MEMORANDUM
Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers (LLG) is pleased to provide the following responses to address Attach ment 1 ( Item No. 1: Inadequate Traffic Analysis ) of the Foothill Arch, LLC Appeal Application (April 16, 2026) . In addition, the following responses also partially address the Traffic related comments in A ttachment 1 (Item No. 2: Violation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)).
The approved Traffic Analysis for the proposed Project does adequately address the potential traffic impacts associated with the proposed mixed -use Project consistent with typical traffic engineering practice. Specifically, the trip generation forecast was adequately and appropriately calculated as a retail shopping center, which contains restaurant and retail uses, plus a day care center, conservatively excluding any internal capture that would occur between the shopping center, day care center and surrounding residential development, which is significant . In addition, site access and circulation were adequately analyzed in the Traffic Analysis consistent with City Guidelines and Industry Practice. With regards to conducting a traffic signal warrant analysis at the Project’s right-in/right-out driveway, a traffic signal for a right-in/right-out driveway is not appropriate or applicable in any realistic access scenario and certainly not in this case along Newport Road , in which essentially e very existing right -in/right-out driveway along Newport Road within the City likely operates at a poor level of service without issue.
With Respect to Exhibit A, the following responses are provided:
• Because both the existing (Archibald’s) driveway and proposed Project driveway will operate as right-in/right-out driveways along Newport Road, it doesn’t make logical sense for customer’s currently using the Archibald’s site driveway (to travel eastbound on Newport Road) to travel back to the west internally and circumnavigate the proposed Project circulation drive aisles in order to travel eastbound on Newport Road as originally intended. Therefore, based on the proposed Project site plan circulation layout and existing adjacent development circulation layout, it is very unlikely that a measurable volume of customers would back track and circulate through the proposed site to make the same right turn movement that could be completed more conveniently from the Archibald’s site.
To: Desiree McGriff
City of Menifee
Date: May 11, 2026
From: Keil D. Maberry, P.E., Principal
Linscott, Law and Greenspan, Engineers
LLG Ref: 2.25.4968.1
Subject:
Response to Foothill Arch, LLC Appeal Application (April 16, 2026) for Menifee Boardwalk Project
• While a specific Coffee Shop user has not yet been identified, the proposed Project site plan shows a drive-through lane storage of 18 vehicles, which is greater than the minimum standard required by Starbucks (12 – 14 vehicle storage), Dutch Bros (15 vehicle storage), or Better Buzz (12 vehicle storage) which would generate the greatest queue. Furthermore, there is significant storage within the drive aisles that could be utilized during the 15 to 30 minutes in the AM peak hour that vehicles could potentially queue beyond the drive-through lanes, such that the public ROW would never be impacted.
• The explanation provided with the Alternate Trip Generation Table sufficiently addresses this issue as the trip generation difference would not change the results of the traffic analysis. Furthermore, both trip generation estimates are likely conservative in our experience and does not take into account the internal capture that would occur between the proposed uses therefore reducing the trip generation.
Lastly, as shown in the TIA, the 2027 Project completion year traffic volumes reflect future traffic volumes from 15 cumulative projects totaling 3,281 AM peak hour trips and 4,643 PM peak hour trips, such that the traffic volumes analyzed in the TIA are very likely significantly overstated regardless of the potential slight difference between two Project trip generation forecasts. • No comment on Air Quality, but as indicated above, the total cumulative traffic volume forecast is very likely significantly overstated, such that analyzing the Air Quality for a revised trip generation forecast would not be appropriate. • Contrary to the comment, traffic simulation would take into account gaps created by the adjacent traffic signals and platooning, such that the driveway level of service (LOS) would show a better LOS. Therefore, the HCM calculation utilized in the TIA represents a more conservative result.
• As indicated in the TIA on Pagew 38, it is not uncommon for private unsignalized driveways, such as that of the Project, to experience a longer delay due to the heavy volumes on the major streets, like Newport Road and likely occurs at all exi sting driveways along Newport Road. Furthermore, due to the unsignalized driveway being in close proximity to the signalized intersection of Menifee Lakes Drive/Calle Pompeii at Newport Road as well as Menifee Road at Newport Road, it is expected that gaps in traffic w ould occur and actual vehicular delay experienced would be lower than what is being reported within the HCM methodology. As indicated above in the first response, based on the proposed site plan circulation layout and the fact that the existing Archibald driveway on Newport Road is forecast to operate at a worse LOS F, (we conducted an estimated 2027 LOS calculation for the PM peak hour) than the Project driveway, but in reality probably does not experience significant delays, it is unlikely a measurable v olume of traffic would use the
Archibald driveway on Newport Road. Also, the Archibald’s driveway along Menifee Road is analyzed in the TIA.
