation of eight -inch sewer lines within the internal private roadways, which would connect to an existing 15-inch sewer main located along the western boundary of the Project site. Therefore, impacts related to these facilities would not occur. Based on the foregoing analysis, no new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project beyond what was previously evaluated, identified, and disclosed in the GP EIR and the SP EIR. f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GP EIR and was determined to have a less-than-significant impact with mitigation.
The proposed Project includes site preparation, excavation, grading, and other ground disturbance activities that have the potential to damage or destroy paleontological resources that may be present on the Project site. Thus, in compliance with GP EIR Mitigation Measure 5-1, a Project-specific Archaeological and Paleontological Resources Study was prepared by Psomas in May 2025, to determine the Project site’s potential to contain significant paleontological resources (Appendix C). The Paleontological Resources Study included a Natural History Museum (NHM) paleontological records search, literature review, and a paleontological field survey of the proposed Project site. The records search did not identify paleontological resources within the Project site, but paleontological resources were identified nearby from the same sedimentary deposits that may occur in the Project site, either at the surface or at depth. The records search found that the closest known fossil localities included Pleistocene animal fossils, including camel, horse, tree frog, garter snake, pocket gopher, and elephant.
The paleontological field survey was conducted on January 28, 2025 , and no paleontological resources were identified
. Therefore, the proposed Project is unlikely to impact paleontological resources on the surface within the Project site; however, there is always the possibility that intact paleontological resources may be present below the surface in undisturbed sediments. In addition, according to Figure 5.5 -1 of the GP EIR, Paleontological Resources Sensitivity, the Project site is located within a part of the city that has been identified as high sensitivity for paleontological resources.
Geologically, the Project site is mapped as having alluvial sand and clay gravel deposits dating from the Pleistocene Period. Pleistocene alluvial units are of high preservation value and as described above the Project site is in an area designated by the city as high sensitivity. Due to the Project site’s underlying geology and the nearby fossil localities identified through the records search, there is a potential that unknown Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
Item Page Number: 110
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
702 of 966
CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist
City of Menifee Menifee 27 Residential Project
90 paleontological resources could be inadvertently discovered during ground disturbing activities associated with Project construction. In accordance with GP Action LT-1.10f, the City imposes a standard condition of approval requiring projects to halt all ground -disturbing activities when unusual amounts of shell or bone, isolated artifacts, or other similar features are discovered. Furthermore, if paleontological resources are identified during project-related ground disturbance, the proposed Project would be required to implement Mitigation Measure 5-2 from the GP EIR, which requires retention of a qualified paleontologist to monitor ground-disturbing activities in high-sensitivity areas. If any potentially significant fossils are discovered, work would be halted in the vicinity of the find until the resources are properly evaluated and, if necessary, recovered and curated in accordance with professional standards. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 5- 2 and consistency with Standard Conditions would ensure potential Project impacts to paleontological resources would remain less than significant. Therefore, the proposed Project is consistent with the findings contained in the GP EIR and SP EIR and would result in no new impacts that would directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature.
Conclusion
Regarding the issue area of geology and soils, the following findings can be made:
15183 Findings
1. No peculiar impacts to the Project or its site have been identified.
2. There are no significant effects that were not analyzed as part of the GP EIR.
3. There are no potentially significant off-site and/or cumulative impacts which were not discussed by the GP EIR.
4. No substantial new information has been identified which results in an impact which is more severe than anticipated by the GP EIR.
5. No new Mitigation Measures would be required. Project specific impacts would be less than significant with adherence to GP EIR Mitigation Measures, as listed below. 15182 Findings
Based on the foregoing information, none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or Mitigation Measures exist regarding geology and soils. There have not been (1) changes related to development of the Project site that involve new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which development of the Project site is undertaken that require major revisions of the certified EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or M itigation Measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the certified SP EIR was certified as completed.
Because none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts, State CEQA Guidelines 15182 also does not require additional environmental review and the Project is within the scope of the SP EIR.
Uniformly Applied Development Policies or Standards (DP/S) Menifee Municipal Code Chapter 8.04: Building Code. The proposed Project would be required to comply with the City’s adopted Building Code, as outlined in Menifee Municipal Code Section 8.04. This section adopts the most recent edition of the California Building Standards Code (Title 24), along with any loc al amendments, to ensure safe and structurally sound development. All building plans would be subject to plan Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
Item Page Number: 111
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
703 of 966
CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist
City of Menifee Menifee 27 Residential Project
91 check and permit review by the City’s Building and Safety Division to confirm compliance with applicable structural, electrical, plumbing, mechanical, fire safety, and energy efficiency standards. Adherence to these requirements would ensure that all new construction meets current safety and performance codes.
Menifee Municipal Code Chapter 15.01: Storm Water/Urban Runoff. The proposed Project would be required to comply with Chapter 15.01 of the Menifee Municipal Code, which implements the City’s local stormwater and urban runoff regulations consistent with the MS4 Permit requirements. In accordance with this code, the proposed Project would be required to implement BMPs to control pollutants in stormwater discharges during both construction and operation. The Project would also be subject to the requirements of the NPDES permit program, including preparation of a SWPPP to identify construction-phase BMPs to reduce or eliminate pollutants in stormwater runoff. Long-term operational impacts would be addressed through the preparation of a Project -Specific WQMP in c ompliance with the City’s requirements to ensure that post - construction stormwater runoff is properly managed and treated prior to discharge.
Menifee Municipal Code Chapter 7.90: Grading Regulations. The proposed Project would be required to comply with the City’s grading regulations as outlined in Menifee Municipal Code Chapter 7.90. These standards are in place to ensure that all grading activities are conducted in a safe, orderly, and environmentally responsible manner. Prior to any site grading, the Project would be required to obtain a grading permit from the City, which includes plan review and approval to verify conformance with applicable engineering, erosion control, and drainage standards. Compliance with these requirements would ensure that grading activities minimize impacts to surrounding properties, reduce the potential for erosion or sedimentation, and support long-term site stability.
GP Goals and Policies
• Policy S-1.1: Require all new habitable buildings and structures to be designed and built to be seismically resistant in accordance with the most recent California Building Code adopted by the city.
• Policy S-2.1: Require all new developments to mitigate the geologic hazards that have the potential to impact habitable structures and other improvements.
• Policy S-2.3: Minimize grading and modifications to the natural topography to prevent the potential for man-induced slope failures.
GP EIR Mitigation Measures
GP EIR Mitigation Measure 5-2: In areas of high sensitivity for paleontological resources, each project shall retain a qualified paleontologist to monitoring ground disturbing activity. Should any potentially significant fossil resources be discovered, no further grading shall occur in the area of the discovery until the Community Development Director is satisfied that adequate provisions are in place to protect these resources.
Unanticipated discoveries shall be evaluated for significance by a professional paleontologist. If significance criteria are met, then the project shall be required to perform data recovery, professional identification, radiocarbon dates, and other special studies; submit materials to a museum for permanent curation; and provide a co mprehensive final report including catalog with museum numbers to the City of Menifee Community Development Director.
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
Item Page Number: 112
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
704 of 966
CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist
City of Menifee Menifee 27 Residential Project
92 5.8. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Summary of Impacts Identified in the GP EIR
The GP EIR discussed impacts related to greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) under Section 5.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, pages 5.7-1 through 5.7-30.
The GP EIR determined that buildout under the GP would result in GHG emissions that exceed the efficiency threshold of 4.0 MTCO₂e per service population per year, which was used to evaluate consistency with the long-term reduction goals identified in Executive Order S-03-05. The GP EIR discussed that while applicable GHG reduction policies and measures are included in the GP, and while Mitigation Measure 3-1 (referenced in the Air Quality section) would reduce both construction and operational emissions, these measures would not be sufficient to reduce overall emissions to below the efficiency threshold. The GP EIR found that impacts related to long-term GHG emissions and consistency with Executive Order S-03-05 would be significant and unavoidable.
Conversely, the GP EIR determined that the proposed GP is consistent with the CARB’s 2008 Scoping Plan and the SCAG’s 2012 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy. The GP EIR found that implementation of land use strategies, policies supporting infill development, and integrated transportation planning would reduce GHG emissions consistent with Stat e and regional climate goals.
Therefore, impacts related to consistency with applicable GHG plans would be less than significant.
Summary of Impacts Identified in the SP EIR
The SP EIR discussed impacts related to GHG emissions under Section 4.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, pages 53 through 56.
The SP EIR qualitatively determined that buildout of the SP area would result in significant and unavoidable impacts related to the generation of GHG emissions. However, development within the SP area would be required to consistent with the GHG Reduction Policies included in the City’s GP. In addition, there are State- mandated GHG reduction policies that projects within the SP area would be compliant with. Therefore, the Would the Project:
Project
Impact that
is Peculiar
to the
Project or
the Project
Site
Significant
Impact not
Analyzed
as
Significant
in the Prior
EIR
Potentially
Significant
Off-site or
Cumulative
Impact not
Discussed
in the prior
EIR
Adverse
Impact
More Severe
based on
Substantial
New
Information
No New
Impact
Not
Previously
Analyzed
in the Prior
EIR
a) Generate greenhouse gas
emissions, either directly or
indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the
environment?
b) Conflict with an
applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the
purpose of reducing the
emissions of greenhouse
gases?
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
Item Page Number: 113
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
705 of 966
CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist
City of Menifee Menifee 27 Residential Project
93 SP EIR determined that impacts related to consistency with applicable GHG plans would be less than significant.
Project-Specific Impacts
This section was prepared using the following report:
• Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis for Menifee 27 Project, prepared by EPD Solutions, Inc., July 1, 2025. Included as Appendix A.
GHG Thresholds
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4 provides discretion to the lead agency whether to: (1) use a model of methodology to quantify GHG emissions resulting from a project, and which model or methodology to use; or (2) rely on a qualitative analysis or performanc e-based standards. In addition, CEQA does not provide guidance to determine whether the project’s estimated GHG emissions are significant, but recommends that lead agencies consider several factors that may be used in the determination of significance of p roject related GHG emissions, including:
• The extent to which the project may increase or reduce GHG emissions as compared to the existing environmental setting.
• Whether the project emissions exceed a threshold of significance that the lead agency determines applies to the project.
• The extent to which the project complies with regulations or requirements adopted to implement a statewide, regional, or local plan for the reduction or mitigation of GHG emissions.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(f) describes that the effects of GHG emissions are by their very nature cumulative and should be analyzed in the context of CEQA’s requirements for cumulative impact analysis.
Additionally, CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(h)3 st ates that a project’s incremental contribution to a cumulative impact can be found not cumulatively considerable if the project would comply with an approved plan or mitigation program that provides requirements to avoid or lessen the cumulative problem.
CEQA allows the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district to be used to assess impacts of a project on climate change.
California State Executive Order S-3- 05, issued by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in June 2005, established comprehensive GHG reduction targets for the state (Executive Department State of California, 2005). It mandated reducing GHG emissions to 2000 levels by 2010, to 1990 levels by 2020, and to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. This Executive Order laid the foundation for subsequent climate change mitigation efforts in California, including the development of various policies and programs aimed at reducing emissions across sectors such as transportation, energy, and industry. The objective of the Executive Order is to contribute to capping worldwide CO
2 concentrations at 450 parts per million (ppm), stabilizing global climate change.
SCAQMD convened a GHG Emissions CEQA Significance Threshold Working Group to help lead agencies determine significance thresholds for GHG emissions when SCAQMD is not the lead agency. The last working group was held in September 2010 (Meeting No. 15) and proposed a tiered approach (Tier I to Tier V), equivalent to the existing consistency determination requirements in CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064(h)(3) or 15125(d) (SCAQMD, 2010). The applicable screening threshold tier is described in further detail below.
Tier III – Numerical Screening Thresholds
The SCAQMD’s draft threshold uses the Executive Order S -3-05 goal as the basis for the Tier III screening level. Tier III consists of screening values which the lead agency can choose from, but it must be consistent Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
Item Page Number: 114
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
706 of 966
CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist
City of Menifee Menifee 27 Residential Project
94 with all projects within its jurisdiction. A project’s construction emissions are averaged over 30 years and are added to the project’s operational emissions. If a project’s emissions are below one of the following screening thresholds, then the project impact would be less than significant:
• Option 1, all land use types: 3,000 MTCO2e per year
• Option 2, based on land use type:
o Residential: 3,500 MTCO2e per year
o Commercial: 1,400 MTCO2e per year
o Mixed-use: 3,000 MTCO2e per year
Based on the foregoing guidance, the City has elected to rely on compliance with a local air district (SCAQMD) threshold in the determination of significance of project-related GHG emissions. Specifically, the City has selected the interim 3,000 MTCO 2e per year threshold recommended by SCAQMD staff against which to compare Project-related GHG emissions.
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GP EIR (Impact 5. 7-1) on pages 5. 7-15 through 5.7-23 and was determined to have a significant and unavoidable impact.
Construction
As described in Section 3.0, Project Description, construction of the proposed Project is anticipated to occur over approximately 26 months, beginning in March 2026. GHG emissions associated with Project construction would occur over the short term and would consist primarily of emissions from equipment exhaust. The calculations presented below include construction emissions in terms of annual CO 2e GHG emissions from increased energy consumption, water usage, and solid waste disposal, as well as estimated GHG emissions from vehicular traffic that would result from implementation of the proposed Project. During construction of the proposed Project, GHGs would be emitted through the operation of construction equipment, as well as emissions from worker and vendor vehicles, each of which typically uses fossil -based fuels to operate. The combustion of fossil -based fuels creates GHGs such as CO 2, CH4, and N 2O. Furthermore, CH 4 is emitted
during the fueling of heavy equipment. Exhaust emissions from on-site construction activities would vary daily as construction activity levels change.
As discussed above, the SCAQMD does not have an adopted threshold of significance for construction related GHG emissions. However, lead agencies are required to quantify and disclose GHG emissions that would occur during construction. Total estimated GHG emissions from construction of the proposed P roject were amortized over 30 years per SCAQMD methodology. As shown in Table GHG-1, it is estimated that the proposed Project would generate a total of approximately 1,072 MTCO2e during construction. When amortized over the 30-year life of the proposed Project, annual emissions would be 36 MTCO2e.
Table GHG-1: Project Construction GHG Emissions
Construction Year Annual GHG Emissions
(MTCO2e)
Year 1 (2026) 417
Year 2 (2027) 492
Year 3 (2028) 163
Total Emissions 1,072
Total Emissions Amortized Over 30 Years 36
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
Item Page Number: 115
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
707 of 966
CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist
City of Menifee Menifee 27 Residential Project
95 Source: Air Quality, Energy, Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis (Appendix A) Operation
During operation, the proposed Project would generate long-term GHG emissions from vehicular trips, water, natural gas , and electricity consumption , and solid waste generation. The estimated operational GHG emissions that would be generated from implementation of the proposed Project are shown in Table GHG-
2. In accordance with SCAQMD recommendation, the proposed Project’s amortized construction related GHG emissions are added to the operational emissions estimate in order to determine the proposed Project’s total annual GHG emissions. As shown in Table GHG-2, the proposed Project would generate a total of 2,998 MT CO2e per year, which is below the threshold of 3,000 MT CO2e per year. Therefore, based upon SCAQMD’s screening threshold, impacts related to operational GHG emissions would be less than significant.
Table GHG-2: Project Total GHG Emissions
Activity Annual GHG Emissions
(MTCO2e)
Mobile 2,224
Area 3
Energy 654
Water 24
Waste 56
Refrigeration 1
Project Operation Emissions 2,962
Amortized Project Construction Emissions 36
Total Project Emissions 2,998
Tier III Significance Threshold 3,000
Threshold Exceeded? No
Source: Air Quality, Energy, Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis (Appendix A) b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GP EIR (Impact 5. 7-2) on pages 5. 7-23 through 5.7-28 and was determined to have a less-than-significant impact.
The proposed Project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs . As described in the previous response, the proposed Project would not exceed thresholds related to GHG emissions. In addition, the Project would comply with regulations imposed by the state and the SCAQMD that reduce GHG emissions, as described below:
• The Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32) requires California to reduce its GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 — a reduction of approximately 15 percent below emissions expected under a “business as usual” scenario. The proposed building would not conflict with AB 32. • The Pavley Fuel Efficiency Standards (AB 1493) establishes fuel efficiency ratings for new (model year 2009-2016) passenger cars and light trucks. The Project would not conflict with fuel efficiency standards for vehicles.
• Title 24 California Code of Regulations (Title 24) establishes energy efficiency requirements for new construction that address the energy efficiency of new (and altered) buildings. The Project is required to comply with Title 24, which would be verified b y the City during the plan check and permitting process.
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
Item Page Number: 116
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
708 of 966
CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist
City of Menifee Menifee 27 Residential Project
96 • Title 17 of the CCR (Low Carbon Fuel Standard [LCFS]) is designed to decrease the carbon intensity of California's transportation fuel pool and provide an increasing range of low -carbon and renewable alternatives, which reduce petroleum dependency and achieve air quality benefits.
Because the LCFS applies to any transportation fuel that is sold or supplied in California, all vehicle trips generated by the Project would comply with LCFS.
• California Water Conservation in Landscaping Act of 2006 (AB 1881) provides requirements to ensure water efficient landscapes in new development and reduced water waste in existing landscapes. The Project is required to comply with AB 1881 landscaping requirements, which would be verified by the City during the plan check and permitting process. • Emissions from vehicles, which are a main source of operational GHG emissions, would be reduced through implementation of federal and state fuel and air quality emissions requirements that are implemented by CARB. In addition, as described in the previous response, the Project would not result in an exceedance of an air quality standard.
2022 AQMP Scoping Plan
Table GHG-3 shows the Project's consistency with applicable actions aimed at reducing GHG emissions in the 2022 Scoping Plan. As shown, the Project would not impede the State’s progress towards carbon neutrality by 2045 under the 2022 Scoping Plan. The Project would be required to comply with applicable current and future regulatory requirements promulgated through the 2022 Scoping Plan. As such, the Project would be consistent with the 2022 Scoping Plan.
Table GHG-3: Project Consistency with 2022 Scoping Plan Action Consistency
GHG Emissions Reductions Relative to the SB 32 Target
40 percent Below 1990 levels by 2030. Consistent. The Project would comply with Title 24 Part 6 building energy requirements along with other local and State initiatives that aim to achieve the goal of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030.
Smart Growth/Vehicle Miles Traveled VMT
VMT per capita reduced 25 percent below 2019
levels by 2030, and 30 percent below 2019 levels
by 2045.
Consistent. The Project proposes the development of high - density residentials with the inclusion of the 20 percent density bonus. As previously discussed in the air quality section, the Project would be consistent with the growth assumptions in the 2020 Connect SoCal, so the Project would not interfere with the analysis completed for the Connect SoCal report outlining VMT reduction targets and measures.
Light-Duty Vehicle (LDV) Zero-Emission Vehicles (ZEVs)
100 percent of LDV sales are ZEV by 2035. Consistent. The proposed Project would be designed and constructed in accordance with the Title 24 Part 6 and Part 11 requirements, which includes constructing homes to allow for electric vehicle charging.
New Residential and Commercial Buildings
All electric appliances beginning 2026 (residential)
and 2029 (commercial), contributing to 6 million heat
pumps installed statewide by 2030.
Consistent. The Project would comply with the Title 24 Part 6 building energy requirements, which would require all in - unit appliances for residential projects to be all-electric and Energy Star certified.
Construction Equipment
25 percent of energy demand electrified by 2030
and 75 percent electrified by 2045.
Consistent. The proposed Project would be required to use construction equipment that is registered by CARB and meet CARB’s standards. CARB sets its standards to be in line with Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
Item Page Number: 117
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
709 of 966
CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist
City of Menifee Menifee 27 Residential Project
97 Action Consistency
the goal of reducing energy demand by 25 percent in 2030 and 75 percent in 2045.
Transportation Electrification
Create a jurisdiction -specific ZEV ecosystem to
support deployment of ZEVs statewide (such as
permit streamlining, infrastructure siting, consumer
education, or preferential parking policies).
Consistent. The proposed Project would be designed and
constructed in accordance with the Title 24 Part 6 and Part 11 requirements, which includes constructing homes to allow for electric vehicle charging. Therefore, the proposed Project would not interfere with the
implementation of a ZEV
ecosystem within the City.
VMT Reduction
Adopt and implement Complete Streets policies and
investments, consistent with general plan circulation
element requirements.
Consistent. The Project proposes the construction of a new sidewalk along the Project frontage of Palomar Road and would not interfere with the implementation of Complete Streets policies and investments within the City.
Increase public access to shared clean mobility
options (such as planning for and investing in electric shuttles, bike share, car share, transit).
Consistent. The Project proposes to construct a six-foot-wide sidewalk and a five -foot-wide parkway improvement. The proposed on -site roadway system includes walkways
throughout the Project site that would connect to the off- site sidewalks. In addition, the proposed residential units would allow for charging of electric vehicles. The nearest bus stop from the existing Project driveway is the Highway 74 -
Palomar stop, located approximately 0.2 mi south.
Amend zoning or development codes to enable
mixed-use, walkable, and compact infill development
(such as increasing allowable density of the
neighborhood).
Consistent. While the Project does not require a zoning amendment, it would provide high density housing pursuant to California’s State Density Bonus Law. The Project proposes to allot 9 units, or five percent of the base density, for very- low-income households.
Building Decarbonization
Adopt all-electric new construction reach codes. Consistent. The proposed Project would comply with Title 24 Parts 6 and 11, which include electric heat pumps installed during construction and electric hookups for all appliances.
Adopt policies and incentive programs to reduce
electrical loads from equipment plugged into outlets
(such as purchasing Energy Star equipment for
municipal buildings, occupancy sensors, smart power
strips, equipment controllers, etc.).
Consistent. The proposed Project would be constructed in accordance with Title 24 CALGreen requirements, which
includes installation of Energy Star equipment and
appliances in new buildings.
Facilitate deployment of renewable energy
production and distribution and energy storage.
Consistent. The proposed Project would be constructed in accordance with the CALGreen Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 24 Part 6) and meet all other requirements related to energy efficiency standards.
Source: Air Quality, Energy, Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis (Appendix A) 2024-2050 SCAG RTP/SCS
The proposed Project would not interfere with the SCAG’s ability to achieve the region’s GHG reduction target of 19 percent below 2005 per capita emissions levels by 2035. Furthermore, the proposed Project is not regionally significant per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15206 and as such, it would not conflict with the SCAG RTP/SCS targets since those targets were established and are applicable on a regional level.
SCAG’s Connect SoCal 2024 policies focus largely on regional transportation and the efficiency of transportation, which are implemented by counties and cities within the SCAG region, as part of the overall planning and maintenance of the regional transportation system.
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
Item Page Number: 118
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
710 of 966
CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist
City of Menifee Menifee 27 Residential Project
98 Overall, the proposed Project would comply with existing State regulations adopted to achieve the overall GHG emissions reduction goals identified in the 2022 Scoping Plan and would be consistent with applicable State plans and programs designed to reduce GHG emissions, such as SCAG's RTP/SCS. The regulations, plans, and polices adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions that are directly applicable to the Project include the latest Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresident ial Buildings and the Title 24 California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen). The Project would be required to comply with the latest Title 24 Standards at the time of building permit issuance.
In addition, as described above, GHG emissions associated with construction and operation of the proposed Project would not exceed the thresholds set by SCAQMD. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs and impacts would be less than significant. 2021 Western Riverside Council of Governments Subregional Climate Action Plan In addition to the CARB 2022 Scoping Plan, the City of Menifee is one of 12 Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) jurisdictions which participated in preparing the 2021 Subregional Climate Action Plan (WRCOG Subregional CAP). This GHG reduction plan sets a subregional emissions target of 15 percent below 2010 levels by 2020 and 49 percent below 2010 levels by 2035. As shown below in Table GHG- 4, Project WRCOG Subregional CAP Consistency Summary, the Project would not conflict with any of WRCOG’s GHG reduction policies.
Table GHG-4: Project WRCOG Subregional CAP Consistency Summary Measure Consistency
Energy
LE-1: Expand Local Renewable Energy Production.
Increase solar PV installations on new and existing
buildings.
Consistent. The Project would comply with Title 24 Part 6 building energy requirements through installation of solar panels.
LE-4: Building & Appliance Electrification.
Transition energy use away from fossil natural gas
to clean electricity and renewable natural gas.
Consistent. The Project would comply with Title 24 Part 6 building energy requirements through installation of solar panels.
LE-6: Shade Trees. Strategically plant trees to
reduce the urban heat island effect.
Consistent. A minimum of 10 percent of the parking lot area is required to be landscaped. There is not centralized
parking lot area; however, 13 percent of the Project site would be landscaped.
LT-2: Pedestrian Infrastructure Improvements.
Expand and improve pedestrian infrastructure,
including sidewalks, crosswalks, and pedestrian
signals.
Consistent. The proposed Project includes the dedication of a nine-foot-wide right-of-way along Palomar Road, which would include construction of a six-foot sidewalk and a five- foot parkway improvement.
LT-7: Increase Housing Density. Increase the
density of planned housing units within the city.
Consistent. The Project would result in an overall proposed density of 7.02 dwelling units per acre. The subdivision would be developed across two planning areas: Planning
Area 7A, which would accommodate 75 units at a density of
4.93 dwelling units per acre, and Planning Area 7B, which would accommodate 117 units at a density of 9.83 dwelling units per acre.
LT-8: Increase Land Use Diversity. Provide for a
variety of development types and uses.
Consistent. The proposed Project’s residential uses is
consistent with the existing GP and Zoning designations’ allowed uses and development standards. The proposed
Project would not interfere with the City’s ability to increase land use diversity.
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
Item Page Number: 119
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
711 of 966
CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist
City of Menifee Menifee 27 Residential Project
99 LT-9: Transit -Oriented Development. Place new
developments in close proximity to transit services.
Consistent. The proposed Project would be within 0.5 miles of the nearest bus station, Highway 74 & Palomar.
LT-10: Local ZEV Programs. Provide charging
stations and other support for zero emission vehicles
(ZEVs).
Consistent. The proposed Project would be designed and
constructed in accordance with the Title 24 Part 6 and Part 11 requirements, which includes EV -ready charging
infrastructure to allow for electric vehicle charging in the garages.
Solid Waste
LS-1: Zero Waste Initiatives. Support the State’s
mandates and strive for zero waste.
Consistent. The proposed Project would be required to
comply with all City measures adopted in compliance with AB 341, which requires diversion of a minimum of 75 percent of operational solid waste.
Source: Air Quality, Energy, Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis (Appendix A) Conclusion
Regarding the issue area of GHG emissions, the following findings can be made:
1513 Findings
1. No peculiar impacts to the Project or its site have been identified.
2. There are no significant effects that were not analyzed as part of the GP EIR.
3. There are no potentially significant off-site and/or cumulative impacts which were not discussed by the GP EIR.
4. No substantial new information has been identified which results in an impact which is more severe than anticipated by the GP EIR.
5. No new Mitigation Measures related to GHG would be required because Project specific impacts would be less than significant.
15182 Findings
Based on the foregoing information, none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or M itigation Measures exist regarding GHG emissions. There have not been (1) changes related to development of the Project site that involve new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which development of the Project site is undertaken that require major revisions of the certified EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or M itigation Measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the certified SP EIR was certified as completed.
Because none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts, State CEQA Guidelines 15182 also does not require additional environmental review and the Project is within the scope of the SP EIR.
Uniformly Applied Development Policies or Standards (DP/S) Title 24, Energy Efficiency and Green Building Standards. As listed in Section 5.6, Energy.
GP Goals and Policies
None.
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
Item Page Number: 120
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
712 of 966
CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist
City of Menifee Menifee 27 Residential Project
100
GP EIR Mitigation Measures
No Mitigation Measures related to GHG are required to reduce Project impacts.
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
Item Page Number: 121
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
713 of 966
CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist
City of Menifee Menifee 27 Residential Project
101
5.9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Would the project:
Project
Impact
that is
Peculiar to
the Project
or the
Project
Site
Significant
Impact not
Analyzed
as
Significant
in the
Prior EIR
Potentially
Significant
Off-site or
Cumulative
Impact not
Discussed
in the prior
EIR
Adverse
Impact
More Severe
based on
Substantial
New
Information
No
New
Impact
Not
Previously
Analyzed
in the
Prior EIR
a) Create a significant
hazard to the public or the
environment through the
routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous
materials?
b) Create a significant
hazard to the public or the
environment through
reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions
involving the release of
hazardous materials into the
environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions
or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within
one-quarter mile of an
existing or proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which
is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites
compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant
hazard to the public or the
environment?
e) For a project located
within an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan
has not been adopted, within
two miles of a public airport
or public use airport, would
the project result in a safety
hazard or excessive noise for
people residing or working in
the project area?
f) Impair implementation of
or physically interfere with
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
Item Page Number: 122
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
714 of 966
CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist
City of Menifee Menifee 27 Residential Project
102
Summary of Impacts Identified in the GP EIR
The GP EIR discussed impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials under Section 5.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, pages 5.8-1 through 5.8-34.
The GP EIR determined that future industrial and commercial development under the GP may involve the transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials. The GP EIR discussed that such activities would be subject to stringent Federal and State regulations, City ordinances, and applicable GP policies that govern hazardous materials handling. The GP EIR found that compliance with these existing regulations would adequately reduce associated risks, and impacts would be less than significant.
The GP EIR also determined that areas within the City contain multiple sites with known or potential releases of hazardous substances based on a review of environmental databases. The GP EIR discussed that these sites are subject to oversight by local, Sta te, and Federal agencies responsible for investigation and remediation of contamination. The GP EIR found that ongoing regulatory compliance would ensure that potential hazards from contaminated sites are minimized, and impacts would be less than significant.
Regarding airport land use compatibility, the GP EIR determined that buildout of the GP would not interfere with land use compatibility procedures established by the Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission (RCALUC) or the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The GP EIR found that all proposed development would remain subject to RCALUC and FAA review, and no conflicts with land use or height restrictions would occur. Impacts would be less than significant.
Lastly, the GP EIR determined that implementation of the GP would not impair emergency response efforts or obstruct evacuation routes. The GP EIR discussed that the Safety Element of the GP includes policies aimed at maintaining effective emergency respons e capabilities. The GP EIR found that no interference with emergency operations would result, and no impact would occur.
Summary of Impacts Identified in the SP EIR
The SP EIR discussed impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials emissions under Section 4. 9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, pages 58 through 61.
The SP EIR concluded that any potential impacts associated with hazardous substances would be addressed through this Plot Plan review process and further noted that it was not anticipated that future industrial tenants would generate toxic substances. Therefore, the SP EIR determined that impacts related to the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials would be less than significant.
The SP EIR did not analyze impacts related to reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving hazardous materials, hazardous materials near schools, sites listed pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5, airport land use compatibility, interference with emergency response or evacuation plans, or wildfire risks. However, the SP EIR included sufficient information regarding site conditions, anticipated land uses, and regulatory compliance requirements such that the potential for these impacts was reasonably an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
g) Expose people or
structures, either directly or
indirectly, to a significant risk
of loss, injury or death
involving wildland fires?
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
Item Page Number: 123
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
715 of 966
CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist
City of Menifee Menifee 27 Residential Project
103
discernible to the public through the exercise of reasonable diligence. The Menifee North Specific Plan Amendment No. 5, Addendum to the SP EIR, determined that impacts would be less than significant.
Project-Specific Impacts
This section is based on the following reports:
• Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, prepared by Stantec Consulting Services Inc ., August 13, 2024.
Included as Appendix E.
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GP EIR and was determined to be less than significant with compliance to federal and State regulations, City ordinances, and applicable GP policies.
A hazardous material is defined as any material that, due to its quantity, concentration, or physical or chemical characteristics, poses a significant present or potential hazard to human health and safety or to the environment if released into the workplace or environment. Hazardous materials include, but are not limited to, hazardous substances, hazardous wastes, and any material that a business or the local implementing agency has a reasonable basis for believing would be injurious to the health and safety of persons or harmful to the environment if released into the workplace or the environment. Hazardous wastes require special handling and disposal because of their potential to damage public health and the environment.
Development and long-term operation of the proposed Project would require standard transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials and wastes. If the use of these materials does not adhere to established federal, State, and local laws and regulations, workers, residents, the public, and/or the environment could be exposed to hazardous materials.
Construction
Heavy construction equipment (e.g., dozers, excavators, tractors) would be operated for construction of the proposed Project. The equipment would be fueled and maintained by petroleum -based substances such as diesel fuel, gasoline, oil, and hydraulic fluid, which are considered hazardous if improperly stored, handled, or transported. Other materials used, such as paints, adhesives, and solvents, could also result in accidental releases or spills that could pose risks to people and the environment. These ris ks are standard on all construction sites, and the proposed Project would not cause greater risks than would occur on other similar construction sites.
Additionally, construction contractors would be required to comply with federal, State, and local laws and regulations regarding the transport, use, and storage of hazardous materials. T he Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, as imposed by the United States Department of Transportation ( USDOT), California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (CalOSHA), California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) and California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) requires individuals transporting hazardous materials to properly classify , identify and package the material(s) . Additionally, construction activities would require a SWPPP, which is mandated by the NPDES General Construction Permit and enforced by the Santa Ana RWQCB. The SWPPP would include strict on-site handling rules and BMPs during construction, including, but not limited to:
• Establishing a dedicated area for fuel storage and refueling activities that includes secondary containment protection measures and spill control supplies; • Following manufacturers’ recommendations on the use, storage, and disposal of chemical products used in construction;
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
Item Page Number: 124
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
716 of 966
CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist
City of Menifee Menifee 27 Residential Project
104
• Avoiding overtopping construction equipment fuel tanks; • Properly containing and removing grease and oils during routine maintenance of equipment; and • Properly disposing of discarded containers of fuels and other chemicals.
Mandatory compliance with applicable laws and regulations related to the routine transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials during construction activities at the Project site would limit potentially significant hazards to construction workers, the public, and the environment . Impacts would be less than significant, and no new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project beyond what was previously evaluated, identified, and disclosed in the GP EIR and the SP EIR.
Operation
The proposed Project would develop the site with 192 single -family residential units . While hazardous materials are not typically associated with this type of residential use, limited quantities of common household products, such as cleaning agents, pesticides, and herbicides , may be used for routine maintenance and landscaping. These types of materials are not acutely hazardous and would only be used and stored in limited quantities. The normal routine use of these hazardous materials pursuant to existing regulations would not result in a significant hazard to people or the environment in the vicinity of the proposed Project. With compliance with existing laws and regulations, the proposed Project would result in less- than-significant impacts related the routine transport, use, and disposal of the hazardous materials. Based on the foregoing analysis, no new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project beyond what was previously evaluated, identified, and disclosed in the GP EIR and the SP EIR. b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GP EIR and was determined to be less than significant with regulatory compliance.
In August 2024 , Stantec completed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) for the Project site (Appendix E). The purpose of the Phase I ESA is to identify recognized environmental conditions (RECs), including historical recognized environmental conditions (HRECs), and controlled recognized environmental conditions (CRECs) that may exist at a property. The term “recognized environmental condition” means the presence or likely presence of any hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or at a property: (1) due to any release to the environment; (2) under conditions indicative of a release to the environment; or (3) under conditions that pose a material threat of a future release to the environment.
Information gathered from interviews, reviews of existing data, and a site inspection were evaluated to determine if RECs are present in connection with the Project site. The Phase I ESA determined that the Project site has historically been utilized for agricultural activity. Therefore, a Shallow Soil Assessment was prepared for the Project site to assess the presence of organochlorine pesticides (OCPs), lead, and arsenic. The results of the soil sampling indicated that concentrations of these substances d o not pose a risk to human health under the proposed Project. Therefore, Phase I ESA determined that after review of regulatory databases, there is no evidence of RECs, HRECs, CRECs or other conditions of concern on or adjacent to the site. Based on these findings, no further investigation was warranted.
Construction
While the routine use, storage, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials in accordance with applicable regulations during construction activities would not pose health risks or result in significant impacts, improper use, storage, transportation, and disposal of hazardous materials and wastes could result in accidental spills or releases, posing health risks to workers, the public, and the environment. To avoid an impact related to an accidental release, the use of BMPs during construction are implemented as part of a SWPPP as required Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
Item Page Number: 125
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
717 of 966
CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist
City of Menifee Menifee 27 Residential Project
105
by the NPDES General Construction Permit. Implementation of a SWPPP would protect quality of the water supply. Construction contract specifications would include strict on-site handling rules and BMPs that include, but are not limited to:
• Establishing a dedicated area for fuel storage and refueling and construction dewatering activities that includes secondary containment protection measures and spill control supplies; • Following manufacturers’ recommendations on the use, storage, and disposal of chemical products used in construction;
• Avoiding overtopping construction equipment fuel tanks; • Properly containing and removing grease and oils during routine maintenance of equipment; and • Properly disposing of discarded containers of fuels and other chemicals.
Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in significant impacts related to a reasonably foreseeable upset and accident condition involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment, and impacts would be less than significant. Based on the foregoing analysis, no new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project beyond what was previously evaluated, identified, and disclosed in the GP EIR and the SP EIR.
Operation
As discussed previously, hazardous materials are not typically associated with single family residential uses.
Operations could require the use of various types and quantities of hazardous materials, including cleaning products and the use of pesticides and herbicides for landscape maintenance. These types of materials are not acutely hazardous and would only be used and stored in limited quantities. In addition, adherence to existing r egulations related to hazards and hazardous materials safety would be required. Therefore, development of the proposed Project would be required to minimize risk of accidental spills and protect human health and the environment should any accidental spills or releases of hazardous materials occur during operation of the proposed Project, including on-site collection and treatment of potentially polluted runoff, as well as nonstructural maintenance implemented to prevent potentially hazardous spills or leaks of stored materials. As such, the proposed Project would not result in significant impacts related to the accidental upset or release of hazardous materials and no new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project beyond what was previously evaluated, identified, and disclosed in the GP EIR and the SP EIR.
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
Not Previously Analyzed in the Prior EIR. This topic was not evaluated in the GP EIR.
The proposed Project is located approximately 800 linear feet east of Romoland Elementary School , at 25890 Antelope Rd, Romoland, CA 92585 . There are no other schools located within one- quarter mile of the Project site. A s described in the previous responses, residential land use s are not typically associated with the use or release of hazardous materials. Construction and operation of the proposed Project would involve the use and disposal of a limited amount of hazardous materials that would be used in co mpliance with federal and State regulations, which would reduce the potential for accidental spills. As such, impacts concerning the emission or handling of hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of a school would be less than significant.
Furthermore, the emissions that would be generated from construction and operation of the proposed Project were evaluated in the air quality analysis discussed in Section 5.3, Air Quality, and the emissions generated from the proposed Project were determined to be less than significant. In addition, permitting requirements for individual hazardous material handlers or emitters, including enforcement of Public Resources Code Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
Item Page Number: 126
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
718 of 966
CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist
City of Menifee Menifee 27 Residential Project
106
Section 21151.4, would require evaluation and notification where potential material handling and emission could occur in proximity to existing schools. Therefore, the proposed Project would result in no impacts related to hazardous emissions within one -quarter mile of a school . Based on the foregoing analysis, no new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project beyond what was previously evaluated, identified, and disclosed in the GP EIR and the SP EIR. d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GP EIR and was determined to have a less-than-significant impact.
Government Code Section 65962.5 requires various state agencies to compile and update lists of hazardous materials sites that may pose a threat to public health or the environment. The California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) and the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) are responsible for maintaining databases of known hazardous waste sites and sites with confirmed releases. In addition, the California Department of Public Health is required to identify public drinking water wells th at contain detectable levels of organic contaminants, as specified in Health and Safety Code Section 116395. Local enforcement agencies, pursuant to Section 18051 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, must also compile lists of solid waste dis posal facilities where hazardous material migration is known to have occurred.