• Comment noted. The driveway LOS calculation has been updated to reflect only one northbound right turn lane at the Project driveway on Newport Road. While the delay increase measurably, the findings remain the same.
With Respect to Exhibit B (RK Engineering Group, Inc. Letter – April 16, 2026), the following responses are provided:
• In General, the comments are e xtreme interpretations of possible analysis approaches aimed at discrediting the Project Traff ic Analysis for the purposes of the appeal and do not reflect realistic analyses that would be prepared for the Project under typical entitlement conditions.
Comment #1 Response : The Trip Generation Forecast provided in Table C significantly overstates the pote ntial trip generation for the proposed Project by assuming that each of the uses would be stand -alone uses, which is generally how the trip generation for each land use is empirically collected by ITE, and therefore does not reflect the interaction and synergy between adjacent uses within a typical neighborhood shopping center. In addition, in our extensive experience, this is an extreme trip generation forecast, which also excludes any internal capture /mode shift that would never be proposed to the City as part of the scoping process f or the pr eparation of a Traffic Analysis and is merely an extreme intent to discredit the Project Traffic Analysis. Furthermore, as sta ted above in response to Exhi bit A , the 2027 Project completion year traffic volumes reflect future traffic volumes from 15 cumulative projects totaling 3,281 AM peak hour trips and 4,643 PM peak hour trips, such that the future traffic volumes analyzed in the TIA are very likely significantly overstated , in our experience, regardless of the Project trip generation forecast with or without the proposed drive-through coffee shop separated, and likely even with the extreme trip generation reflected in Table C.
Comment #2 Response: The Project trip distribution pattern was approved by the City as part of the TIA Scoping Process and reflects appropriate engineering judgment based on experience and knowledge of the surrounding tra nsportation network. Project distribution patterns provided in any traffic analysis is a subjective forecast of the Project’s trip patterns based on the use and can vary based on the Analyst’s engineering judgment and experience. The assumption of the U -turn movement at Laguna Vista/Newport Road is appropriate since the traffic generation assumed for th e proposed Project that will building the traffic improvement is included in the analysis.
The City ’s TIA Guidelines do not explicitly require queuing analyses for turning movements associated with Project traffic and is typically required for turning movements into a nd out the Project site, which was not appropriate for this Project
since all Project driveways will operate as right -in/right-out driveways without any significant queuing within the Public right-of-way.
Comment #3 Response: Regardless of the variation in trip generation recommendation for the proposed Project and resultant LOS value for the right-in/right-out driveway on Newport Road, it is not uncommon for private unsignalized driveways, such as that of the Project, to experience a longer delay due to the heavy volumes on the major streets, like Newport Road and likely occurs at all exi sting driveways along Newport Road.
Furthermore, due to the unsignalized driveway being in close proximity to the signalized intersection of Menifee Lakes Drive/Calle Pompeii at Newport Road as well as Menifee Road at Newport Road, it is expected that gaps in traffic would occur and actual vehicular delay experienced would be lower, with a traffic microsimulation, than what is being reported within the HCM methodology. With regards to conducting a traffic signal warrant analysis at the Project ’s right -in/right-out driveway, a traffic signal for a right-in/right-out driveway is not appropriate or applicable in any realistic access scenario and certainly not in this case along Newport Road, in which essentially every existing right-in/right-out driveway along Newport Road within the City likely operates at a poor level of service without issue.
Item No. 2: Violation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Response:
The Traffic Analysis adequately addressed any potential safety impacts by conducting traffic circulation analyse (LOS), site access analyses, and multimodal analyses. With regards to air quality impacts, the IS/MND adequately addressed the air quality impacts based on the Project trip generation forecast in the Traffic Analysis, such that it would not be appropriate to anal yze the air quality impacts based on the extreme and unrealistic trip generation forecast reflected in Table C of Exhibit B. * * * * * * * * * * *
We appreciate the opportunity to provide this response to comments Memorandum.
Should you have any questions regarding this Memorandum, please contact us at (949) 825-6175.