As described previously, the Phase I ESA prepared for the Project site conducted a records search for the listing of sites identified on federal, State, County, City, and tribal standard source environmental databases within an approximate minimum search radius of 1 mile from the Project site. The search was completed to determine if the Project site or any nearby properties are identified as having hazardous materials. The Phase I ESA record search determined that the Project site is not identified on a li st of hazardous materials sites (Appendix E). Several nearby properties were identified on the State Hazardous Waste Site list. The Phase I ESA determined none of the nearby listings constituted a REC for the Project site. As a result, impacts related to hazards from being located on or adjacent to a hazardous materials site would not occur from implementation of the proposed Project. Therefore, the proposed Project would result in no impacts related to hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. Based on the foregoing analysis, no new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project beyond what was previously evaluated, identified, and disclosed in the GP EIR and the SP EIR. e) For a project within an airport land use plan, or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GP EIR and was determined to have a less-than-significant impact.
The proposed Project is not located within two miles of an existing or proposed airport. The closest airport to the Project site is Perris Valley Airport, a privately owned and operated airport within the City of Perris, located approximately 3.5 linear miles to the northwest. According to the Riverside County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, t he Project site is not located within the Perris valley Airport Influence Area, which is governed by the Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) (Riverside County ALUC, 2010). The proposed Project is also located within Zone E of the March Air Reserve Base, located over 11 miles northwest of the Project site. Additionally, the proposed Project is not located in any existing noise contours for either the Perris Valley Airport or March Air Reserve Base. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in a safety hazard for people working on the site and no new or substantially greater impacts would occur with Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
Item Page Number: 127
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
719 of 966
CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist
City of Menifee Menifee 27 Residential Project
107
implementation of the proposed Project beyond what was previously evaluated, identified, and disclosed in the GP EIR and the SP EIR.
f) Impair implementation of an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GP EIR and was determined to have a less-than-significant impact.
The emergency response plan in effect in Riverside County is the Riverside County Operational Area Emergency Operations Plan. Additionally, the City of Menifee has adopted the Emergency Management program, which outlines requirements for emergency access and standards for emergency responses. Specific plans under this program include the Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) and the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP). Based on the GP Exhibit S -9, Evacuation Routes, Palomar Road is not designated as an evacuation route. However, SR-74, located north of the Project site is identified as an evacuation route.
Construction
The proposed construction activities, including equipment and supply staging and storage, would occur within the Project site, and would not restrict access of emergency vehicles to the Project site or adjacent areas. The installation of new driveways, connections to existing infrastructure systems, and related improvements would be implemented during construction of the proposed Project may require the temporary closure of portions of Palomar Road. However, construction activities would not require the entire closure of Palomar and any temporary lane closures needed for utility connections or driveway construction would be required through the City’s permitting process to implement appropriate measures to facilitate vehicle circulation, as included within construction permits. Thus, implementation of the proposed Project through the City’s permitting process would ensure existing regulations are adhered to and potential construction -related emergency access or evacuation impacts would be less than significant.
Operation
Direct access to the Project site would be provided via two new driveways from Palomar Road. Both driveways on Palomar Road would have a width of 50 -feet. The proposed Project would include the construction of private internal streets designed to meet local circulation, safety, and access standards. The internal street layouts offer a variety of configurations, with roadway widths ranging from 24 to 28 feet to accommodate two-way vehicle travel and emergency vehicle movements, depending on the location within the site. Project driveways and internal access would be consistent with the City’s permitting procedures to meet the City’s design standards, stated in the City of Menifee Development Code Chapter 9,160.050, to ensure adequate emergency access and evacuation. The proposed Project would also be required to provide fire suppression facilities (e.g., hydrants and sprinklers). The Office of the Fire Marshal and/or Engineering Department would review the development plans as part of the permitting procedures to ensure adequate emergency access pursuant to the requirements in Section 503 of the California Fire Code (Title 24, California Code of Regulations, Part 9). As such, the proposed Project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan, and impacts would be less than significant. Based on the foregoing analysis, no new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project beyond what was previously evaluated, identified, and disclosed in the GP EIR and the SP EIR. g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
Not Previously Analyzed in the Prior EIR. This topic was not evaluated in the GP EIR.
According to the CAL FIRE Hazard Severity Zone map, the Project site is not located within or near an area identified as a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (V HFHSZ) or a State Responsibility Area (SRA) (CAL Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
Item Page Number: 128
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
720 of 966
CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist
City of Menifee Menifee 27 Residential Project
108
FIRE, 2025). Additionally, Project implementation would require adherence to Chapter 8.20 , Fire Code, of the City Building and Construction Code which contains the adoption of the California Fire Code to reduce potential fire hazards. Additionally, applicable State and local standards include requirements such as fire- retardant features for new building c onstruction, roadway design and fire access standards, and general building considerations to reduce the potential threat of fire hazard. The Project would also be required to comply with guidelines from the Menifee Fire Department related to fire prevention and would be subject to review during the plan check process by the City’s Building and Safety Department. Further, the Project would be consistent with the buildout, which includes the development of neighboring sites in the foreseeable future that would further reduce wildfire risk due to reduction of open land. As shown below, the proposed project would also comply with Policies S-4.1 and S-4.17. Therefore, the proposed Project would result in no impacts related to exposing people or structures to a risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires.
Based on the foregoing analysis, no new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project beyond what was previously evaluated, identified, and disclosed in the GP EIR and the SP EIR.
Conclusion
Regarding the issue area of hazards and hazardous materials, the following findings can be made:
15183 Findings
1. No peculiar impacts to the Project or its site have been identified.
2. There are no significant effects that were not analyzed as part of the GP EIR.
3. There are no potentially significant off-site and/or cumulative impacts which were not discussed by the GP EIR.
4. No substantial new information has been identified which results in an impact which is more severe than anticipated by the GP EIR.
5. No Mitigation Measures contained within the GP EIR would be required because Project specific impacts would be less than significant with compliance to existing regulations. 15182 Findings
Based on the foregoing information, none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or Mitigation Measures exist regarding hazards and hazardous materials. There have not been ( 1) changes related to development of the Project site that involve new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which development of the Project site is undertaken that require major revisions of the certified EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or ( 3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or M itigation Measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the certified SP EIR was certified as completed.
Because none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts, State CEQA Guidelines 15182 also does not require additional environmental review and the Project is within the scope of the SP EIR.
Uniformly Applied Development Policies or Standards (DP/S) Menifee Municipal Code Chapter 8.04: Building Code. As listed previously in Section 5.7, Geology and Soils.
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
Item Page Number: 129
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
721 of 966
CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist
City of Menifee Menifee 27 Residential Project
109
Menifee Municipal Code Chapter 8.20: Fire Code. The proposed Project would be required to comply with the City of Menifee Municipal Code Section 8.20, which adopts by reference the most recent edition of the California Fire Code (Title 24, Part 9), including local amendments. These standards regulate fire prevention, emergency access, fire protection systems, and defensible space requirements. Compliance with the Fire Code ensures that adequate fire flow, access for emergency vehicles, and fire- resistant building features are incorporated into all new de velopment. The Fire Department reviews all development plans for consistency with these requirements as part of the plan check process and prior to permit issuance.
GP Goals and Policies
• Policy S-4.1: Require fire-resistant building construction materials, the use of vegetation control methods, and other construction and fire prevention features to reduce the hazard of wildland fire.
Ensure all new development and/or redevelopment in the LRA [Local Responsibility Area] and VHFHSZ will comply with the California Fire Code (CFC) and California Building Code (CBC). All new development within the LRA Very High Fire and High Fire zones will comply with Chapter 49 of the California Fire Code and Chapter 7A of the California Building Code. • Policy S-4.17: The City should ensure that all new development has adequate water, sewer, and fire protection consistent with the most current California Building Code and California Fire Code and will comply with the Board of Forestry and Fire Protection Fire Safe Regulations.
GP EIR Mitigation Measures
No Mitigation Measures are required.
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
Item Page Number: 130
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
722 of 966
CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist
City of Menifee Menifee 27 Residential Project
110
5.10. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Would the project:
Project
Impact
that is
Peculiar to
the Project
or the
Project Site
Significant
Impact not
Analyzed
as
Significant
in the Prior
EIR
Potentially
Significant
Off-site or
Cumulative
Impact not
Discussed
in the prior
EIR
Adverse
Impact
More Severe
based on
Substantial
New
Information
No New
Impact
Not
Previously
Analyzed
in the Prior
EIR
a) Violate any water quality
standards or waste
discharge requirements or
otherwise substantially
degrade surface or ground
water quality?
b) Substantially decrease
groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such
that the project may impede
sustainable groundwater
management of the basin?
c) Substantially alter the
existing drainage pattern of
the site or area, including
through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river or
through the addition of
impervious surfaces, in a
manner which would:
i) result in substantial
erosion or siltation on - or
off-site;
ii) substantially increase
the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner
which would result in
flooding on- or off-site;
iii) create or contribute
runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of
existing or planned
stormwater drainage
systems or provide
substantial additional
sources of polluted runoff;
or
iv) impede or redirect
flood flows?
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
Item Page Number: 131
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
723 of 966
CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist
City of Menifee Menifee 27 Residential Project
111
d) In flood hazard, tsunami,
or seiche zones, risk release
of pollutants due to project
inundation?
e) Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of a water
quality control plan or
sustainable groundwater
management plan?
Summary of Impacts Identified in the GP EIR
The GP EIR discussed impacts related to hydrology and water quality under Section 5.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, pages 5.10-1 through 5.10-26.
The GP EIR determined that development associated with GP buildout would be required to comply with the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permit issued by the Santa Ana RWQCB. The GP EIR discussed that the MS4 Permit requires infiltration, filtra tion, or treatment of urban runoff from the 85th - percentile storm events for specific development types, as well as updates to City ordinances, codes, and design standards to promote green infrastructure and low-impact development (LID). The GP EIR found that these requirements would ensure adequate stormwater management and that no substantial impacts to the City’s storm drainage capacity would occur.
The GP EIR discussed that buildout would not substantially reduce the amount of groundwater recharge occurring through natural infiltration. As such, the GP EIR found that impacts to groundwater recharge would be less than significant.
The GP EIR determined that implementation of the GP would result in the generation of pollutants during both construction and long -term operation of individual projects. However, the GP EIR discussed that implementation of standard BMPs, including erosion control, sediment control, wind erosion control, tracking control, and waste management and control , would reduce construction -related impacts. Additionally, all projects would be required to prepare WQMPs specifying BMPs for long -term operation to minimiz e stormwater pollution. The GP EIR found that impacts related to stormwater pollution would be less than significant.
The GP EIR determined that all future development would be subject to federal, State, and local requirements for construction within special flood hazard areas, including regulations for new structures, modifications to existing structures, and encroachments. The GP EIR found that compliance with these regulations would prevent exposure of people or structures to substantial flood risks, and impacts would be less than significant.
The GP EIR further determined that parts of the City lie within dam inundation areas associated with three dams at Diamond Valley Lake and the Lake Perris Dam. The GP EIR discussed that although GP buildout would increase the number of people and structures within these inundation zones, seismic strengthening of the dams and ongoing monitoring programs reduce the risk of dam failure. As such, the GP EIR found that dam inundation impacts would be less than significant.
Finally, the GP EIR determined that buildout of the GP would increase development in areas potentially subject to flooding from seiches or mudflows. The GP EIR discussed that future development would undergo site-specific CEQA review, including evaluation of flood risks and hazards. The GP EIR found that impa cts related to seiche or mudflow hazards would be less than significant.
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
Item Page Number: 132
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
724 of 966
CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist
City of Menifee Menifee 27 Residential Project
112
Summary of Impacts Identified in the SP EIR
The SP EIR discussed impacts related to hydrology and water quality under Section 4.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, pages 62 through 70.
The SP EIR concluded that while this runoff could contribute to incremental downstream water quality degradation, compliance with the NPDES construction permit would ensure that construction activities implement appropriate stormwater controls. The SP EIR further noted that future development would be subject to NPDES program implementation measures adopted by the County. Therefore, with adherence to existing regulations, impacts to water quality during construction or operation were determined to be less than significant.
The SP EIR found that implementation of the SP would increase surface runoff due to grading, construction of impervious surfaces, and irrigation. However, Mitigation Measures C.2.1 through C.2.5 were incorporated to control erosion and manage drainage, including positive drainage design and erosion -resistant vegetation. The SP also incorporated Master Drainage Plan (MDP) improvements and required on -site detention basins to manage stormwater flows and provide 100-year flood protection. Therefore, the SP EIR determined that impacts related to stormwater runoff and drainage would be less than significant.
The SP EIR did not analyze impacts related to tsunami, seiche, or release of pollutants due to inundation, or conflicts with a water quality control plan or a sustainable groundwater management plan. However, the EIR contained sufficient information about hydrology, water use, and stormwater infrastructure such that the potential for these impacts was reasonably discernible to the public through the exercise of reasonable diligence. The Menifee North Specific Plan Amendment No. 5, Addendum to the SP EIR, determined that impacts would be less than significant.
Project-Specific Impacts
This section is based on the following reports:
• Preliminary Hydrology Report, prepared by JLC Engineering and Consulting, Inc ., February 18, 2025.
Included as Appendix F.
• Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan, prepared by JLC Engineering and Consulting, Inc., February 18, 2025. Included as Appendix G.
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality?
No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GP EIR and was determined to be less than significant with compliance to regulatory requirements and City ordinances.
Construction
Receiving waters for the Project site are Salt Creek , Canyon Lake, San Jacinto River Reach 1, and Lake Elsinore. San Jacinto River Reach 1 and Salt Creek are not classified as impaired water bodies and are not placed on the 303(d) list. However, Canyon Lake is on the 303(d) list of impairments for nutrients and pathogens; and Lake Elsinore is on the 303(d) list of impairments for PCBs, toxicity, DDT, nutrients , and organic enrichment/low dissolved oxygen.
Construction of the proposed Project includes site preparation, grading , paving, and installation of new landscaping which would expose and loosen sediment and would have the potential to mix with stormwater and urban runoff and degrade surface and receiving water quality. If not managed properly, disturbed soils would be susceptible to high rates of erosion from wind and rain, resulting in sediment transport via storm water runoff from the construction site.
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
Item Page Number: 133
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
725 of 966
CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist
City of Menifee Menifee 27 Residential Project
113
Pollutants of concern during construction activity generally include sediment, trash, petroleum products, concrete water (dry and wet), sanitary waste, and chemicals. Each of these pollutants on its own or in combination with other pollutants can have a detrimental effect on water quality. They have the potential to be transported via stormwater runoff into nearby receiving waters and affect surface or groundwater quality. In addition, during construction, vehicles and equipment are prone to tracking soil from work areas to paved roadways, which could exacerbate sedimentation of receiving waters.
However, the proposed Project would be required to comply with the NPDES construction regulations and the SWRCB General Permit No. CAS000002, SWRCB Order Number 2009 -0009-DWQ, that requires development and implementation of a SWPPP. As part of the SWPPP, erosion and sediment control measures would be included to minimize potential pollutants from entering stormwater during Project construction. In addition, The SWPPP is required during the City’s plan check and permitting process . The SWPPP would include construction BMPs such as:
• Prompt revegetation of proposed landscaped/grassed swale areas; • Perimeter gravel bags or silt fences to prevent off-site transport of sediment; • Storm drain inlet protection (filter fabric gravel bags and straw wattles), with gravel bag check dams within paved roadways;
• Regular sprinkling of exposed soils to control dust during construction and soil binders for forecasted windstorms;
• Specifications for construction waste handling and disposal; • Contained equipment wash-out and vehicle maintenance areas; • Erosion control measures including soil binders, hydro mulch, geotextiles, and hydro seeding of disturbed areas ahead of forecasted storms;
• Construction of stabilized construction entry/exits to prevent trucks from tracking sediment on City roadways;
• Construction timing to minimize soil exposure to storm events; and • Training of subcontractors on general site housekeeping Adherence to the existing requirements and implementation of the appropriate BMPs as ensured through the City’s construction permitting process would ensure that the proposed Project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. Based on the foregoing analysis, no new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project beyond what was previously evaluated, identified, and disclosed in the GP EIR and the SP EIR.
Operation
Implementation of the proposed Project would develop 192 single-family detached residential units, which would introduce the potential for pollutants such as, chemicals from cleaners, pesticides and sediment from landscaping, trash and debris, and oil and grease from vehicles. These pollutants could potentially discharge into surface waters and result in degradation of water quality. However, the proposed Project would be required to comply with Municipal Code Chapter 15.01, Storm Water/Urban Runoff , which regulates and manages stormwater runoff in the City to protect water quality. Therefore, the proposed Project would be required to prepare and implement a WQMP with post-construction (or permanent) LID site design, source control, and treatment control BMPs. The LID site design would minimize impervious surfaces and provide infiltration of runoff into landscaped areas.
The source control BMPs would minimize the introduction of pollutants that may result in water quality impacts and treatment control BMPs would treat stormwater runoff. For the purposes of stormwater quality, the Project proposes a combination of on -site infiltration basins and underground drainage infrastructure designed to comply with applicable municipal stormwater management standards. The proposed Project Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
Item Page Number: 134
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
726 of 966
CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist
City of Menifee Menifee 27 Residential Project
114
would construct two infiltration basins: the first basin would be located in the southwestern portion of the site and would encompass a 92,039 SF lot area; the second basin would be located in the northwestern corner of the site and would encompass a 41,35 8 SF lot area. Proposed stormwater facilities would be designed and sized to manage runoff from both the 85th-percentile storm event for water quality treatment, and the 2-year and 100 -year storm events for drainage and flood control purposes . Additionally, proposed improvements would ensure that post-development runoff rates and volumes do not exceed pre-development conditions (Appendix F). The proposed drainage system would also remove coarse sediment, trash, and pollutants (i.e., sediments, nutrients, heavy metals, oxygen demanding substances, oil and grease, bacteria, and pesticides).
With implementation of the operational source and treatment control BMPs that are outlined in the preliminary WQMP (Appendix G) that would be reviewed and approved by the City during the permitting and approval process, potential pollutants would be reduced to the maximum extent feasible, and implementation of the proposed Project would not substantially degrade water quality. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and no new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project beyond what was previously evaluated, identified, and disclosed in the GP EIR and the SP EIR.
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GP EIR and was determined to be less than significant.
Groundwater recharge is facilitated by percolation of stormwater through pervious surface areas to groundwater resources. Increasing the imperviousness of an area could interfere with groundwater recharge capabilities of a n area . The site is currently vacant and undeveloped. It is primarily vegetated with unplanned, non-native grasses, along with sparse shrubs and a few ornamental trees. T herefore, the site is completely pervious. As described in the WQMP, the Project site in the existing condition is 0 percent impervious while the proposed Project condition would be 65 percent impervious (Appendix G). Therefore, the proposed Project would result in an increase of impervious surface compared to the existing conditions.
As described previously, the proposed Project would include a combination of on-site infiltration basins and underground drainage infrastructure to manage stormwater in compliance with applicable municipal standards. Two infiltration basins are proposed: one in the southwestern portion of the site and another in the northwestern corner, both designed to capture and treat stormwater runoff before discharge. In addition, the proposed Project includes approximately 151,491 SF of landscaped area, representing 13 percent of the total site, that would also provide stormwater infiltration on-site. As a result, the proposed Project would not decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the proposed Project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin. Therefore, the proposed Project would result in less -than-significant impacts to groundwater supplies or recharge. Based on the foregoing analysis, no new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project beyond what was previously evaluated, identified, and disclosed in the GP EIR and the SP EIR. c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would:
v. Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GP EIR and was determined to be less than significant with compliance to regulatory requirements and City ordinances.
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
Item Page Number: 135
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
727 of 966
CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist
City of Menifee Menifee 27 Residential Project
115
Construction
Construction of the proposed Project would require grading and excavation of soils, which would loosen sediment and could result in erosion or siltation. However, construction of the proposed Project requires City approval of a SWPPP prepared by a Qualified SWPPP Developer. The SWPPP is required for plan check and approval by the City’s Public Works Department, prior to provision of permits for the proposed Project, and would include construction BMPs to reduce erosion and siltation.
Typical BMPs for erosion or siltation include use of silt fencing, fiber rolls, gravel bags, stabilized construction driveway, and stockpile management. Adherence to the existing requirements and implementation of the required BMPs per the permitting process would ensure that erosion and siltation associated with construction activities would be minimized, and impacts would be less than significant.
Operation
During operation of the proposed Project the remaining pervious areas on site would be landscaped.
Thus, implementation of the proposed Project would not generate soils that could erode. Additionally, the proposed drainage infrastructure would slow down the rate of runoff and the on-site storm drain system would retain stormwater, which would also limit the potential for erosion or siltation. As described previously, the proposed Project is required to implement a WQMP, included as Appendix G, that provides operational BMPs to ensure that operation of the proposed Project would not result in erosion or siltation. As a result, stormwater runoff and the potential for erosion and siltation would not increase with implementation of the proposed Project, and impacts would be less than significant. Based on the foregoing analysis, no new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project beyond what was previously evaluated, identified, and disclosed in the GP EIR and the SP EIR. vi. Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on- or off-site?
No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GP EIR and was determined to be less than significant with compliance to regulatory requirements and City ordinances.
As discussed in the previous responses, construction of the proposed Project would include activities that could temporarily alter the existing drainage pattern of the site, for example by constructing foundations and paved areas, and could result in flooding on- or off-site if drainage is not properly controlled. However, as described previously, implementation of the Project requires a SWPPP that would address site-specific drainage issues related to construction of the Project and include BMPs to elimina te the potential of flooding or alteration of a drainage pattern during construction activities. This includes diverting runoff from impervious surfaces to existing storm drains and vegetated areas, when possible, to promote infiltration and controlling th e perimeter of site using sandbags, berms, and silt fencing. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Also, as discussed in the Hydrology Report, drainage runoff from the Project site would be adequately handled by the proposed Project’s drainage system. On -site drainage would be conveyed to two infiltration basins for treatment before being discharged . Proposed storm drain facilities would be designed to mitigate post -development flows to match pre-development conditions for the 1-hour, 3-hour, 6-hour, and 24-hour duration events associated with the 2 -year, 5-year, and 10-year storm return frequencies. These improvements would ensure that the proposed Project does not increase downstream runoff or contribute to localized flooding. Therefore, the proposed Project would result in less than significant on- or off-site flooding impacts. Based on the foregoing analysis, no new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
Item Page Number: 136
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
728 of 966
CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist
City of Menifee Menifee 27 Residential Project
116
proposed Project beyond what was previously evaluated, identified, and disclosed in the GP EIR and the SP EIR.
vii. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GP EIR and was determined to be less than significant with compliance to regulatory requirements and City ordinances.
As described in the previous responses, the proposed Project would be required to implement a SWPPP during construction that would implement BMPs, such as the use of silt fencing, fiber rolls, and gravel bags, that would ensure that runoff would not substantially increase during construction.
Additionally, the proposed Project would increase the amount of impervious surfaces on the Project site (from 0 percent to 65 percent). Although the proposed Project would result in an increase in impervious surfaces, the design of the on-site storm drain system would ensure that peak flow rates are managed in accordance with applicable MS4 permit requirements. As such, the proposed Project is not expected to exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems. As discussed previously, Project operations would be subject to compliance with the NPDES permit and the City of Menifee Municipal Code Chapter 15.01, which regulates stormwater and urban runoff.
Compliance with these requirements would ensure that long-term water quality impacts remain less than significant. Therefore, development of the proposed Project is not anticipated to create or contribute runoff that would exceed the capacity of stormwater systems or result in substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. Based on the foregoing analysis, no new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project beyond what was previously evaluated, identified, and disclosed in the GP EIR and the SP EIR. viii. Impede or redirect flood flows?
No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GP EIR and was determined to be less than significant with compliance to existing regulations.
According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) Panel 06065C2060H and as shown in Figure 5.9-3, Flood Zones, of the City of Menifee GP EIR, the Project site is located within Zone X , an area of minimal flood hazard (FEMA, 2024). Therefore, with compliance with the City Municipal Code, the proposed Project would not impede or redirect flood flows, and impacts would be less than significant. Based on the foregoing analysis, no new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project beyond what was previously evaluated, identified, and disclosed in the GP EIR and the SP EIR. d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GP EIR and was determined to be less than significant with compliance to existing regulations.
As discussed above, proposed Project is located within Zone X, an area of minimal flood hazard (FEMA, 2024). Lake Perris, located 6.5 linear miles to the north, and Diamond Valley Lake, 7 linear miles to the southeast, are the closest major waterbodies with the potential to cause inundation in the Project Area .
According to the California Department of Water Resources (CDWR) Inundation Maps, the Project site is not located within a damn inundation zone and would not be subject to inundation from failure of a nearby dam (CDWR, 2025). Additionally, a SWPPP would be prepared and implemented as part of the Project to ensure pollutants are contained and would not be released from the Project site during construction. Post construction stormwater infrastructure would ensure capture and treatment of storm flows. Therefore, implementation of Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
Item Page Number: 137
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
729 of 966
CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist
City of Menifee Menifee 27 Residential Project
117
the proposed Project would not risk the release of pollutants due to Project inundation in a flood hazard zone.
Tsunamis are generally caused by earthquakes, sea floor landslides, rock falls, and exploding volcanic islands. The Project site is approximately 34 linear miles inland from the Pacific Ocean shoreline. Based on the inland location of the site, the Project site would not be affected by tsunamis. Impacts related to tsunamis would not occur.
A seiche is the sloshing of a closed body of water from earthquake shaking. Seiches are of concern relative to water storage facilities because inundation from a seiche can occur if the wave overflows a containment wall, such as the wall of a reservoir, water storage tank, dam, or other artificial body of water. As described above, the Project site is located within the vicinity of two water bodies. Lake Perris, located 6.5 linear miles to the north, and Diamond Valley Lake, 7 linear miles to the southeast ; however, due to the Project site’s location, a potential seiche at either lake would not inundate the Project site and would not result in the risk of release of pollutants. Therefore, the proposed Project would not be impacted by a seiche. Overall, the proposed Project would result in no impact related to release of pollutants due to flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones. Based on the foregoing analysis, no new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project beyond what was previously evaluated, identified, and disclosed in the GP EIR and the SP EIR.
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GP EIR and was determined to be less than significant with compliance to existing regulations.
The Project site is located within the jurisdiction of the Santa Ana RWQCB, which sets water quality standards as part of a Water Quality Control Plan. The One Water One Watershed (OWOW) program was developed in effort by the Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority (SAWPA), mandated to manage water quality within the Santa Ana River Watershed for multiple beneficial purposes, and is the result of an integrated planning process convened for the management of the Santa Ana River Watershed. The OWOW program integrates water resources management with various disciplines such as land use planning, flood control, and natural resource management. Through compliance with the applicable NPDES permits, the proposed Project would be consistent with the OWOW program developed for the region. The Project applicant would be required to prepare and implement a SWPPP during Project construction to avoid potential construction -related water quality impacts per the Construct ion General Permit (Menifee’s Municipal Code Chapter 15.01). The Project applicant would also be required to prepare and implement a WQMP to treat and capture post-construction stormwater runoff. Through implementation of the applicable construction and post -construction permitting requirements, the Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan.
Pursuant to the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA), each high and medium priority basin, as identified by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR), is required to have a Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA) that is responsible for g roundwater management and development of a Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP). Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD) Board of Directors is the GSA for the San Jacinto Groundwater Basin (west) that underlies the Project site and is responsible for development and implementation of a GSP. Based on the 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) for EMWD, it is anticipated that existing and future water entitlements from groundwater, surface water, and purchased or imported water sources, plus recycling and c onservation, would be sufficient to meet the forecast demand for EMWD's entire service area (Water Systems Consulting, Inc., 2021) . As discussed above, the proposed Project’s components are not anticipated to obstruct groundwater facilities as groundwater facilities are not planned by EMWD for this Project. In addition, the proposed on -site storm Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
Item Page Number: 138
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
730 of 966
CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist
City of Menifee Menifee 27 Residential Project
118
drain system is sized to adequately accommodate increased stormwater flows from the Project area and would maintain the existing drainage pattern of the site. Furthermore, there are no groundwater wells on the Project site, and no wells are proposed as part of the Project. The Project would not involve direct withdrawals of groundwater, nor would it interfere with groundwater recharge. Therefore, the proposed Project would not conflict with a sustainable groundwater management plan and impacts would be less than significant. Based on the foregoing analysis, no new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project beyond what was previously evaluated, identified, and disclosed in the GP EIR and the SP EIR.
Conclusion
Regarding the issue area of hydrology and water quality, the following findings can be made:
15183 Findings
1. No peculiar impacts to the Project or its site have been identified.
2. There are no significant effects that were not analyzed as part of the GP EIR.
3. There are no potentially significant off-site and/or cumulative impacts which were not discussed by the GP EIR.
4. No substantial new information has been identified which results in an impact which is more severe than anticipated by the GP EIR.
5. No new Mitigation Measures would be required because Project specific impacts would be less than significant with compliance to existing regulations.
15182 Findings
Based on the foregoing information, none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or Mitigation Measures exist regarding hydrology and water quality.
There have not been (1) changes related to development of the Project site that involve new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respec t to the circumstances under which development of the Project site is undertaken that require major revisions of the certified EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or Mitigation Measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the certified SP EIR was certified as completed.
Because none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts, State CEQA Guidelines 15182 also does not require additional environmental review and the Project is within the scope of the SP EIR.
Uniformly Applied Development Policies or Standards (DP/S) Menifee Municipal Code Chapter 15.01, Storm Water/Urban Runoff: As listed previously in Section 5.7, Geology and Soils.
Menifee Municipal Code Section 15.01.015, Reduction of Pollutants in Stormwater: New development or redevelopment projects shall control stormwater runoff so as to prevent any deterioration of water quality that would impair subsequent or competing uses of the water. Furthermore, all construction work in the City is regulated by the State Water Resources Control Board in a manner pursuant to and consistent with applicable requirements contained in the General Permit No. CAS000002, State Water Resources Control Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
Item Page Number: 139
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
731 of 966
CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist
City of Menifee Menifee 27 Residential Project
119
Board Order Number 2009 -0009-DWQ. Documentation on the effectiveness of BMP’s implemented to reduce the discharge of pollutants to the MS4 shall be required.
Menifee Municipal Code Chapter 15.04, Landscape Water Use Efficiency Requirements : This section of the City of Menifee Municipal Code establishes water efficient landscape requirements and encourages the use of reclaimed water. Several key sections include the following:
• PMC Section 14.04.050 establishes documentation requirements for applicants proposing any new or rehabilitated landscape.
• PMC Section 14.04.060 contains irrigation and maintenance requirements. • PMC Section 14.04.070 regulates compliance and plan submittal process.
GP Goals and Policies
None.
GP EIR Mitigation Measures
No Mitigation Measures are required.
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
Item Page Number: 140
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
732 of 966
CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist
City of Menifee Menifee 27 Residential Project
120
5.11. LAND USE AND PLANNING
Would the project:
Project
Impact that
is Peculiar
to the
Project or
the Project
Site
Significant
Impact not
Analyzed
as
Significant
in the Prior
EIR
Potentially
Significant
Off-site or
Cumulative
Impact not
Discussed
in the prior
EIR
Adverse
Impact
More Severe
based on
Substantial
New
Information
No New
Impact
Not
Previously
Analyzed
in the Prior
EIR
a) Physically divide an
established community?
b) Cause a significant
environmental impact due to
a conflict with any land use
plan, policy, or regulation
adopted for the purpose of
avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
Summary of Impacts Identified in the GP EIR
The GP EIR discussed impacts related to land use and planning under Section 5.10, Land Use and Planning, pages 5.10-1 through 5.10-10.
The GP EIR determined that implementation of the GP would not divide an established community. The GP includes policies aimed at preserving and enhancing existing primarily residential neighborhoods by promoting compatible infill development and open space preservation. The Land Use Element includes policies focused on land use compatibility to minimize potential conflicts between new and existing uses. The GP EIR concluded that no impact would occur related to the physical division of communities.
The GP EIR also determined that the GP is consistent with applicable plans adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating environmental effects. As the City's guiding framework for long -term growth and development, the GP was prepared in accordance with State planning law and is intended to serve as a blueprint for future planning decisions. The GP EIR found that implementation of the GP would not result in conflicts with adopted environmental plans and that impacts would be less than significant.
Summary of Impacts Identified in the SP EIR
The SP EIR discussed impacts related to land use and planning under Section 4.11, Land Use and Planning, pages 71 through 72.
The SP EIR did not analyze whether implementation of the SP would result in the physical division of an established community, or whether it would result in a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. However, the SP EIR contained sufficient information about the proposed land use designations, development patterns, and applicable planning context such that the potential for thes e impacts was reasonably discernible to the public through the exercise of reasonable diligence. The Menifee North Specific Plan Amendment No. 5, Addendum to SP EIR, determined that impacts would be less than significant.
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
Item Page Number: 141
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
733 of 966
CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist
City of Menifee Menifee 27 Residential Project
121
Project-Specific Impacts
a) Physically divide an established community?
No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GP EIR and was determined to have no impact.
The physical division of an established community could occur if a major road (expressway or freeway, for example) were built through an existing community or neighborhood, or if a major development were built which was inconsistent with the land uses in the community such that it divided the community. The environmental effects caused by such a facility or land use could include lack of, or disruption of, access to services, schools, or shopping areas. It might also include the creation of blighted buildings or areas due to the division of the community.
The Project site is currently vacant and undeveloped and is surrounded b y existing roadways and other existing residential and commercial uses. The proposed Project would be consistent with the land use and zoning designations for the site. In addition, the proposed Project does not involve development of roadways or other infrastructure that could divide a community. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not physically divide an established community, no new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project beyond what was previously evaluated, identified, and disclosed in the GP EIR and the SP EIR.
b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GP EIR and was determined to be less than significant.
The Project site is located within the Menifee North Specific Plan area and is designated as Planning Area 7A (Medium-High Density) and Planning Area 7B (High Density) . The proposed Project would develop the site with 192 new single family detached residential units and related site improvements that would consistent with the existing land use designation. As described in Section 5.1, Aesthetics, the proposed Project has been designed in accordance with the development standards listed in Title 9, Planning and Zoning , of the City’s Zoning Ordinance and would be consistent with the applicable development standards of the Specific Plan designation, as shown in Table AES-1. Furthermore, the proposed Project does not involve conflict with any land use related policy, as detailed throughout this Exemption Checklist. Therefore, impacts related to conflict with a policy adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect would not occur and no new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project beyond what was previously evaluated, identified, and disclosed in the GP EIR and the SP EIR.
Conclusion
Regarding the issue area of land use and planning, the following findings can be made:
15183 Findings
1. No peculiar impacts to the Project or its site have been identified.
2. There are no significant effects that were not analyzed as part of the GP EIR.
3. There are no potentially significant off-site and/or cumulative impacts which were not discussed by the GP EIR.
4. No substantial new information has been identified which results in an impact which is more severe than anticipated by the GP EIR.
5. No Mitigation Measures related to land use and planning are contained within the GP EIR. Additionally, no mitigation would be required because Project specific impacts would be less than significant.
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
Item Page Number: 142
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
734 of 966
CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist
City of Menifee Menifee 27 Residential Project
122
15182 Findings
Based on the foregoing information, none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or Mitigation Measures exist regarding land use and planning. There have not been (1) changes related to development of the Project site that involve new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which development of the Project site is undertaken that require major revisions of the certified EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or Mitigation Measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the certified SP EIR was certified as completed.
Because none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts, State CEQA Guidelines 15182 also does not require additional environmental review and the Project is within the scope of the SP EIR.
Uniformly Applied Development Policies or Standards (DP/S) None.
GP Goals and Policies
None.
GP EIR Mitigation Measures
No Mitigation Measures related to land use and planning are included in the GP EIR.
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
Item Page Number: 143
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
735 of 966
CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist
City of Menifee Menifee 27 Residential Project
123
5.12. MINERAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
Project
Impact that
is Peculiar
to the
Project or
the Project
Site
Significant
Impact not
Analyzed
as
Significant
in the Prior
EIR
Potentially
Significant
Off-site or
Cumulative
Impact not
Discussed
in the prior
EIR
Adverse
Impact
More Severe
based on
Substantial
New
Information
No New
Impact
Not
Previously
Analyzed
in the Prior
EIR
a) Result in the loss of
availability of a known
mineral resource that would
be of value to the region and
the residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of
availability of a locally
important mineral resource
recovery site delineated on a
local general plan, specific
plan, or other land use plan?
Summary of Impacts Identified in the GP EIR
The GP EIR discussed impacts related to mineral resources under Section 5.11, Mineral Resources, pages
5.11-1 through 5.11-6.
The GP EIR determined that there are no known significant mineral resources designated within the City. As such, implementation of the GP would not result in the loss of availability of regionally or locally important mineral resources. The GP EIR concluded that no impact to mineral resources would occur.
Summary of Impacts Identified in the SP EIR
The SP EIR discussed impacts related to mineral resources under Section 4.12, Mineral Resources, pages 73 through 74.
The SP EIR did not identify any mineral resources within the SP area. It also noted that the Mineral Resources Element of the GP does not indicate the presence of such resources on -site. Additionally, the SP EIR stated that the SP does not propose any future land uses that would impact mineral resources in Riverside County.
Therefore, the SP EIR determined that no impacts to mineral resources would occur.
Project-Specific Impacts
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on the general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GP EIR and was determined to have no impact.
As stated in the GP EIR, there are no known mineral resources within the City of Menifee. In addition, the GP EIR states that in order to protect the availability of mineral resources of value, the California Department Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
Item Page Number: 144
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
736 of 966
CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist
City of Menifee Menifee 27 Residential Project
124
of Conservation identifies sites to which continuing access is important to satisfying mineral production needs of the region and the State. The relative importance of potential mineral resource sites is indicated by inclusion in one of four mineral resource zones (MRZ):
• MRZ-1: No mineral resources;
• MRZ-2: Significant resource area (quality and quantity known; • MRZ-3: Significant resource area (quality and quantity unknown); • MRZ-4: No information (applies primarily to high-value ores).
The California Department of Conservation is primarily interested in preservation of access to significant resources areas included in MRZ-2. Based on the GP EIR Figure 5.11-1, Mineral Resource Zones, the Project site is designated as an Urban Area. Due to existing development, Urban Areas are not classified as mineral resource zones. Therefore, there are no impacts related to loss of known mineral resources or mineral resource recovery sites would occur. Based on the foregoing analysis, no new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project beyond what was previously evaluated, identified, and disclosed in the GP EIR and the SP EIR.
Conclusion
Regarding the issue area of mineral resources, the following findings can be made:
15183 Findings
1. No peculiar impacts to the Project or its site have been identified.
2. There are no significant effects that were not analyzed as part of the GP EIR.
3. There are no potentially significant off-site and/or cumulative impacts which were not discussed by the GP EIR.
4. No substantial new information has been identified which results in an impact which is more severe than anticipated by the GP EIR.
5. No Mitigation Measures related to mineral resources are contained within the GP EIR. Additionally, no Mitigation Measures would be required because Project specific impacts would not occur. 15182 Findings
Based on the foregoing information, none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or Mitigation Measures exist regarding mineral resources. There have not been (1) changes related to development of the Project site that involve new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which development of the Project site is undertaken that require major revisions of the certified EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or M itigation Measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the certified SP EIR was certified as completed.
Because none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts, State CEQA Guidelines 15182 also does not require additional environmental review and the Project is within the scope of the SP EIR.
Uniformly Applied Development Policies or Standards (DP/S) None.
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
Item Page Number: 145
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
737 of 966
CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist
City of Menifee Menifee 27 Residential Project
125
GP Goals and Policies
None.
GP EIR Mitigation Measures
No Mitigation Measures related to mineral resources are included in the GP EIR.
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
Item Page Number: 146
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
738 of 966
CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist
City of Menifee Menifee 27 Residential Project
126
5.13. NOISE
Would the project result in:
Project
Impact
that is
Peculiar to
the Project
or the
Project Site
Significant
Impact not
Analyzed
as
Significant
in the Prior
EIR
Potentially
Significant
Off-site or
Cumulativ
e Impact
not
Discussed
in the prior
EIR
Adverse
Impact
More
Severe
based on
Substantia
l New
Informatio
n
No New
Impact
Not
Previously
Analyzed
in the Prior
EIR
a) Generation of a
substantial temporary or
permanent increase in
ambient noise levels in the
vicinity of the project in
excess of standards
established in the local
general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies?
b) Generation of excessive
ground borne vibration or
ground borne noise levels?
c) For a project located
within the vicinity of a private
airstrip or an airport land
use plan or, where such a
plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport,
would the project expose
people residing or working in
the project area to excessive
noise levels?
Summary of Impacts Identified in the GP EIR
The GP EIR discussed impacts related to noise under Section 5.12, Noise, pages 5.11-1 through 5.40.
The GP EIR found that implementation of the GP would result in long-term increases in traffic and associated noise. While the increase in noise would occur incrementally over time, cumulative increases from full GP buildout would result in substantial ambient noise increases at existing sensitive uses. No feasible Mitigation Measures were identified, and impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.
The GP EIR determined that implementation of the GP would not introduce noise-sensitive uses that would be incompatible with operations at March Air Reserve Base, Perris Valley Airport, French Valley Airport, or the San Jacinto Branch Line (Perris Valley Line). Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
The GP EIR discussed that noise-sensitive land uses could be exposed to transportation noise in excess of City compatibility standards. However, the Noise Element of the GP includes several policies that would reduce noise exposure to sensitive land uses. Policies N1.2, N1.11, and N1.17 require new projects to comply with local and State noise standards, discourage development in areas exceeding 65 dBA CNEL without Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
Item Page Number: 147
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
739 of 966
CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist
City of Menifee Menifee 27 Residential Project
127
mitigation, and prohibit new noise -sensitive uses within the 65 dBA CNEL contours of public -use or military airports. With implementation of these policies, impacts would be less than significant.
The GP EIR discusse d that stationary noise sources from new development, such as HVAC units, landscape maintenance, and loading docks, would not substantially increase the ambient noise environment. Compliance with the City’s Noise Ordinance, which limits noise levels at property lines, would reduce potential impacts.
The GP EIR concluded that stationary-source noise impacts would be less than significant.
The GP EIR determined that temporary noise increases would occur during construction of new development associated with buildout. However, the City’s Municipal Code restricts construction to daytime hours, and the GP’s Noise Element includes policies to minimize temporary and periodic increases in ambient noise.
Construction noise impacts would therefore be less than significant.
The GP EIR found that groundborne vibration from operations along the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway (BNSF) line would not exceed vibration thresholds for new vibration -sensitive land uses. Existing freight operations along the line are infrequent, and vibration levels at typical development setbacks would be below applicable thresholds. Impacts would be less than significant.
Summary of Impacts Identified in the SP EIR
The SP EIR discussed impacts related to mineral resources under Section 4.13, Noise, pages 75 through 77.
The SP EIR concluded that construction noise would be short-term and less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure MM-C.5.1, which limited construction near residential uses to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding weekends and federal holidays.
The SP EIR identified that traffic associated with the SP could increase noise levels above 65 CNEL along Antelope Road, Mapes Road, and Route 74, resulting in significant and unavoidable impacts to existing residences. Similarly, residences along Menifee Road, Briggs Road, and Route 74 were also projected to experience significant and unavoidable traffic-related noise impacts. The SP EIR did not evaluate vibration impacts. However, it contained sufficient land use policy information such that, through reasonable diligence, potential effects related to community division could be understood.
Lastly, based on the County of Riverside Airport Noise Impact Area Map, the SP EIR found that portions of the SP (Planning Areas 4, 5, 6, and 9) were located within the 65 CNEL noise contour for March Air Force Base, representing a significant impact.
Project-Specific Impacts
This section was prepared using the following report:
• Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis, prepared by LSA, July 2025. Included as Appendix H.
Existing Noise Levels
As detailed in the Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis (Appendix N), t wo long-term (24-hour) noise level measurements were taken at locations near the Project site to identify the existing ambient noise level environment. Table N -1 presents a summary of the measured hourly and maximum noise levels and calculated community noise equivalent level (CNEL) from the long-term noise level measurements. As shown in Table N-1, calculated CNEL levels reached 69.9 dBA CNEL. Hourly noise levels at surrounding uses are as low as 50.3 dBA Leq during nighttime hours and 53.9 dBA Leq during daytime hours.
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
Item Page Number: 148
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
740 of 966
CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist
City of Menifee Menifee 27 Residential Project
128
Table N-1: Summary of Long-Term 24-Hour Ambient Noise Level Measurements Site No. Location
Daytime
Noise
Levels1
(dBA Leq)
Evening
Noise
Levels2
(dBA Lmax)
Nighttime
Noise
Levels3
(dBA Leq)
Average
Daily Noise
Levels2
(dBA CNEL)
LT-1
North of 28390 SR-74, Menifee, CA at the
south side of the project site.
Approximately 420 feet north of the SR-
74 centerline.
53.9 – 58.3 54.2 – 58.7 50.3 – 56.3 61.0
LT-2
Southeast of 28471 Cider Street,
Romoland, CA near the northeast corner of
the project site. Approximately 40 feet
east of the Palomar Road centerline.
65.4 – 75.2 63.9 – 67.2 53.2 – 64.6 69.9
1 Daytime Noise Levels = noise levels during the hours from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. 2 Evening Noise Levels = noise levels during the hours from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. 3 Nighttime Noise Levels = noise levels during the hours from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.
CNEL = Community Noise Equivalent Level,
dBA = A-weighted decibels
ft = foot/feet
Leq = equivalent continuous sound level
Source: Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis (Appendix H).
City of Menifee Municipal Code Noise Standards
Section 9.210.060(B)(10) of the City’s Development Code exempts sound emanating from heating and air conditioning equipment in proper repair.
Section 9.210.060(C) of the City’s Development Code allows exceptions to be requested from the standards set forth in Section 9.210.060 of the City’s Development Code and may be characterized as construction -related, single-event, or continuous-events exceptions:
• Private construction projects, with or without a building permit, located 0.25 mi or more from an inhabited dwelling.
• Private construction projects, with or without a building permit, located within 0.25 mi from an inhabited dwelling, shall be permitted Monday through Saturday, except on nationally recognized holidays, 6:30 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., or as specified in Section 8.01.010 of the Municipal Code. There shall be no construction permitted on Sunday or nationally recognized holidays unless approval is obtained from the City Building Official or City Engineer.
• Construction-related exceptions. If construction occurs during off hours or exceeds noise thresholds, an application for a construction -related exception shall be made using the temporary use application provided by the Community Development Director in Ch apter 9.110 of the City’s Development Code.
For construction activities on Sunday or nationally recognized holidays, Section 8.01.010 of the Municipal Code shall prevail.
Section 9.210.060(D) of the City’s Development Code prohibits the creation of any sound on any property that causes the exterior and interior sound level on any other occupied property to exceed the noise standards shown in Table C (Stationary Source Noise Standards) above.
Section 9.210.070 of the City’s Development Code requires that all uses shall be operated so as not to generate vibration discernible without instruments by the average person while on or beyond the lot upon which the source is located or within an adjoining enclosed space if more than one establishment occupies a structure. Vibrat ion caused by motor vehicles, trains, and temporary construction is exempted from this standard.
City of Menifee General Plan
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
Item Page Number: 149
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
741 of 966
CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist
City of Menifee Menifee 27 Residential Project
129
Table N-2: City of Menifee Exterior Stationary Noise Standard Noise Level Descriptor Period Interior Exterior
Residential 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM 40 Leq (10-minute) 45 dBA Leq (10-minute) 7:00 AM to 10:00 PM 55 Leq (10-minute) 65 dBA Leq (10-minute) Source: Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis (Appendix H) dBA = A-weighted decibel
Leq = equivalent continuous sound level
Vibration Standards
Vibration standards included in the Caltrans Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual are used in this analysis for ground-borne vibration impacts on human annoyance and building damage. The criteria for environmental impact from ground-borne vibration are based on the maximum levels for a single event and the RMS vibration level. Table N-4 provides the criteria for assessing the potential for interference or annoyance from vibration levels in a building.
Table N-3: Vibration Criteria for Potential Vibration Annoyance Human Response Vibration Level (RMS in/sec)
Barely perceptible 0.01
Distinctly perceptible 0.04
Strongly perceptible 0.10
Severe 0.40
Source: Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis (Appendix H) in/sec = inch/inches per second
RMS = root-mean-square
Table N -5 lists the potential vibration building damage criteria associated with construction activities, as suggested in the Caltrans Manual. Caltrans guidelines show that a vibration level of up to 0.25 in/sec in PPV is considered safe for historic and some old buildings and a vibration level of up to 0.5 in/sec in PPV is considered safe for newer residential structures and modern industrial or commercial buildings and would not result in any construction vibration damage.
Table N-4: Vibration Damage Criteria
Structure / Condition PPV (in/sec)
Extremely fragile historic buildings, ruins, ancient monuments 0.08 Fragile buildings 0.10
Historic and some old buildings 0.25
Older residential structures 0.30
New residential structures 0.50
Modern industrial / commercial buildings 0.50
Source: Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis (Appendix H) in/sec = inch/inches per second
PPV = peak particle velocity
a) Generation of substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
No New Impact . This topic was evaluated in the GP EIR and was determined to have a significant and unavoidable impact with adherence to the City’s Municipal Code and GP Policies.
Construction
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
Item Page Number: 150
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
742 of 966
CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist
City of Menifee Menifee 27 Residential Project
130
Construction of the proposed Project is anticipated to last approximately 26 months and would involve site preparation, grading, building construction, paving and architectural coatings. These activities would require the use of heavy equipment that would increase noise levels in the immediate area. However, the noise from construction activity would fluctuate depending on the particular type, number, and duration of use of construction equipment. Additionally, noise associated with construction of the Project would be temporary in nature and would cease upon completion of the Project.
Table N-4 below lists typical construction equipment noise levels recommended for noise impact assessments, based on a distance of 50 feet between the equipment and a noise receptor. As shown, noise levels generated by heavy construction equipment can range from app roximately 73 dBA to 95 dBA when measured at 50 feet.
Table N-4: Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels
Equipment Description Acoustical Use Factor1
(percent)
Maximum Noise Level (Lmax) at
50 feet2
Auger Drill Rig 20 84
Backhoes 40 80
Compactor (ground) 20 80
Compressor 40 80
Cranes 16 85
Dozers 40 85
Dump Trucks 40 84
Excavators 40 85
Flat Bed Trucks 40 84
Forklift 20 85
Front-end Loaders 40 80
Graders 40 85
Impact Pile Drivers 20 95
Jackhammers 20 85
Paver 50 77
Pickup Truck 40 55
Pneumatic Tools 50 85
Pumps 50 77
Rock Drills 20 85
Rollers 20 85
Scrapers 40 85
Tractors 40 84
Trencher 50 80
Welder 40 73
Note: Noise levels reported in this table are rounded to the nearest whole number 1 Usage factor is the percentage of time during a construction noise operation that a piece of construction equipment is operating at full power.
2 Maximum noise levels were developed based on Specification 721.560 from the Central Artery/Tunnel program to be consistent with the City of Boston’s Noise Code for the “Big Dig” project.
Lmax = maximum instantaneous sound level
Source: Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis (Appendix H)
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
Item Page Number: 151
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
743 of 966
CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist
City of Menifee Menifee 27 Residential Project
131
The nearest sensitive receptors to the site are the existing residential uses located approximately 15 feet west and 35 feet north of the Project site boundary. Table N-5 below shows the nearest sensitive uses to the Project site, their distance from the center of construction activities, and composite noise levels expected during construction.
Table N-5: Construction Noise Levels at the Nearby Sensitive Receptors Receptor (Location) Composite Noise Level
(dBA Leq) at 50 ft1 Distance (ft) Composite Noise
Level (dBA Leq)
Residential Uses (North)
88 530 68
Church (South) 570 67
Museum (South) 590 67
Residential Uses (West) 610 67
1The composite construction noise level represents the site preparation and grading phases, which are expected to result in the greatest noise level as compared to other phases. dBA = A-weighted
decibels ft = foot/feet
Leq = equivalent continuous sound level
Source: Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis (Appendix H) As shown in Table N -5, it is expected that composite noise levels during construction would reach 68 dBA Leq at the residential uses to the west of the site and composite noise levels at the nearest sensitive receptors to the west would approach 67 dBA Leq during daytime hours. These predicted noise levels would only occur when all construction equipment is operating simultaneously and, therefore, are assumed to be conservative in nature. Additionally, while construction-related short-term noise levels have the potential to be higher than existing ambient noise levels in the Project area under existing conditions, the noise impacts would no longer occur once Project construction is completed.
Additionally, as described above, in accordance with Menifee Development Code Section 9.210.060(C), construction activities would not occur before 6:30 a.m. or after 7:00 p.m. on Mondays through Saturdays and would not occur any time on Sundays and nationally recognized holidays. Although construction noise levels would exceed the existing ambient noise environment, construction noise impacts would be less than significant because construction activities would occur during the hours specified in the Menifee Development Code. Based on the foregoing analysis, no new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project beyond what was previously evaluated, identified, and disclosed in the GP EIR and the SP EIR.
Operation
Long-term off-site stationary noise impacts from the proposed Project w ould include on- site heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) equipment. The HVAC equipment could operate 24 hours per day.
Based on previous measurements conducted by LSA, the HVAC equipment would generate noise levels of
66.6 dBA Leq at 5 feet per HVAC unit (Appendix H). The most conservative assessment of potential impact would be the residences to the north of proposed units, located approximately 40 feet away from the closest HVAC unit. After distance attenuation, noise generated from on -site HVAC equipment 40 feet from th e proposed buildings and shielding from the existing wall would potentially reach up to 43.5 dBA Leq, which would not exceed the City’s exterior daytime (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.) and nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) noise standards of 65 dBA Leq and 45 dBA Leq, respectively, for residential uses. Therefore, noise associated with the on-site HVAC equipment would not exceed the City’s noise standard and would be less than significant. Based on the foregoing analysis, no new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project beyond what was previously evaluated, identified, and disclosed in the GP EIR and the SP EIR.
Offsite Traffic Noise
The proposed Project would generate traffic -related noise from the operation. The Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis (Appendix H ) evaluated traffic-related noise conditions along roadway segments in the Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
Item Page Number: 152
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
744 of 966
CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist
City of Menifee Menifee 27 Residential Project
132
Project vicinity using the FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model (FHWA -RD-77 108). Table N-6 provides the traffic noise levels for the opening year and future year with and without project scenarios.
These noise levels represent the worst- case scenario, which assumes no shielding is provided between the traffic and the location where the noise contours are drawn. As shown in Table N -6, the Project -related traffic noise increase would be up to 0.4 dBA. However, noise level increases under 3 dBA would not be perceptible to the human ear outdoors. Therefore, the traffic noise resulting from the proposed Project would be less than significant. Based on the foregoing analysis, no new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project beyond what was previously evaluated, identified, and disclosed in the GP EIR and the SP EIR.
Table N-6: Traffic Noise Levels Without and With Proposed Project – Existing and Opening Year (2028) ADT = average daily traffic dBA = A-weighted decibels ft = foot/feet CNEL= Community Noise Exposure Level
Source: Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis (Appendix H) b) Generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GP EIR and was determined to have a less than significant impact.
Construction
The construction vibration analysis below discusses the level of human annoyance in RMS and assesses the potential for building damages using vibration levels in PPV (in/sec). This is because vibration levels calculated in RMS are best for characterizing human response to building vibration, while calculating vibration levels in PPV is best for characterizing the potential for damage to buildings. Table N-7 shows the maximum PPV and RMS values at 25 feet from the construction vibration source. As shown in Table N -7, bulldozers, and other heavy -tracked construction equipment, which are expected to be used during construction of the Project, generate approximately 0.089 PPV in/sec or 0.062 RMS in/sec of ground-borne vibration when measured at 25 feet, based on the FTA Manual. The distance to the nearest buildings for vibration impact analysis is measured between the nearest off -site buildings and the project construction boundary (assuming the construction equipment would be used at or near the project setback line).
Roadway Segment
Existing – No Project Existing – With Project Opening Year (2028) – No Project Opening Year 2028– With Project
ADT
CNEL (dBA)
50 ft from
Centerline of
Nearest Lane
ADT
CNEL (dBA)
50 ft from
Centerline of
Nearest Lane
Increase from
Existing
Conditions
(dBA)
ADT
CNEL (dBA)
50 ft from
Centerline of
Nearest Lane
ADT
CNEL (dBA)
50 ft from
Centerline of
Nearest Lane
Increase from
Opening Year
Conditions(dB
A)
Palomar Rd
between SR-74
and Case Rd
6,749 63.6 7,294 64.0 0.4 13,928 66.8 14,473 66.9 0.2
SR-74 between
Antelope Rd and
Palomar Rd
26,772 70.4 27,676 70.5 0.1 46,758 72.8 47,243 72.8 0.0 SR-74 between
Sherman Rd
and Antelope Rd
29,587 70.8 30,437 70.9 0.1 49,744 73.1 50,594 73.1 0.0 SR-74 between
Sherman Rd
and I-215 NB
Ramps
29,023 70.7 29,837 70.8 0.1 59,671 73.9 60,485 73.9 0.0 Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
Item Page Number: 153
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
745 of 966
CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist
City of Menifee Menifee 27 Residential Project
133
Table N-7: Vibration Source Amplitudes for Construction Equipment Equipment Reference PPV/Lv at 25 ft
PPV (in/sec) RMS (in/sec)1
Pile Driver (Impact), Typical 0.644 0.451
Pile Driver (Sonic), Typical 0.170 0.119
Vibratory Roller 0.210 0.147
Hoe Ram 0.089 0.062
Large Bulldozer2 0.089 0.062
Caisson Drilling 0.089 0.062
Loading Trucks2 0.076 0.053
Jackhammer 0.035 0.025
Small Bulldozer 0.003 0.002
1 RMS vibration velocity in decibels (VdB) is 1 μin/sec. 2 Equipment is expected to be used on site.
Μin/sec = microinches per second; ft = foot/feet; in/sec = inch/inches per second; LV = velocity in decibels; PPV = peak particle velocity; RMS = root-mean-squared
Source: Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis (Appendix H) Table N-8 shows the summary of vibration annoyance levels due to construction equipment at each of the closest receptors. As shown in Table N -8, vibration levels are expected to approach 0.002 RMS in/sec at the closest residential uses located north of the Project site and 0.00 2 RMS in/sec at the closest non- residential use to the south, which is below the 0.04 RMS in/sec annoyance threshold. Other building structures surrounding the Project site are farther away and would experience further reduced vibration.
Table N-8: Potential Construction Vibration Annoyance Impacts at Nearest Receptor Receptor (Location)
Reference Vibration
Level (RMS in/sec) at
25 feet1
Distance (feet)2 Vibration Level (RMS
in/sec)
Residential Uses (North)
0.062
530 0.002
Church (South) 570 0.002
Museum (South) 590 0.002
Residential Uses (West) 610 0.002
1 The reference vibration level is associated with a large bulldozer which is expected to be representative of the heavy equipment used during construction.
2 The reference distance is associated with the average condition, identified by the distance from the center of construction activities to surrounding uses.
in/sec = inches per second
RMS = root-mean-square
Source: Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis (Appendix H) Table N-9 shows the summary of potential construction damage due to construction equipment at each of the closest receptors. As discussed above, the standards indicate that the construction vibration damage criterion is 0.25 PPV (in/sec) for historic and old buildings and 0.5 PPV (in/sec) for newer residential structures. Based on the information provided in Table N-9, the closest structures to external construction activities are the residential uses to the west. It is expected that vibration levels generated by dump trucks and other large equipment would generate ground-borne vibration levels of up to 0.244 PPV (in/sec) at the closest residential structures to the Project site, while vibration levels at the closest historic structures to the south would approach 0.034 PPV (in/sec). These vibration level would not exceed the 0.25 PPV (in/sec) threshold for historic and old buildings and the 0.5 PPV (in/sec) threshold considered safe for newer residential structures and modern industrial or commercial buildings.
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
Item Page Number: 154
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
746 of 966
CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist
City of Menifee Menifee 27 Residential Project
134
Table N-9: Potential Construction Vibration Damage Impacts at Nearest Receptor Receptor (Location)
Reference
Vibration Level
(PPV) at 25 feet1
Distance (feet)2 Vibration Level
(PPV)
PPV
Threshold
Exceeded?
Residential Uses (North)
0.089
35 0.061 No
Church (South) 60 0.034 No
Museum (South) 70 0.029 No
Residential Uses (West) 10 0.244 No
1 The reference vibration level is associated with a large bulldozer which is expected to be representative of the heavy equipment used during construction.
2 The reference distance is associated with the peak condition, identified by the distance from the perimeter of construction activities to surrounding structures.
PPV = peak particle velocity
Source: Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis (Appendix H) Additionally, as described above, in accordance with Menifee Development Code Section 9.210.060(C), construction activities would not occur before 6:30 a.m. or after 7:00 p.m. on Mondays through Saturdays and would not occur any time on Sundays and nationally recognized holidays. Therefore, vibration impacts would not occur during the more sensitive nighttime hours. Overall, less than significant construction vibration impacts would occur. Based on the foregoing analysis, no new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project beyond what was previously evaluated, identified, and disclosed in the GP EIR and the SP EIR.
Operation
Once operational, the proposed Project would not be a significant source of groundborne vibration.
Groundborne vibration levels generated from Project-related traffic on the adjacent roadways are unusual for on road vehicles because the rubber tires and suspension systems of on-road vehicles provide vibration isolation. Based on a reference vibration level of 0.076 in/sec PPV, structures greater than 20 feet from the roadways that contain Project trips would experience vibration levels below the most conservative standard of 0.12 in/sec PPV. Therefore, operation of the proposed Project would result in less than significant impacts related to groundborne vibration.
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GP EIR and was determined to have a less than significant impact.
Aircraft flyovers may be audible on the Project site due to aircraft activity in the vicinity. The Project site is located approximately 3.1 miles southeast of Perris Valley Airport. Based on the Perris Valley Airport Compatibility Map, the proposed Project is located well outside of the Airport Influence Area Boundary for Perris Valley Airport (Riverside County Airport Land Use Comission, 2010). Therefore, the proposed Project would not expose people to excessive noise levels and would result in a less than significant impact due to airport/airfield noise. Based on the foregoing analysis, no new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project beyond what was previously evaluated, identified, and disclosed in the GP EIR and the SP EIR.
Conclusion
Regarding the issue area of noise, the following findings can be made:
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
Item Page Number: 155
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
747 of 966
CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist
City of Menifee Menifee 27 Residential Project
135
15183 Findings
1. No peculiar impacts to the Project or its site have been identified.
2. There are no significant effects that were not analyzed as part of the GP EIR.
3. There are no potentially significant off-site and/or cumulative impacts which were not discussed by the GP EIR.
4. No substantial new information has been identified which results in an impact which is more severe than anticipated by the GP EIR.
5. No new Mitigation Measures would be required because Project specific impacts would be less than significant.
15182 Findings
Based on the foregoing information, none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or Mitigation Measures exist regarding noise. There have not been (1) changes related to development of the Project site that involve new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which development of the Project site is undertaken that require major revisions of the certified EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or Mitigation Measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the certified SP EIR was certified as completed.
Because none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts, State CEQA Guidelines 15182 also does not require additional environmental review and the Project is within the scope of the SP EIR.
Uniformly Applied Development Policies or Standards (DP/S) None are applicable to the Project.
GP Goals and Policies
• Policy N-1.2: Require new projects to comply with the noise standards of local, regional, and state building code regulations, including but not limited to the city's Municipal Code, Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, the California Green Building Code, and subdivision and development codes.
• Policy N-1.3: Require noise abatement measures to enforce compliance with any applicable regulatory mechanisms, including building codes and subdivision and zoning regulations, and ensure that the recommended mitigation measures are implemented. • Policy N-1.17: Prevent the construction of new noise -sensitive land uses within airport noise impact zones. New residential land uses within the 65 dBA CNEL contours of any public-use or military airports, as defined by the Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission, shall be prohibited.
GP EIR Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Project
No Mitigation Measures are required.
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
Item Page Number: 156
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
748 of 966
CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist
City of Menifee Menifee 27 Residential Project
136
5.14. POPULATION AND HOUSING
Would the project:
Project
Impact
that is
Peculiar to
the Project
or the
Project Site
Significant
Impact not
Analyzed
as
Significant
in the Prior
EIR
Potentially
Significant
Off-site or
Cumulative
Impact not
Discussed
in the prior
EIR
Adverse
Impact
More Severe
based on
Substantial
New
Information
No New
Impact
Not
Previously
Analyzed
in the Prior
EIR
a) Induce substantial
unplanned population
growth in an area, either
directly (for example, by
proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for
example, through extension
of roads or other
infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial
numbers of existing people
or housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
Summary of Impacts Identified in the GP EIR
The GP EIR discussed impacts related to population and housing under Section 5.13, Population and Housing, pages 5.13-1 through 5.13-14.
The GP EIR found that implementation of the GP would directly and indirectly result in population growth within the City. However, projected growth would not exceed buildout assumptions of the GP. As such, population growth impacts would be less than significant.
The GP EIR also discusses that buildout of the GP may convert existing residential uses to a mix of commercial, office, industrial, recreational, or other uses. Future development and redevelopment projects would be subject to individual CEQA review, which would evaluate potential displacement of housing or residents and identify Mitigation Measures as needed. Therefore, impacts related to the displacement of existing housing or people would be less than significant.
Summary of Impacts Identified in the SP EIR
The SP EIR discussed impacts related to population and housing under Section 4.14, Population and Housing, pages 78 through 79.
The SP EIR did not analyze whether implementation of the SP would result in unplanned population growth, or whether it would result in a significant environmental impact due to the displacement of existing housing.
However, the EIR contained sufficient information about the proposed land use designations, development patterns, and applicable planning context such that the potential for these impacts was reasonably discernible to the public through the exercise of reasonable diligence. Further, the SP EIR acknowledged the rapid urbanization occurring in Riverside County and noted that the Menifee North Specific Plan, along with other major pending projects, proposed approximately 32,500 dwelling units, potentially influencing Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
Item Page Number: 157
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
749 of 966
CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist
City of Menifee Menifee 27 Residential Project
137
regional growth. Despite this, the SP EIR concluded that development consistent with the County GP and zoning would align with previously anticipated impacts and would not cause significant cumulative impacts related to population and housing. The Menifee North Specific Plan Amendment No. 5, Addendum to SP EIR, determined that impacts would be less than significant.
Project-Specific Impacts
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly? No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GP EIR and was determined to have a less-than-significant impact.
The proposed P roject would construct 192 single family residential units. As described previously, the Applicant has requested a density bonus consistent with State law for affordable housing to allow for the development of additional units. Pursuant to the DBL, the proposed Project would be allowed to exceed the maximum site and would allow the City to approve an increase in density for affordable housing projects without requiring approval of a general plan amendment or zone change. Therefore, despite the proposed Project’s request for relief from certain site development standards (such as minimum lot size, setbacks, lot dimensions, and open space requirements), the proposed Project remains fully consistent with the land use designation and zoning regulations as modified by applicable State and local affordable housing provisions.
Therefore, the proposed Project is not anticipated to induce substantial unplanned population growth in the area, either directly or indirectly. The US Census Bureau estimates that the City of Menifee had an average household size of 2.88 persons and a vacancy rate of 5 percent in January 2025 (California Department of Finance, 2025). Thus, the average number of persons per housing unit in the City of Menifee in 2025 is estimated as the average household size ( 2.88 persons) times the occupancy rate (9 5 percent), or 2.7 4 persons. Using this person per household estimate, buildout of the proposed Project would result in approximately 526 residents. Furthermore, as a residential housing development, the proposed P roject would not generate new permanent jobs. Thus, the proposed Project would not result in indirect population growth from po tential employees relocating to the city . Potential population growth associated with the proposed Project would represent less than one -half of one percent increase over the City’s January 1, 2025, estimated population of 115,316 persons (California Department of Finance, 2025). As such, although nominal, the proposed Project would induce population growth in a local context.
Potential population growth impacts are also assessed based on a project’s consistency with adopted plans that have addressed growth management from a local and regional standpoint. The Southern California Association of Governments’ (SCAG) regional growth projections are based upon long-range development assumptions (i.e., general plans ) of the relevant jurisdiction. Table POP-1 below shows the SCAG growth forecast estimates for the City of Menifee and Riverside County population.
Table POP-1: Population Trends
20191 20252 20501 2019 – 2050 Increase
City of Menifee 101,600 115,316 138,331 36,730 (36 percent) Riverside County 2,386,000 2,495,640 2,992,000 606,000 (25 percent) Sources:
1 (Southern California Association of Goverments, 2024) 2 (California Department of Finance, 2025)
As shown above, t he SCAG growth forecasts estimate the City’s population to reach 138,331 persons by 2050, representing a total increase of 36,730 persons between 2019 and 2050. The proposed Project’s anticipated resident population (526 persons) would represent less than one-half of one percent of the 2050 Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
Item Page Number: 158
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
750 of 966
CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist
City of Menifee Menifee 27 Residential Project
138
population anticipated for the city and would not exceed the amount of growth anticipated by the by SCAG from 2019 to 2050.
Additionally, since the proposed Project is consistent with the existing land use designation, buildout of the Project site was already contemplated in the GP and regional growth forecasts. Furthermore, the proposed Project is compliant with the City’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocation of 6,609 units for the 2021-2029 planning period, as identified in the City’s 6 th Cycle Housing Element Update. California’s RHNA is a methodology used to determine future housing needs by income category, based on growth in population, households, and employment. The proposed P roject would result in 192 new units, that would contribute toward fulfilling this obligation by increasing the residential development capacity within the City, consistent with the City’s long -range housing and land use planning strategies. As a result, the proposed Project would not induce substantial unplanned population growth either directly or indirectly, resulting in a less-than-significant impact. Based on the foregoing analysis, no new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project beyond what was previously evaluated, identified, and disclosed in the GP EIR and the SP EIR.
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GP EIR and was determined to have a less-than-significant impact.
The Project site is currently vacant and undeveloped. The Project is located within the Menifee North Specific Plan, Planning Areas 7A and 7B, which designate the site for residential development. The proposed Project would develop 192 single family residential units, consistent with the existing residential designation.
Therefore, the proposed Project would not displace any housing and would not necessitate the construction of replacement housing. Based on the foregoing analysis, no new or substantially gr eater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project beyond what was previously evaluated, identified, and disclosed in the GP EIR and the SP EIR.
Conclusion
Regarding the issue area of population and housing, the following findings can be made:
15183 Findings
1. No peculiar impacts to the Project or its site have been identified.
2. There are no significant effects that were not analyzed as part of the GP EIR.
3. There are no potentially significant off-site and/or cumulative impacts which were not discussed by the GP EIR.
4. No substantial new information has been identified which results in an impact which is more severe than anticipated by the GP EIR.
5. No Mitigation Measures related to population and housing are contained within the GP EIR. Additionally, no Mitigation Measures would be required because Project specific impacts would be less than significant.
15182 Findings
Based on the foregoing information, none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or Mitigation Measures exist regarding population and housing. There have not been (1) changes related to development of the Project site that involve new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
Item Page Number: 159
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
751 of 966
CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist
City of Menifee Menifee 27 Residential Project
139
changes with respect to the circumstances under which development of the Project site is undertaken that require major revisions of the certified EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or Mitigation Measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the certified SP EIR was certified as completed.
Because none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts, State CEQA Guidelines 15182 also does not require additional environmental review and the Project is within the scope of the SP EIR.
Uniformly Applied Development Policies or Standards (DP/S) None.
GP Goals and Policies
None.
GP EIR Mitigation Measures
No Mitigation Measures related to population and housing are included in the GP EIR.
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
Item Page Number: 160
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
752 of 966
CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist
City of Menifee Menifee 27 Residential Project
140
5.15. PUBLIC SERVICES
Would the project result in
substantial adverse physical
impacts associated with the
provision of new or
physically altered
governmental facilities, need
for new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the
construction of which could
cause significa nt
environmental impacts, in
order to maintain acceptable
service ratios, response times
or other performance
objectives for any of the
public services:
Project
Impact
that is
Peculiar to
the Project
or the
Project Site
Significant
Impact not
Analyzed
as
Significant
in the Prior
EIR
Potentially
Significant
Off-site or
Cumulative
Impact not
Discussed
in the prior
EIR
Adverse
Impact
More Severe
based on
Substantial
New
Information
No New
Impact
Not
Previously
Analyzed
in the Prior
EIR
a) Fire protection?
b) Police protection?
c) Schools?
d) Parks?
e) Other public facilities?
Summary of Impacts Identified in the GP EIR
The GP EIR discussed impacts to public services under Section 5.14 Public Services/Recreation, pages 5.14- 1 through 5.14-16.
Fire Services
The GP EIR found that the Riverside County Fire Department (RCFD) would expand in response to increased demand resulting from GP buildout. Developer-paid development impact fees (DIF) would fund additional fire stations, personnel, and equipment. Impacts to fire protection services were found to be less than significant.
Police Services
The GP EIR determined that the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department would increase staffing by 31 sworn officers to meet the demand from GP development. A new Menifee Sheriff’s station or expansion of the Perris Sheriff’s Station would be funded through the General Fund and DIFs. Impacts on police services were found to be less than significant.
School Services
The GP EIR discussed that GP buildout would generate approximately 17,405 new students across all grade levels, served by the Menifee Union, Romoland, and Perris Union High School Districts. The forecasted need included 11 new elementary schools, 2 new middle schools, and 2.5 new high schools. Implementation of existing regulatory requirements and standard conditions of approval would reduce impacts on schools.
School-related impacts were found to be less than significant.
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
Item Page Number: 161
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
753 of 966
CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist
City of Menifee Menifee 27 Residential Project
141
Other Public Services
The GP EIR also found that increased demand for library services would be accommodated through DIFs and tax revenues generated by new residential and commercial development. The County library system would provide services to current and future residents. Impacts to library services were found to be less than significant.
Summary of Impacts Identified in the SP EIR
The SP EIR discussed impacts related to public services under Section 4.16 Public Services, pages 80 through
84. The SP EIR identified that the Riverside County Fire Department, in cooperation with CAL FIRE, provided service to the SP area. At the time of analysis, adequate service could be provided by the existing fire station, with a proposed fire complex north of Newport Road available as a future backup. As such, no additional fire protection measures beyond compliance with the Uniform Building Code were required, and impacts were determined to be less than significant.
The SP EIR noted that law enforcement needs were assessed based on population projections and addressed through annual budget allocations by the County Board of Supervisors. Developers would also be required to coordinate with the Sheriff’s Department and implement design features consistent with the SP’s Land Use Development Standards to support public safety. I mpacts related to police protection were determined to be less than significant.
The SP EIR determined that Mitigation Measures required the execution of agreements with the school districts and payment of applicable fees. With implementation of Mitigation Measures D.5.1 and D.5.2, impacts to schools were determined to be less than significant.
The SP EIR determined that compliance with Ordinance No. 460 implementing the Quimby Act and implementation of Mitigation Measures D.6.1 and D.6.2, which required land dedication and/or payment of in-lieu fees, would ensure impacts to parks and recreation would be less than significant.
The SP EIR found that buildout would increase population and demand for library services; however, adequate service would be maintained through tax collection at the time of building permit issuance.
Therefore, impacts to library facilities were determined to be less than significant.
Project-Specific Impacts
a) Fire protection and emergency services?
No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GP EIR and was determined to have a less-than-significant impact.
As described in the GP EIR, the City of Menifee is served by four fire stations operated by the Menifee Fire Department OFM, which provides fire prevention, suppression, and paramedic services. The primary responding station for the proposed Project is Fire Station 7, located approximately 4.8 roadway miles (2.7 linear miles) southwest of the site, with an estimated 8 -minute drive time under normal conditions.
Additionally, the Homeland Fire Station (Riverside County Fire Station 54), operated by CAL FIRE a nd the Riverside County Fire Department, is situated about 2.5 roadway miles east of the Project site.
The Project site encompasses approximately 27.35 gross acres, which is currently vacant and undeveloped.
Development of the proposed Project would consist of the construction of 192 single- family detached residential units, with related site improvements.
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
Item Page Number: 162
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
754 of 966
CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist
City of Menifee Menifee 27 Residential Project
142
Construction
Construction and operation of the proposed Project would increase the number of structures and employees in the Project area, which may increase demand for fire protection and emergency medical services.
However, construction of the proposed Project would be required to comply with all applicable State and local regulations, as well as GP Policies S-4.1 and S -4.2, which are intended to minimize fire risk during construction activities. These requirements include measures such as installation of temporary co nstruction fencing to prevent unauthorized access and maintenance of a clean and orderly construction site to reduce potential fire hazards. As a result, construction of the proposed Project would not result in the need for new or physically altered fire protection facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, and would not adversely impact service ratios, response times, or other performance standards.
Impacts would be less than significant, and no new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project beyond what was previously evaluated, identified, and disclosed in the GP EIR and the SP EIR.
Operation
As disclosed in the GP EIR, the proposed Project and other anticipated residential development would create an increased demand for fire protection services with the addition of new residents to the area. As described in Section 5.14, Population and Housing, the proposed Project would not exceed the amount of growth anticipated by SCAG or the GP EIR. Therefore, the proposed Project would not induce significant population growth and would not result in the need for new or physically altered fire protection facilities. Furthermore, the City of Menifee requires that new development projects provide adequate improvements and resources to support future infrastructure and public facility needs, as included in GP Policy S-4.2. The proposed Project would also be required to comply with all applicable City standards related to emergency access, fire flow, fire lanes, turn radii, and other fire protection and site design requirements, as reviewed and enforced by the City’s Fire Marshal and Engineering Department. Additionally, the proposed Project would be subject to GP Policy S-4.10, which requires that all new residential development comply with the most recent versions of the CBC and California Fire Code. The California Fire Code is adopted by reference in the Menifee Municipal Code Chapter 8.20.010 and establish es minimum standards for fire safety including site access requirements and fire safety precautions.
Pursuant to the City of Menifee’s Municipal Code, Chapter 17.01, the proposed Project would be required to pay DIFs. The City of Menifee collects DIF from development projects and is mandated to use the DIF funds to construct new fire and emergency service facilities. DIFs collected offset any Project-related demand on existing fire services. The fees would ensure that adequate fire protection and emergency/medical services would be provided and maintained and can be applied to the purchase of equipment, maintenance of existing facilities, and the construction of facilities as needed. Compliance with applicable local and state regulations, such as payment and implementation of the DIF program and compliance to applicable design requirements, would ensure that implementation of the Project maintain the level of fire protection services and facilities. Therefore, impacts related to fire protection services would be less than significant and no new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project beyond what was previously evaluated, identified, and disclosed in the GP EIR and the SP EIR. b) Police protection services?
No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GP EIR and was determined to have a less-than-significant impact
As described in the GP EIR, the Menifee Police Department would provide police protection services to the Project site. The Menifee Police Station is located at 29714 Haun Road Menifee, CA 92586, which is approximately 7.0 roadway miles south of the Project site.
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
Item Page Number: 163
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
755 of 966
CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist
City of Menifee Menifee 27 Residential Project
143
Crime and safety issues during Project construction may include theft of building materials and construction equipment, malicious mischief, graffiti, and vandalism that would create a temporary increased demand for Menifee Police Department protection services. Operation of the 192 single family residential units may also generate a typical range of police service calls such as burglaries and thefts. However, pursuant to the City’s existing permitting process, the Police Department would review and approve the final site plans to ensure that the City’s CPTED measures ( GP Policy CD -3.9) are incorporated appropriately to provide a safe environment. In addition, the proposed Project would comply with the most recent versions of the CBC and California Fire Code. Specifically, Municipal Code Chapter 8.04.010 adopts by reference the CBC, which includes emergency access requirements which would minimize site safety hazards and potential operational impacts to police services.
As described above, growth resulting from the proposed Project has been accounted for within the GP EIR, as the proposed Project is consistent with the GP land use designation. Since the proposed Project would not contribute to a large population increase, the proposed Project would not result in the need for new or expanded police services or facilities to support the proposed Project. Additionally, the proposed Project would be required to pay public facility DIFs pursuant to the City of Menifee Municipal Code, Chapter
17.01. The collection of DIFs would ensure the level of police protection services is maintained and can be applied to the purchase of equipment, maintenance of existing facilities, and the construction of facilities as needed. Therefore, Pr oject impacts to police services would be less than significant and no new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project beyond what was previously evaluated, identified, and disclosed in the GP EIR and the SP EIR. c) School services?
No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GP EIR and was determined to have a less-than-significant impact.
According to the GP EIR, Menifee residents are served by three public school districts: Menifee Union School District, Romoland School District, and Perris Union High School District.
As described in Section 5. 14, Population and Housing , the proposed project would increase the area’s population by introducing 192 new single family detached residential units, thus increasing the demand for school services. However, p ursuant to Government Code Section 65995 et seq., the need for additional school facilities is addressed through compliance with school impact fee assessment. SB 50 (Chapter 407 of Statutes of 1998) sets forth a state school facilities construction program that includes restrictions on a local jurisdiction’s ability to condition a project on mitigation of a project’s impacts on school facilities in excess of fees set forth in the Government Code. Therefore, the proposed Project would be required to contribute fees to the affected school districts, the Romoland Elementary and Middle School District and Perris Union High School District, in accordance with the Leroy F. Greene School Facilities Act of 1998 (i.e., SB 50). Pursuant to SB 50, payment of school impact fees constitutes complete mitigation under CEQA for Project-related impacts to school services. Therefore, the Project would result in no impacts related to school services and no new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project beyond what was previously evaluated, identified, and disclosed in the GP EIR and the SP EIR. d) Parks?
No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GP EIR and was determined to have a less-than-significant impact.
The proposed Project would develop 192 single-family residential units on a site that is currently vacant and undeveloped. As described in Section 5.14, Population and Housing , the proposed Project is consistent with the site’s GP land use designation and the level of residential growth anticipated in the GP EIR. As such, the Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
Item Page Number: 164
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
756 of 966
CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist
City of Menifee Menifee 27 Residential Project
144
proposed Project is within the scope of planned development and associated public service demands, including parks.
The City of Menifee implements parkland dedication requirements through Municipal Code Chapter 7.75, Parkland Dedication and Fees, which is consistent with the Quimby Act (California Government Code § 66477).
This ordinance requires new residential subdivisions to dedicate parkland, pay in -lieu fees, or provide a combination of both, based on a parkland standard of 5 acres per 1,000 residents. The proposed Project’s compliance with these requirements is ensured through the City’s development review and approval process and would be required as a condition of approval. Additionally, the proposed Project includes private open space and on-site recreational amenities that would serve future residents and reduce demand on existing public park facilities. These o n-site amenities would help offset use of off -site recreational resources and ensure that the Project does not generate the need for new or expanded park facilities beyond what has already been anticipated in the GP. Accordingly, with the proposed Project’s consistency with the GP, required compliance with the City’s parkland dedication ordinance, and provision of on -site recreational amenities, the proposed Project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision or need for new or physically altered park facilities. Impacts would be less than significant. Based on the foregoing analysis, no new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project beyond what was previously evaluated, identified, and disclosed in the GP EIR and the SP EIR.
e) Other public facilities?
No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GP EIR and was determined to have a less-than-significant impact.
Other public facilities that could potentially be impacted by the proposed Project include public health services and library services. The nearest library to the Project site, Sun City Library , is operated by the Riverside County Library System. It is located at 26982 Cherry Hills Blvd, approximately 4.5 miles southwest of the Project site. As described previously, the proposed Project would not contribute to a large population increase that would result in the need for new or expanded services or facilities. Furthermore, the City would collect a one-time DIF in accordance the City of Menifee Municipal Code, Chapter 17.01, so that the level of library and public health services is maintained and can be applied to the purchase of equipment, maintenance of existing facilities, and the construction of facilities as needed . Therefore, impacts would be less than significant in this regard and no new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project beyond what was previously evaluated, identified, and disclosed in the GP EIR and the SP EIR.
Conclusion
Regarding the issue area of public services, the following findings can be made:
15183 Findings
1. No peculiar impacts to the Project or its site have been identified.
2. There are no significant effects that were not analyzed as part of the GP EIR.
3. There are no potentially significant off-site and/or cumulative impacts which were not discussed by the GP EIR.
4. No substantial new information has been identified which results in an impact which is more severe than anticipated by the GP EIR.
5. No Mitigation Measures related to public services are contained within the GP EIR. Additionally, no Mitigation Measures would be required because Project specific impacts would be less than significant.
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
Item Page Number: 165
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
757 of 966
CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist
City of Menifee Menifee 27 Residential Project
145
15182 Findings
Based on the foregoing information, none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or Mitigation Measures exist regarding public services. There have not been (1) changes related to development of the Project site that involve new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which development of the Project site is undertaken that require major revisions of the certified EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability o f new information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or Mitigation Measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the certified SP EIR was certified as completed.
Because none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts, State CEQA Guidelines 15182 also does not require additional environmental review and the Project is within the scope of the SP EIR.
Uniformly Applied Development Policies or Standards (DP/S) Menifee Municipal Code Chapter 8.04: Building Code. As listed previously in Section 5.7, Geology and Soils.
City of Menifee Municipal Code Chapter 8.20: Fire Code. Adopts the California Fire Code and establishes minimum fire safety requirements applicable to all development. These standards address fire apparatus access, water supply, construction materials, vegetation management, and other fire prevention measures.
Compliance is required for all projects and enforced by the Riverside County Fire Department.
GP Goals and Policies
Policy CD-3.9: Utilize Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) techniques and defensible space design concepts to enhance community safety.
Policy S-4.1: Require fire-resistant building construction materials, the use of vegetation control methods, and other construction and fire prevention features to reduce the hazard of wildland fire. Ensure all new development and/or redevelopment in the LRA and VHFHSZ will comply with the California Fire Code and CBC. All new development within the LRA Very High Fire zone will comply with Chapter 49 of the California Fire Code and Chapter 7A of the California Building Code.
Policy S-4.2: Ensure, to the maximum extent possible, that fire services, such as firefighting equipment and personnel, infrastructure, and response times, are adequate for all sections of the City. The City will continue to coordinate with the Riverside County Fire Department, for Interagency coordination, to respond to emergency calls in Menifee and to provide training and ongoing programs for public education.
Policy S-4.10: Ensure all new residential development as well as all new development and redevelopment within the LRA and VHFHSZ will comply with the most current version of the California Building Codes and California Fire Code.
GP EIR Mitigation Measures
No Mitigation Measures related to public services are included in the GP EIR.
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
Item Page Number: 166
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
758 of 966
CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist
City of Menifee Menifee 27 Residential Project
146
5.16. RECREATION
Project
Impact
that is
Peculiar to
the Project
or the
Project Site
Significant
Impact not
Analyzed
as
Significant
in the Prior
EIR
Potentially
Significant
Off-site or
Cumulative
Impact not
Discussed
in the prior
EIR
Adverse
Impact
More Severe
based on
Substantial
New
Information
No New
Impact
Not
Previously
Analyzed
in the Prior
EIR
a) Would the project
increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional
parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial
physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be
accelerated?
b) Does the project include
recreational facilities or
require the construction or
expansion of recreational
facilities which might have an
adverse physical effect on
the environment?
Summary of Impacts Identified in the GP EIR
The GP EIR discussed impacts related to recreation under Section 5.16, Recreation, pages 5.16-1 through
5.16-8.
The GP EIR found that implementation of the GP would generate additional residents, resulting in increased use of existing park and recreational facilities. However, the GP also designates 725 acres for new park development. Therefore, the development of new park facilities would keep pace with the anticipated population growth. Impacts related to parks and recreational facilities were found to be less than significant.
The GP EIR determined that implementation of the GP would not result in significant environmental impacts associated with the provision of new or expanded recreational facilities. No significant impacts were found related to recreational facility development.
Summary of Impacts Identified in the SP EIR
The SP EIR discussed impacts related to recreation under Section 4.18, Recreation, pages 85 through 87.
The SP EIR estimated that buildout of the SP would generate approximately 6,874 new residents, increasing demand for parks and recreational facilities. Based on the Quimby Act standard of three acres per 1,000 residents, only 20.6 acres of parkland would be required, making the proposed park acreage compliant.
Additionally, with the SP’s comprehensive recreational program and Mitigation Measures (D.6.1 and D.6.2) such as land dedication or in -lieu fees, the SP EIR concluded that impacts to parks and recreat ion facilities would be less than significant.
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
Item Page Number: 167
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
759 of 966
CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist
City of Menifee Menifee 27 Residential Project
147
Project-Specific Impacts
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that physical deterioration of the facility would be accelerated? b) Require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GP EIR and was determined to have a less-than-significant impact.
As described in the GP EIR, the City of Menifee determined that development of new park facilities would keep pace with anticipated population growth. The proposed Project would construct 192 single family residential units on a site that is currently vacant and undeveloped. As described in Section 5.14, Population and Housing, the proposed Project is consistent with the land use designation for the site and is therefore consistent with the anticipated growth within the city. Thus, the city has adequate parkland available to serve the proposed Project.
Furthermore, in accordance with the Quimby Act (California Government Code § 66477), residential subdivision projects involving a Tentative Tract Map are required to dedicate parkland, pay in-lieu fees, or provide a combination of both, to offset increased demand for recreational facilities. The City of Menifee implements this requirement through Municipal Code Chapter 7.75, Parkland Dedication and Fees, which also establishes a parkland standard of 5 acres per 1,000 residents. Compliance with these require ments is enforced through the development review process and would be required as a condition of project approval, thereby ensuring the proposed Project provides its fair share toward public parks and recreational amenities.
In addition, the proposed Project proposes on-site private open space and recreational amenities that would serve future residents, thereby reducing reliance on off -site public facilities. Given the proposed Project’s consistency with planned growth, required compliance with the City’s parkland dedication requirements, and inclusion of on- site recreational features, the proposed Project is not expected to result in the physical deterioration of existing recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of new recreati onal facilities that could cause significant environmental impacts . Based on the foregoing analysis, no new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project beyond what was previously evaluated, identified, and disclosed in the GP EIR and the SP EIR.
Conclusion
Regarding the issue area of recreation, the following findings can be made:
15183 Findings
1. No peculiar impacts to the Project or its site have been identified.
2. There are no significant effects that were not analyzed as part of the GP EIR.
3. There are no potentially significant off-site and/or cumulative impacts which were not discussed by the GP EIR.
4. No substantial new information has been identified which results in an impact which is more severe than anticipated by the GP EIR.
5. No Mitigation Measures related to recreation are contained within the GP EIR. Additionally, no mitigation would be required because Project specific impacts would be less than significant. 15182 Findings
Based on the foregoing information, none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
Item Page Number: 168
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
760 of 966
CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist
City of Menifee Menifee 27 Residential Project
148
document to evaluate Project impacts or M itigation Measures exist regarding recreation. There have not been (1) changes related to development of the Project site that involve new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which development of the Project site is undertaken that require major revisions of the certified EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability o f new information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or Mitigation Measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the certified SP EIR was certified as completed.
Because none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts, State CEQA Guidelines 15182 also does not require additional environmental review and the Project is within the scope of the SP EIR.
Uniformly Applied Development Policies or Standards (DP/S) City of Menifee Municipal Code Chapter 7.75 (Parkland Dedication and Fees). In accordance with the Quimby Act (California Government Code § 66477), the City of Menifee requires all residential subdivisions processed with a Tentative Tract Map to comply with parkland dedication requirements outlined in Chapter
7.75 (Parkland Dedication and Fees) of the City’s Municipal Code. This ordinance establishes a standard of 5 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents and is implemented through the City’s development review process.
Compliance may be achieved through land dedication, payment of in -lieu fees, or a combination thereof, and is required as a condition of approval for applicable residential projects.
GP Goals and Policies
None.
GP EIR Mitigation Measures
No Mitigation Measures related to recreation are included in the GP EIR.
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
Item Page Number: 169
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
761 of 966
CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist
City of Menifee Menifee 27 Residential Project
149
5.17. TRANSPORTATION
Would the project:
Project
Impact
that is
Peculiar to
the Project
or the
Project Site
Significant
Impact not
Analyzed
as
Significant
in the Prior
EIR
Potentially
Significant
Off-site or
Cumulative
Impact not
Discussed
in the prior
EIR
Adverse
Impact
More Severe
based on
Substantial
New
Information
No New
Impact
Not
Previously
Analyzed
in the Prior
EIR
a) Conflict with a program,
plan, ordinance, or policy
addressing the circulation
system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle, and
pedestrian facilities?
b) Would the project conflict
or be inconsistent with CEQA
Guidelines section 15064.3,
subdivision (b)?
c) Substantially increase
hazards due to a geometric
design feature (e.g., sharp
curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
d) Result in inadequate
emergency access?
Summary of Impacts Identified in the GP EIR
The GP EIR discussed impacts related to transportation and traffic under Section 5.16, Transportation, and Traffic, pages 5.16-1 through 5.16-68.
The GP EIR found that traffic volumes associated with buildout of the GP would exceed existing roadway capacity at several locations throughout the City. Traffic and circulation conditions were analyzed under future 2035 and post -2035 scenarios. The GP EIR concluded that four intersections would experience unacceptable Levels of Service (LOS) during the post-2035 condition. However, implementation of Mitigation Measures 16-1 and 16-2, which include roadway and intersection improvements, would reduce these impacts to less-than-significant levels.
The GP EIR determined that traffic volumes on three mainline segments of Interstate 215 (I-215), from McCall Boulevard to south of Scott Road , would exceed thresholds outlined in Riverside County’s Congestion Management Program. Although the County has adopted a minimum LOS standard of “E,” these segments were projected to operate below this standard under buildout conditions. The GP EIR found th at impacts would remain significant and unavoidable, even with implementation of Mitigation Measure 16 -3, unless a deficiency plan is prepared in coordination with Caltrans, the City of Menifee, and the County of Riverside.
As such, the GP EIR determined that impacts would be significant and unavoidable.
The GP EIR discusse d that circulation improvements implemented under the GP would be designed in accordance with the City’s Circulation Element and applicable roadway design standards. These Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
Item Page Number: 170
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
762 of 966
CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist
City of Menifee Menifee 27 Residential Project
150
improvements would adequately address potential hazards, such as sharp curves, conflicting uses, and emergency access. Therefore, the GP EIR determined that impacts related to roadway safety and emergency access would be less than significant.
The GP EIR found that implementation of the GP would not conflict with existing policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation. The Circulation Element promotes a multi -modal transportation network, including pedestrian, bicycle, public transit, Neighborhood Electric Vehicles (NEVs), and golf carts.
The GP EIR concluded that no impacts would occur with respect to alternative transportation consistency.
The GP EIR determined that air traffic patterns would not be affected by implementation of the GP . The City is located within the influence areas of the Perris Valley Airport and March Air Reserve Base; however, the GP EIR found that buildout would not conflict with the applicable Airport Land Use Compatibility Plans or the provisions of the March Air Reserve Base Joint Land Use Study. Therefore, the GP EIR determined that impacts related to air traffic and airport land use compatibility would be less than significant.
Summary of Impacts Identified in the SP EIR
The SP EIR discussed impacts related to transportation under Section 4.19, Transportation, pages 88 through
93. The SP EIR found that buildout would comply with the Land Use Standards of the Riverside County Comprehensive GP and the Circulation Plan Development Standards of the SP. These standards require proper roadway design, including dedication and construction of public roads. To ensure adequate implementation, the SP EIR incorporated Mitigation Measures related to signalization, alternative transportation modes, roadway design standards, and DIFs. With implementation of these measures, impacts to the circulation system were determined to be less than significant.
The SP EIR did not analyze transportation impacts related to vehicle miles traveled (VMT). However, VMT data was included in the air quality analysis to support the evaluation of emissions from criteria pollutants.
Although no significance determination wa s made for VMT, the presence of this data indicates that the potential for VMT -related impacts was readily available to the public through reasonable diligence.
Similarly, the SP EIR did not provide a direct analysis of emergency access. Nonetheless, the d ocument included sufficient information regarding land use policy and circulation planning to allow for an informed understanding of the Project’s design and its relationship to surrounding development. Therefore, although not explicitly addressed, the SP EIR provided the basis for the public to assess potential effects related to emergency access. The Menifee North Specific Plan Amendment No. 5, Addendum to SP EIR, determined that impacts would be less than significant.
Project-Specific Impacts
This section is based on the following report:
• Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Scoping Form, prepared by EPD Solutions, Inc., May 12, 2025. Included as Appendix I.
• Traffic Impact Analysis, prepared by EPD Solutions, Inc., August 26, 2025. Included as Appendix K. a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance , or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities?
No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GP EIR and determined that no impacts would occur.
Transit Facilities
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
Item Page Number: 171
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
763 of 966
CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist
City of Menifee Menifee 27 Residential Project
151
Public transportation services within the City are provided by the Riverside Transit Agency (RTA). The nearest RTA bus stop is located along SR-74, approximately 300 linear feet south of the Project site. Additionally, the Perris South Metrolink Station is located 1.9 linear miles to the northwest of the Project site, within the City of Perris. The existing transit service would continue to serve its ridership in the area and may also serve residents of the proposed Project. The proposed Project would not alter or conflict with existing transit stops and schedules, and impacts related to transit services would not occur.
Bicycle Facilities
There are currently no existing bicycle facilities within the Project site vicinity. According to Exhibit C-4 of the City of Menifee GP, Palomar Road is identified as a Class II Bike Route. The City of Menifee GP states that Class II Bike Lanes are planned as follows:
Class II Bike Lane: If located next to a curb, a minimum width of five feet is recommended. However, a Class II Bike Lane adjacent to a parking lane can be four feet in width. Bike Lanes are exclusively for the use of bicycles and include bike lane signage, special lane lines, and pavement markings that delineate the right-of-way assigned to bicyclists along roadways.
Implementation of the proposed Project would not alter or conflict with existing or planned bike lanes or bicycle transportation, including the ultimate buildout of Palomar Road as a Class II bike lane. Full buildout of Palomar Road would include striping for on street bicycle lanes, which would be reviewed and approved by the City Menifee Engineering Department. Thus, impacts related to bicycle facilities would not occur.
Pedestrian Facilities
There are currently no sidewalks within the vicinity of the Project site. Because no sidewalks currently exist along the Project site frontage of Palomar Road , the proposed Project would improve pedestrian facilities and the sidewalk network along the Project frontage. The proposed Project includes the dedication of a nine-foot-wide right-of-way along Palomar Road, which would include construction of a six -foot sidewalk and a five-foot parkway improvement. Therefore, the proposed Project would not conflict with pedestrian facilities but instead would provide additional facilities. Thus, impacts related to pedestrian facilities would not occur.
Roadway Facilities
Implementation of the proposed Project would develop 192 single family residential units on a site that is currently vacant and undeveloped. Access to the Project site would be provided via two new driveways on Palomar Road, with the southern driveway having a width of 50 feet and the northern driveway having a width of 40 feet. Vehicular traffic to and from the Project site would utilize the existing network of regional and local roadways that currently serve the Project area , as further defined in Exhibit C- 3, Roadwork Network, of the GP. Specifically, regional access to the site would be provided via SR- 74 and Interstate I- 215 and local access would be provided via Palomar Road. Additionally, the proposed Project would be consistent with applicable GP Circulation Element goals and policies addressing the circulation system and would not impede or conflict with achievement of city-wide goals.
The trip generation for the proposed Project was analyzed in accordance with the ITE Trip Generation Study, as shown in Appendix I. The proposed Project is estimated to generate approximately 1,811 daily trips, 134 AM (35 inbound and 99 outbound) peak hour trips, and 180 PM (113 inbound and 67 outbound) peak hour trips, as shown in Table TRA-1 below.
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
Item Page Number: 172
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
764 of 966
CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist
City of Menifee Menifee 27 Residential Project
152
Table TRA-1: Consistency with Site Development Standards Land Use Dwellin
g Units Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
In Out Total In Out Total
Trip Rate
210 Single-Family Detached Housing¹ - 9.43 0.18 0.5
2 0.70 0.59 0.35 0.94
Project Trip Generation
Single-Family Detached Housing¹ 192 1,811 35 99 134 113 67 180 Total Project Trip Generation 192 1,811 35 99 134 113 67 180 Source: EPD Solutions, 2025 (Appendix I)
¹Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, 11th Edition, 2021. Land Use Code 210 - Single-Family Detached Housing (Average Rate)
As described in Section 5.10, Land Use and Planning, and Section 5.14, Population and Housing, the proposed Project would not induce significant population growth and is consistent with the anticipated land use for the Project site. As a result, it is anticipated that existing roadways in the P roject area would be able to adequately accommodate the increase in project-generated trips. Thus, impacts related to existing roadway facilities would not occur. Based on the foregoing analysis, no new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project beyond what was previously evaluated, identified, and disclosed in the GP EIR and the SP EIR.
b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
Not Previously Analyzed in the Prior EIR. This topic was not evaluated in the GP EIR.
Senate Bill (SB) 743 was signed by Governor Brown in 2013 and required the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to amend the CEQA Guidelines to provide an alternative to LOS for evaluating transportation impacts. SB 743 specified that the new criteria should promote the reduction of GHGs, the development of multimodal transportation networks , and a diversity of land uses. In response, Section 15064.3 was added to the CEQA Guidelines beginning January 1, 2019, and states that the provisions of the section shall apply statewide beginning on July 1, 2020. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 – Determining the Significance of Transportation Impacts states that vehicle miles traveled ( VMT) is the most appropriate measure of transportation impacts and provides lead agencies with the discretion to choose the most appropriate methodology and thresholds for evaluating VMT.
The City of Menifee Guidelines for the Preparation of VMT Analysis contain the following screening thresholds to assess whether further VMT analysis is required . If a project meets any of the following screening thresholds, then the VMT impact of the project is considered less than significant and further VMT analysis is not required.
1. Screening Criteria 1 - Transit Priority Area Screening: According to the City’s guidelines, projects located in a TPA may be presumed to have a less-than-significant impact.
2. Screening Criteria 2 - Low VMT Area Screening: The City’s guidelines include a screening threshold for residential and office projects located in a low VMT generating area. Low VMT generating area is defined as a Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) with a total daily VMT/Service Population (employment plus population) that is less than the County of Riverside General Plan Buildout VMT per service population.
3. Screening Criteria 3 – Project Type Screening: This criterion would apply to land uses that are considered local serving, as well as projects that generate less than 110 daily vehicle trips.
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
Item Page Number: 173
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
765 of 966
CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist
City of Menifee Menifee 27 Residential Project
153
As detailed in the VMT Scoping Form included as Appendix I, the proposed Project is consistent with the land use designation identified in the City’s GP. Accordingly, the application of the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) VMT Screening Tool is appropriate to evaluate the proposed Project's potential for generating VMT. Based on the screening results, and as illustrated in Figure 2 within Appendix I, the Project site is located within a low VMT -generating area. Therefore, the proposed Project satisfies the City’s VMT Screening Criteria 2 – Low VMT Area. In accordance with the City’s adopted VMT thresholds and guidance, projects located in low VMT areas are presumed to result in a less-than-significant VMT impact. As such, no further VMT analysis is required for the proposed Project and impacts related to inconsistencies with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b) would be less than significant. Based on the foregoing analysis, no new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project beyond what was previously evaluated, identified, and disclosed in the GP EIR and the SP EIR. c) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GP EIR and was determined to have a less-than-significant impact.
Construction
The Project proposes development of the site in one phase lasting approximately 26 months. During construction, worker vehicles, haul trucks, and vendor trucks would be staged on the portion of the Project site under construction for the duration of the construction period. As part of the grading plan and building plan review processes, City permits would require appropriate measures to facilitate the passage of persons and vehicles through/around any required road closures and measures to properly route heavy -duty construction vehicles entering and leaving the site (as applicable). As a result, impacts related to vehicular circulation design features and incompatible uses during construction of the proposed Project would be less than significant.
Operation
As previously described, vehicular access to the Project site would be provided via two 50 -foot-wide driveways along Palomar Road. Internal circulation would be accommodated through a network of private streets designed to meet local circulation and emerge ncy access standards, with roadway widths ranging from 24 to 28 feet depending on location within the site The proposed Project would not introduce any new roadways or introduce a land use that would conflict with existing land uses in the surrounding area. Design of the proposed Project, including the internal private roadway, ingress, egress, and other street scape changes are subject to the Ci ty’s development standards.
The proposed Project has also been designed to ensure fire engine accessibility and that turn around area is provided to the California Fire Code standards. On-site traffic signing and striping would also be implemented in conjunction with detailed construction plans. Additionally, sight distance at the Project’s access points would be reviewed with respect to City standards at the time of final grading, landscape, and street improvement plan re views. Additionally, Project frontage improvements and site access points would be constructed to be consistent with the identified roadway classifications and respective cross -sections in accordance with the City of Menifee GP Circulation Element. Compliance with existing regulations would be ensured through the City’s construction permitting process. As such, impacts related to hazards due to design features or incompatible uses would be less than significant. Based on the foregoing analysis, no new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project beyond what was previously evaluated, identified, and disclosed in the GP EIR and the SP EIR.
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
Item Page Number: 174
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
766 of 966
CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist
City of Menifee Menifee 27 Residential Project
154
d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GP EIR and was determined to have a less-than-significant impact.
Construction
As described above, the proposed construction activities, including equipment and supply staging and storage, would occur within the Project site and would not restrict access of emergency vehicles to the Project site or adjacent areas. The installation of driveways and connections to existing infrastructure systems that would be implemented during construction of the proposed Project could require the temporary closure of one side or portions of Palomar Road for a short period of time. However, Project construction activities would be required to ensure emergency access in accordance with Section 503 of the California Fire Code (Title 24, California Code of Regulations, Part 9), which would be ensured through the City’s permitting process and Menifee Development Code Section 9.160.050 . The Office of the Fire Marshal and/or Community Development Department would review the development plans as part of the permitting procedures to ensure adequate emergency access pursuant to the requirements. Thus, implementation of the proposed Project through the City’s permitting process would ensure existing regulations are adhered to and would address any potential construction related emergency access impacts. Therefore, impacts related to inadequate emergency access during construction activities wou ld not occur and no new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project beyond what was previously evaluated, identified, and disclosed in the GP EIR and the SP EIR.
Operation
As described previously, the proposed Project would provide adequate emergency access to the site via two 50-foot-wide ingress and egress driveways from the existing road way of Palomar Road . Internal circulation would be accommodated through a network of private drive aisles ranging from 24 to 28 feet in width, designed to support two-way vehicle travel and provide adequate access for emergency response vehicles in accordance with applicable City and fire department standards.
The Office of the Fire Marshal and/or Community Development Department would review the development plans as part of the permitting procedures to ensure adequate emergency access pursuant to the requirements in Section 503 of the California Fire Code. Since the proposed Project is required to comply with all applicable City codes, as verified by the City during the review process, potential impacts related to inadequate emergency access would be less than significant. Based on the foregoing analysis, no new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project beyond what was previously evaluated, identified, and disclosed in the GP EIR and the SP EIR.
Non-CEQA Level of Service Analysis – For Informational Purposes Only A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) was prepared by EPD Solutions Inc ., in August 2025. Although vehicle level of service (LOS) is no longer a CEQA significance criterion under SB 743, the City has opted to include a non-CEQA LOS assessment for informational purposes only. The following discussion provides a summary of the findings from the TIA , recommended improvements, and the proposed Project’s calculated fair share contributions.
Existing (2025) Plus Project Conditions
Under Existing (2025) Plus Project conditions, the proposed P roject would increase delay at two study intersections:
• Palomar Road/Case Road – Recommended improvement: install all-way stop control (AWSC). The project’s fair share contribution is 4.01 percent.
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
Item Page Number: 175
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
767 of 966
CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist
City of Menifee Menifee 27 Residential Project
155
• Menifee Road/SR- 74 – Recommended improvement: add right -turn overlap phasing to the northbound right turn. The project’s fair share contribution is 1.50 percent.
No roadway segment improvements are required under this scenario, as all segments would continue to operate within their respective capacities.
Opening Year (2028) Cumulative Plus Project Conditions
Under Opening Year (2028) Cumulative Plus Project conditions, the proposed Project would contribute to delays at eight study intersections along SR -74 and adjacent roadways. Recommended improvements include restriping, signal phasing, lane widening, and in some cases, signal installation. The proposed Project’s fair share contributions range from 1.50 percent to 7.98 percent, depending on the intersection, as summarized below:
• I-215 SB Ramps/Bonnie Drive – 3.17 percent
• I-215 NB Ramps/SR-74 – 2.77 percent
• Trumble Road/SR-74 – 2.96 percent
• Sherman Road/SR-74 – 3.52 percent
• Antelope Road/SR-74 – 5.04 percent
• Palomar Road/SR-74 – 7.98 percent
• Palomar Road/Case Road – 4.01 percent
• Menifee Road/SR-74 – 1.50 percent
The r oadway segment analysis identified three segments projected to operate above capacity under cumulative conditions. However, according to the City’s General Plan Circulation Element, these facilities are already built to their planned classifications, and no additional improvements are feasible due to right-of- way constraints.
While the proposed Project would contribute incrementally to localized roadway delays, the required improvements and associated fair share contributions would ensure that the proposed Project participates in funding a proportional share of transportation infrastructure needs. This LOS analysis is provided for informational purposes only and is not part of the CEQA significance determination.
Conclusion
Regarding the issue area of transportation and traffic, the following findings can be made:
15183 Findings
1. No peculiar impacts to the Project or its site have been identified.
2. There are no significant effects that were not analyzed as part of the GP EIR.
3. There are no potentially significant off-site and/or cumulative impacts which were not discussed by the GP EIR.
4. No substantial new information has been identified which results in an impact which is more severe than anticipated by the GP EIR.
5. No new Mitigation Measures would be required. Project specific impacts would be less than significant with compliance to existing regulations and implementation of identified fair share costs as discussed above.
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
Item Page Number: 176
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
768 of 966
CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist
City of Menifee Menifee 27 Residential Project
156
15182 Findings
Based on the foregoing information, none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or Mitigation Measures exist regarding transportation. There have not been (1) changes related to development of the Project site that involve new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which development of the Project site is undertaken that require major revisions of the certified EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or Mitigation Measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the certified SP EIR was certified as completed.
Because none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts, State CEQA Guidelines 15182 also does not require additional environmental review and the Project is within the scope of the SP EIR.
Uniformly Applied Development Policies or Standards (DP/S) City of Menifee Municipal Code Chapter 8.20: Fire Code. As listed previously in Section 5.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials.
GP Goals and Policies
None.
GP EIR Mitigation Measures
No Mitigation Measures are required.
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
Item Page Number: 177
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
769 of 966
CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist
City of Menifee Menifee 27 Residential Project
157
5.18. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project cause a
substantial adverse change
in the significance of a tribal
cultural resource, defined in
Public Resources Code
section 21074 as either a
site, feature, place, cultural
landscape that is
geographically defined in
terms of the size and scope
of the landscape, sacred
place, or object with cultural
value to a California Native
American tribe, and that is:
Project
Impact
that is
Peculiar to
the Project
or the
Project Site
Significant
Impact not
Analyzed
as
Significant
in the Prior
EIR
Potentially
Significant
Off-site or
Cumulative
Impact not
Discussed
in the prior
EIR
Adverse
Impact
More Severe
based on
Substantial
New
Information
No New
Impact
Not
Previously
Analyzed
in the Prior
EIR
a) Listed or eligible for listing
in the California Register of
Historical Resources, or in a
local register of historical
resources as defined in Public
Resources Code section
5020.1(k)?
b) A resource determined by
the lead agency, in its
discretion and supported by
substantial evidence, to be
significant pursuant to
criteria set forth in
subdivision I of Public
Resources Code Section
5024.1. In applying the
criteria set forth in
subdivision I of Public
Resource Code Section
5024.1, the lead agency
shall consider the significance
of the resource to a
California Native American
tribe?
Summary of Impacts Identified in the GP EIR
The GP EIR did not analyze impacts related to tribal cultural resources because the topic was not a part of the CEQA Guidelines at the time the GP EIR was adopted . Although the GP EIR did not address this topic area on its own, the GP EIR contained an impact analysis associated with tribal cultural resources within the cultural resources section, and a summary of those impacts is provided under Section 5.5, Cultural Resources, above.
Summary of Impacts Identified in the SP EIR
The Menifee North Specific Plan Amendment No. 5, Addendum to EIR No. 329 discussed impacts related to tribal cultural resources under Section 4.20, Tribal Cultural Resources, pages 94 through 96.
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
Item Page Number: 178
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
770 of 966
CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist
City of Menifee Menifee 27 Residential Project
158
At the time SP EIR was certified in 1994, AB 52 was not in place and the SP EIR did not evaluate this topic area. Notwithstanding, the SP EIR included an extensive analysis of potential impacts to cultural resources , as described above under Section 5.5, Cultural Resources.
Project-Specific Impacts
This section is based on the following report:
• Phase I Archeological and Paleontological Resources Study, prepared by Psomas, May 2025. Included as Appendix C.
a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k)?
Not Previously Analyzed in the Prior EIR. This topic was not evaluated in the GP EIR.
TCRs are sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are either eligible or listed in the California Register of Historical Resources or local register of historica l resources (PRC Section 21074). On December 30, 2024, a Sacred Lands File (SLF) search and a list of Native American tribes who may have knowledge of cultural resources in the Project area was requested from the NAHC. On January 16, 2025, the NAHC responded with a list of Native American tribes and indicated that the SLF search yielded positive results for known TCRs or sacred lands within a 1-mile radius of the Project site.
As detailed previously in Section 5. 5, Cultural Resources, there are no resources located on the Project site that are listed or eligible for listing in the CRHR, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k). However, the NAHC did identify a sacred site important to the local Native American community nearby. Therefore, consistent with Standard Condition CUL -2, if unknown cultural resources are discovered and identified as being of Native American origin, all ground -disturbing activities within 100 feet of the find would be halted until a meeting is convened between the developer, project archaeologist, tribal representative(s), and the Community Development Director to evaluate the significance of the find. Disposition of the resources would be carried out by the tribes in accordance with Standard Condition CUL-5. In addition, Standard Condition TCR -1 and TCR-2 requires that tribal monitors be present during all ground -disturbing activities. With implementation of these Standard Conditio ns, the proposed Project would not result in impacts to historical resources that are listed or eligible for listing. Based on the foregoing analysis, no new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project beyond what was previously evaluated, identified, and disclosed in the GP EIR and the SP EIR.
b) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is a resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision I of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision I of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.
Not Previously Analyzed in the Prior EIR. This topic was not evaluated in the GP EIR.
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
Item Page Number: 179
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
771 of 966
CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist
City of Menifee Menifee 27 Residential Project
159
Assembly Bill (AB) 52 (Chapter 532, Statutes of 2014) establishes a formal consultation process for California tribes as part of the CEQA process and equates significant impacts on “tribal cultural resources” with significant environmental impacts (Public Resources Code [PRC] § 21084.2). AB 52 requires that lead agencies undertaking CEQA review evaluate, just as they do for other historical and archeological resources, a project’s potential impact to a tribal cultural resource. In addition, AB 52 requires that lead agencies, upon request of a California Native American tribe, begin consultation prior to the release of a negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration, or EIR for a project. AB 52 does not apply to a Notice of Exemption or Addendum; and therefore, is not required for the proposed Project.
In accordance with Public Resource Code (PRC) Section 5024.1(c), a resource is considered historically significant if it meets at least one of the following criteria:
1. Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history or the cultural heritage of California or the United States;
2. Associated with the lives of persons important to local, California or national history;
3. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region or method of construction or represents the work of a master or possesses high artistic values; or
4. Has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California or the nation.
The Project site does not meet any of the criteria listed above from PRC Section 5024.1(c). As described in the previous response, there are no resources on -site that meet the criteria for the CRHR; however, the SLF search yielded positive results for known TCRs or sacred lands within a 1 -mile radius of the Project site.
Therefore, the proposed Project would be required to comply with Standard Conditions of Approval CUL - 2, CUL-5, TCR-1, and TCR-2 to protect unknown cultural resources, identified as Native American in origin, during ground disturbing activities.
Further, the Project site has been previously disturbed and has not been previously used as a cemetery.
There are no known tribal cultural resources on the site. Therefore, i t is not anticipated that implementation of the proposed Project would result in the disturbance of human remains. However, in the unlikely event that human remains are encountered during earth removal or disturbance activities, the California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires that disturbance of th e site shall halt until the coroner has conducted an investigation into the circumstances, manner, and cause of any death, and the recommendations concerning the treatment and disposition of the human remains have been made to the person responsible for the excavation or to his or her authorized representative. The c oroner would also be contacted pursuant to Sections 5097.98 and 5097.99 of the Public Resources Code relative to Native American remains. In the event the coroner determines the human remains to be of Native American descent, the coroner has 24 hours to notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). The NAHC would then be required to contact the most likely descendant of the deceased Native American, who would then serve as a consultant on how to proceed with the remains. Compliance with the established regulatory framework (i.e., California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 and 5097.99), consistent with Standard Conditions CUL -3, CUL-4, and CUL -5, would reduce potenti al impacts involving disturbance to human remains to less than significant.
With implementation of regulatory requirements and the City of Menifee Standard Conditions, the proposed Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource.
Therefore, the Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 and impacts would be less than significant. Based on the foregoing analysis, no new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project beyond what was previously evaluated, identified, and disclosed in the GP EIR and the SP EIR.
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
Item Page Number: 180
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
772 of 966
CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist
City of Menifee Menifee 27 Residential Project
160
Conclusion
Regarding the issue area of tribal cultural resources, the following findings can be made:
15183 Findings
1. No peculiar impacts to the Project or its site have been identified.
2. There are no significant effects that were not analyzed as part of the GP EIR.
3. There are no potentially significant off-site and/or cumulative impacts which were not discussed by the GP EIR.
4. No substantial new information has been identified which results in an impact which is more severe than anticipated by the GP EIR.
5. No new Mitigation Measures would be required. Project specific impacts would be less than significant with adherence to Standard Conditions, as listed below. 15182 Findings
Based on the foregoing information, none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or Mitigation Measures exist regarding tribal cultural resources. There have not been (1) changes related to development of the Project site that involve new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which development of the Project site is undertaken that require major revisions of the certified EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or Mitigation Measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the certified SP EIR was certified as completed.
Because none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts, State CEQA Guidelines 15182 also does not require additional environmental review and the Project is within the scope of the SP EIR.
Uniformly Applied Development Policies or Standards (DP/S) Standard Condition CUL-2: Inadvertent Archaeological Find. As listed previously in Section 5.5, Cultural Resources.
Standard Condition CUL-3: Human Remains. As listed previously in Section 5.5, Cultural Resources.
Standard Condition CUL -4: Non-Disclosure of Location Reburials . As listed previously in Section 5.5, Cultural Resources.
Standard Condition CUL -5: Cultural Resources Disposition. As listed previously in Section 5.5, Cultural Resources.
Standard Condition TCR -1: Native American Monitoring (Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians). Tribal monitor(s) from the Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians shall be required on -site during all ground -disturbing activities, including grading, stockpiling of materials, engineered fill, rock crushing, etc. The land divider/permit holder shall retain a qualified tribal monitor(s) from the Soboba Band of Luiseño. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the developer shall submit a copy of a signed contract between the above - mentioned Tribe and the land divider/permit holder for the monitoring of the project to the Community Development Department and to the Engineering Department. The Tribal Monitor(s) shall have the authority Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Menifee 27 Project
Item Page Number: 181
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 3, 2025
Page
773 of 966
CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist
City of Menifee Menifee 27 Residential Project
161
to temporarily divert, redirect or halt the ground -disturbance activities to allow recovery of cultural resources, in coordination with the Project Archaeologist.
Standard Condition TCR-2: Native American Monitoring (Pechanga Band of Indians). Tribal monitor(s) from Pechanga Band of Indians shall be required on -site during all ground -disturbing activities, including grading, stockpiling of materials, engineered fill, rock crushing, etc. The land divider/permit holder shall retain a qualified tribal monitor(s) from the Pechanga Band of Indians. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the developer shall submit a copy of a signed contract between the above- mentioned Tribe and the land divider/permit holder for the monitoring of the project to the Community Development Department and to the Engineering Department. The Tribal Monitor(s) shall have the authority to temporarily divert, redirect or halt the ground-disturbance activities to allow recovery of cultural resources, in coordination with the Project Archaeologist.